Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance: The News Media and Michael Newdow's Constitutional Challenge
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | 4.76 (767 Votes) |
| Asin | : | 0791471829 |
| Format Type | : | paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 216 Pages |
| Publish Date | : | 2017-03-07 |
| Language | : | English |
DESCRIPTION:
We need more books like this one. American Journalism As long as people believe that the media represent antiestablishment values, this book needs to be read. And as long as the media continue to trivialize complex issues and marginalize people who challenge us, this book needs to be read. Chris Lamb, author of Drawn to Extremes: The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons" . As long as reporters mislead themselves into believing they are watchdogs and not lapdogs of the establishment, this book needs to be read. Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance offers political scientists and lawyers a fresh
Mr. Bishop is correct, the media largely failed America here Explicit Atheist The book's Foreword, written by Nadine Strossen, has a good concise summary of both the lawsuit's assertions and the media's distorted characterization of the lawsuit. Newdow maintained that the public school policy of requiring teachers to daily lead the students in pledging allegiance to one nation Under God violated his parental rights to influence his young daughter's beliefs without the state placing its imprimatur on a particular opposing religious belief. Strossen writes " he certainly did not seek to strip all religious references from
The U.S. Taking on the Pledge of Allegiance explores the landmark lawsuit filed by avowed atheist Michael Newdow against the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, in which he claimed the words under God in the Pledge of Allegiance amounted to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Supreme Court eventually overturned the ruling on Flag Day 2004. Ronald Bishop examines how the news media marginalized Newdow after the Ninth Circuit s ruling acting as a guard dog for the government and for the ideas supposedly at the ideological heart of America by framing the decision as an aberration, a radical act by a hopelessly liberal federal circuit court. Bishop concludes that journalists relegated Newdow to a rhetorical protest zone he was heard, but from a safe distance.".
Ronald Bishop is Associate Professor in the Department of Culture and Communication at Drexel University.