Replies

Free Speech Is the Only Antidote to Mass Delusion

Yes - but actually, it is insufficient in the age of mass communications. We need, we must have, ~~a free press~~ free and independent presses.
In fact, SCOTUS is wrong in calling money “speech.” Talk is cheap - it is printing presses, ink, and paper which cost money. And don’t question the connection between freedom of the literal printing press of the founding era and freedom of the Internet and cable - yes, and over-the-airwaves broadcast - of today.
Article 1 Section 8.
The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
implies that the framers anticipated that printing press would be improved upon.

Amendment 9 -
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This directly rebuts the notion that the First Amendment is a ceiling over our liberties - it is intended only as floor beneath them. The framers did provide a means of adjusting the unregulated advance of technology on the press, but it would be really hard to get an amendment to the First Amendment ratified.
The reason we are troubled by “the media” is simple; Adam Smith condemned the source of the problem three generations before it arose:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Wire service journalism originated in 1848 with the founding of the New York Associated Press - soon renamed simply, “the Associated Press.” The members of the AP - any and all wire services are the same - are in a continual virtual meeting of “people of the same trade.” The AP newswire has been going for well over a century and a half, and the inevitable “conspiracy against the public” arose before it was a half a century old.
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
That motive operates on all journalists; it is their reason for existence. Thus they make the absurd claim of their own objectivity based on their mutual-admiration-society AP membership.
The effect is that journalists are free to promote the idea which is the exact opposite of Theodore Roosevelt’s famous dictum, “It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . .” And what is the most pithy expression of the opposite of that dictum? Elizabeth Warren announced it, and Obama and Hillary! echo it:

You didn’t build that.
Which is obviously cynicism - and socialist dogma.

“Anti-establishment” can only mean “Conservative.”

Wire service journalism is the Establishment in America.
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect . . . The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires . . . The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
. . . The natural disposition is always to believe . . . It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
Thus, we can expect nothing else of journalists than that they would place being thought of as influential above all else - and we expect quite a lot of our fellow man when we expect him to be prudently skeptical.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Journalist “meet together” constantly; the Associated Press was founded a decade before the Civil War, and has been conducting a virtual conversation among journalists - not about “merriment or diversion,” but precisely about what the news is - ever since.
People talk about “the media,” but to really face up to the problem we need to be frank about who is the central problem - it is mainstream journalism. And we have every reason to treat it with skepticism.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3304736/posts?page=25#25

This transparent bias is a national phenomenon, infecting both print and television media to such an extent that it has become almost impossible to separate coverage of the Trump campaign from attempts to tear it down. The media has long been accused of having a liberal slant, but in this cycle journalists seem to have cast themselves as defenders of the republic against what they see as a major threat, and in playing this role they’ve lost the ability to assess events rationally. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-raimondo-trump-media-bias-20160802-snap-story.html

The point about “the media” is that we, all of us, fear to call it out for what it is: wire-service journalism. Prior to the advent of the Associated Press (beginning in 1848), journalism was highly fractious and independent. A lot of the early newspapers were weeklies, and some had no deadline at all, and just went to press when they were good and ready. In principle the public could get the news about as fast by word of mouth. The main difference between the public and the press was that newspapers systematically disseminated the news amongst themselves by (government-subsidized) mailing of newspapers. But of course, mail traveled by horse or by sailing ship, and “news” could be pretty old when you got it.
One primary bias in newspapers was location bias. Every newspaper existed in part to promote its own locale. Settlers were necessarily land speculators, and printers were settlers. And, of course, bad news has always sold best; you could look it up in Shakespeare. Basically, there are two kinds of news - bad news, and advertising.
With the advent of the AP (and to a lesser extent, other wire services), each newspaper was provided - at substantial cost - a cornucopia of news from far-flung reaches of the US and Europe, much of it actually new, less than a day or two old. In order to make its content useful, the AP set up guidelines (including the pyramid structure in which the paragraph following the headline is a summary of the story, and succeeding paragraphs give more and more detail - and the “what and where and when, and why and how and who” rule). Also to make the stories useful, editors who had never met, let alone employed, those far-flung reporters who wrote about far-away events began claiming, as still today, that “all reporters are objective.”
Now, nothing can be said about trying to make clear, complete, and objective reports. Or even against saying that that is what you are trying to do (if indeed you are). The trouble is, it is utterly impossible to know that you are objective - still less that anyone else is. Indeed, journalists know and will admit that their job is reporting bad news, so on that basis alone they have to know better than to believe that they are actually objective.

