None of the appellate court decisions in the issue have ever held that the protections applied based on who was speaking, whether they were in the institutional media or not. They've always been based on the status of the subject on the content of the material. The institutional media interpretation is an invention of the institutional media itself that has been rejected by every circuit court where it has been raised.
The self-regard of journalists never ceases to impress me. What other profession would believe that they have priveliged claim to the most fundamental of the rights enumerated in the Bill or Rights?