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

People of the same trade [eg, journalists] seldom meet together [e.g., virtually, over the AP newswire] . . . but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
All journalists know (“if it bleeds, it leads” and “Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man”) that journalism makes money by being systematically negative. And all journalists know that they have to claim that “all journalists are objective.” We should understand that anyone who thinks systematic negativity is objective is a cynic. But nobody can be cynical about everything; journalists are cynical about society and naive about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
So yeah . . . I can see how you would think that convincing us that you are telling us “what is going on” is important. But as to what is in our interest, we don’t need that. We need pretty much the opposite - we need to pool our “incredulity” here on FR so we will not “give credit to stories which [we ourselves will] afterwards [be] ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing.”
So understand, Megyn, that we recognize that your work is important in a negative sense. It poses an important problem for American society. Wikileaks simply confirmed what the discerning can see in your “important work.” All journalists are in cahoots with the Democrat Party. It is easy to see why: journalism is a monopoly. Adam Smith again:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Do journalists “meet together?” That is what the AP newswire is - a virtual meeting of all of journalism. So “a conspiracy against the public” is all that can be expected.
The reason that “conspiracy against the public” take the form of “liberalism*” is obvious, once seen: “No news is good news” (because good news “isn’t news), “If it bleeds, it leads,” and - of similar import in a fundamentally sound, serviceable society - “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man.’” That last aphorism is particularly insidious because it implies an eagerness to report ill of those upon whom society most depends. Journalism is the unremitting negativity business.
This is the filter through which the news passes - or does not pass - to get published by journalism. What is blocked by that filter - and by the mere expectation that “news” will be very recent - is positive progress. American society, by constitutional design, has progressed so much materially (everything from medicine to information technology to transportation, plastics manufacture, food production and preservation, air conditioning, machine tools, etc, etc) that every Tom, Dick, and Judy in America today is better off than Queen Victoria (1819-1901) was in her day.
Journalism is unremittingly negative towards American society, yet journalism claims that “all journalists are objective.” There is a word for someone who considers negativity objective: cynic. “Cynicism” is a perfect description, not only of journalism, but of “liberalism.” Wikileaks confirms that the notional boundary between journalism and “liberalism” is, quite simply, a con.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
Journalists/“liberals” of today are precisely "writers [who] have so confounded society with government, as to leave ~~little or~~ no distinction between them.” The intended effect of that is to denigrate society (“in every state a blessing”) and to extol government ("even in its best state . . . a necessary evil”)
I, Pencil is an article written in 1958 by Leonard E. Read. The burden of the article is how diffuse are the inputs to make a simple item like a pencil. Of course a particular company - Eberhard Faber, in the example instance - made the pencil. But Mr. Eberhard and Mr. Faber did not simply speak the pencil into existence; the company has to have buildings housing machinery, and workers to operate the machines. But beyond that, the Eberhard Faber workers have to have food, shelter, and normal amenities - including those required by their families.
And the same is true of the vendors who supply Eberhard Faber with the machinery they require, and all the obvious materials - wood, graphite, rubber, and the ferrule material and the enamel. All those vendors have their own equipment, workers, and supply chain. And in all cases the workers need food, shelter, and normal amenities. So although the pencil certainly does not exist without Eberhard Faber, society works together to make pencils - and everything else.
So, “you didn't build that? Somebody else made that happen?” Yes - but that “somebody else” was not government. The “somebody” was more like everybody - mostly very indirectly.
Government planning is nothing more than the irresponsible separation of responsibility from authority, in violation of the first principle of good management. It is mere interference in society’s workings, by people who have nowhere near the competence needed to make such large decisions and be responsible for them.
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it.
The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter II
Improvement in efficiency via government “planning” is a paper tiger.

* My use of the scare quotes refers to the fact that, in America, the meaning of the word “liberalism” was changed - essentially inverted - in the 1920s (source: Safire’s New Political Dictionary)

CNN, NYT, CBS, et al. I don’t think . . . are a scrap better, and might even be conceptually worse, because they deliberately misrepresent and twist the truth under the aegis of being the arbiters of truth...something they fail miserably at.

You know my opinion:
Anyone who claims to be objective has to “fail miserably at” objectivity. Because the first thing you must do when trying to be objective is to be candid about what motives you might have not to be objective. And being candid about that is the very opposite of claiming actual objectivity.
The other route to the same conclusion is by reference to the experience of the ancient Greeks, as represented by the following etymological definitions: sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Journalists (and other “liberals”) seek to delegitimate skepticism, and thus are Sophists. People who accept questions on the air, live, from all comers have to be Philosophers or be exposed as Sophists. That is, they have to openly espouse a political perspective rather than affecting a fatuous “No Labels” stance. Journalists get away with it because they never expose themselves publicly on-air to no-holds-barred questioning.
A “liberal” talk show host who takes calls ultimately has have rigorous caller screening to protect her/him from embarrassing questions. Because the nature of “liberalism” is cynicism about society and naïveté about government.
SOME writers^"Liberals" have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
The actual mission of FR is to enable us to pool our (individually naturally inadequate) “incredulity” sufficiently to be able to resist the Siren call of fake news. My principal contribution to that incredulity consists of pointing out that:

Wire services homogenize news, and empower its practitioners. The result is ideological uniformity which is safe to go along with - and dangerous to cross.

Journalists claim to be objective. This has two implications:

Since journalism is negative and knows it, journalism claims that negativity is objectivity. A claim which can only be described as cynicism.

The sine qua non of any attempt at objectivity is candor about any reasons why you might not be objective. Therefore a claim of actual objectivity (rather than, say, a claim to be trying to be objective) precludes any real effort at even trying to be objective.

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins . . . Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine

Journalists, like all liberals,” love to say “society” when they mean nothing other than government. This is a euphemism for government, but a slander on society.

Journalists think that nothing actually matters except PR (Naturally they were shocked when Donald Trump withstood their “devastating” PR assault on him with an amazing display of pure chutzpah, and won the election). Thinking that they control who wins elections causes them to think highly of government. And as noted above, they are cynical about society.

”Objective” journalism is “liberal” (actually, socialist) propaganda. Or, if you will, “fake news."

the idea that there’s a thing called ‘truth’ — an absolute value that lives above and apart from the world of framing and spin.”
. . . has a name. It is called, “philosophy” - the love (philo) of wisdom (soph being the root of the Greek meaning “wisdom”).
If you love wisdom you love truth and logic and despise sophistry, a word derived from the Greek “sophists” - who, claiming to be wise rather than modestly declaring themselves open to facts and logic in debate, practically invented “the world of framing and spin.”
Author Tom Johnson, you may be onto something. Become a philosopher and eschew sophistry. Great idea!
But, there is a catch. To be a philosopher you actually have to listen as well as talk. And you know what you do when you listen? You learn. Which means, you change your mind sometimes. There is a genre of broadcasting known as “talk radio.” The distinguishing characteristic of the talk radio format is a host who listens to callers even if they disagree with them. And, rather than using straw man arguments to belittle the caller, the talk show host debates the caller respectfully.
To do the job of the talk show host you have to be a philosopher, willing to learn as well as to dish it out. If you don’t take on all comers, the audience will realize that your call screener is protecting you from debating many articulate people who disagree with him/her. The history of talk radio is that no one able to thrive in that format will be considered - or will claim to be - “objective.” There is a reason for that.
To be a philosopher you have to be candid about the reasons why you might not be objective. For example, if a journalist were candid about it he would recognize that he has been taught - for valid business reasons - to be negative towards society. And the other side of that coin is that the journalist - who gives good PR to one politician and bad PR to another - assumes that the government is controllable by journalists, and therefore is predisposed to consider government good. Government exists to control evil in society and in from the world outside its borders, so the journalist - to be candid about the reasons he might not be objective - would have to declare that as a bias to be accounted for when evaluating his statements.
So, yes - by all means, accept "the idea that there’s a thing called ‘truth’ — an absolute value that lives above and apart from the world of framing and spin.” Reject spin - even the “spin” that journalists are more objective than anyone who is not a journalist. Become a philosopher - and, if you stay in the business of public discussion of issues, become a talk show host. Because wire service journalism will expel you from their “objective journalism” fraternity, and label you a “conservative.”

Former Newsweek Washington Correspondent Urges Media to Battle ‘Conservative Moral Relativism’
NewsBusters ^ | January 28, 2017 | 8:37 PM EST | Tom Johnson

”Liberal” is a brand. It was a good brand, in America, back when socialists in America realized that - in America - “socialism” was a bad brand. The consequence was that during the 1920s socialists systematically took over that positive brand, “liberal,” by describing socialist policies as “liberal.” So by 1930 a Franklin Roosevelt could style his socialist policies as “liberalism” entirely unselfconsciously.
Now obviously, neither you nor I would be able to invert, for an entire society, the meaning of a word the way the socialists did to “liberalism.” It is obvious that the socialists had a commanding position in “the media” (a term I denigrate) in order to pull that off. Why would that be? My answer to that question is that journalism is, self-consciously, negative. They know that “if it bleeds, it leads” sells newspapers and, for self-interested commercial reasons, they systematically report bad news about the reliability of the people upon whom society most depends.
In reality, “the people upon whom society most depends” are - the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Yes, and the policeman, for security is a good just as much as bread is a good. Reporters claim to be objective, and yet they know that they are negative towards society. "Claiming that 'negativity is objectivity’" is my idea of a perfect definition of cynicism. In short, journalists are systematically cynical about society - and, concomitantly, project a naive attitude towards government. Reject, Dear Reader, any suggestion that “society” and “government” are the same thing. This is a great mistake:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The conceit that “government” and “society” are the same thing is naive towards the former and cynical towards the latter.
I mentioned above my antipathy toward the term, “the media.” I beg you to observe, Dear Reader, that

Journalism is, as indicated above, inherently biased toward socialism. For commercial reasons. And,

Journalism puts itself forward as “nonfiction,” and therefore has - at least notionally - an obligation toward truthfulness. Fiction - whether books, movies, or dramas - has no obligation toward truth which can even notionally be enforced.
Consequently we should not diffuse our criticism by attacking “the media,” we should be attacking journalism head-on. Here we run into that nasty First Amendment thing, and people get confused. The First Amendment is a statement of the most basic constituents of liberty. The First Amendment must be defended against our opponents but also, as occasion can arise, against our friends and against our own selves.
How, then, can journalism be opposed? Journalism - defined as negativity towards society cloaked in a claim of objectivity and a patronizing attitude towards the people who make society work - can be philosophically opposed. The problem here goes back to the schools; most of us were taught that journalism was objective, and most of us still struggle with the problem that, as Adam Smith put it,
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
And there is another aspect of journalism which is a legitimate target of reproach: its homogeneity under the wire service model:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Under the wire service model, journalism functions as a single entity which deceptively is marketed through “fronts” such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC News, etc. The Associated Press long predates the 1890 passage of the (remarkably short) Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, though it has been found to be in violation of it in 1945, was reckoned to be “too big to fail” then. But that was then. The Associated Press was formed a few years after the demonstration of the Baltimore-Washington telegraph by Samuel Morse in 1844. to distribute news nationally to its member newspapers while conserving scarce, expensive telegraph bandwidth.
But that was then, and this is now - a time when, I suppose, FreeRepublic.Com alone disposes more bandwidth than the Associated Press did in 1945. The mission of the AP is to conserve something - comm bandwidth - which was expensive and is now dirt cheap. The purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee to the people the right to attend to whatever and whoever they choose to - and to ignore whoever/whatever else. “Press” is not a title of nobility - something expressly forbidden by the Constitution - and it is not a priesthood. “Press” is whoever chooses to spend money printing (or otherwise propagating) opinions and/or facts. “The press” is not limited to “The Associated Press.” The very term “Associated” betrays the lack of independence of members of the AP.
The Associated Press is an attack on independence of thought and expression. The FCC - with its restrictions which tend to limit who can broadcast - attacks independence of thought and expression. The FEC - with its restrictions on how much particular presses - such as political parties - can spend to broadcast or print its opinions is an attack on freedom of thought and expression. All of them thereby promote cynicism toward society and naïveté towards government. They are socialist monstrosities. As are government schools.

This story is Watergate on steroids and they’re all avoiding it because they’re in the tank for Democrats.

No, the Media ARE the 'Rats. The Media run the 'Rat Party and the GOPe as well. The Media are this country's worst enemy. - TTFlyer

Trump has been saying Media runs the Dem party now.

Think you have to go back to who owns the media. NYT (Carlos Slim) and WaPo (Bezos) are no blogs for billionaires.

The central fact is, IMHO, that “media” is a misnomer in more than one way.

First because “media” is, in Latin, a plural noun, and secondly because it isn’t the medium, it is the topical nonfiction format - “news” which is the problem. The fact that journalism outlets can be radio, TV, or print is not the point. The point is that we do not have independent journalism. Journalism as we know it is various outlet of a single journalism. Presses can be 'associated,' or presses can be independent:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
Obviously journalists - “people of the same trade” “meet together.” What is painfully obvious, if you allow yourself to look at it, is that journalists are in a continuous virtual meeting all the time, via the Associated Press in particular, and all wire services in general. And have been doing so for a century and a half.
It is no wonder that all journalists speak with the same voice. No wonder at all.

Second, very specific aspects of journalism cause it to speak in the particular voice that it does:

Journalism is negative, and knowingly so. Any journalist will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Journalism claims to be objective. It is too obvious that journalists need to do this, to require any illustration.
The implication of those two facts is that journalists are claiming that negativity is objectivity. But the implication of such a claim is inescapable: “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is a perfect definition of “cynicism.”
Journalism has cynicism built into it. What does that mean? It does not mean that journalism is cynical about government. As Thomas Paine pointed out in the opening paragraphs of Common Sense, “society” and “government” are in a very real sense opposites. Society is a patron, government is a punisher. Society is a blessing, government - at best - is a necessary evil. Government is considered necessary only to the extent that skepticism toward society is considered valid/necessary. The implication is that cynicism toward society is a rationale for faith in - if not naiveté toward -government.
The character of socialism - call it “liberalism” or “progressivism” or whatever - is exactly the same combination of cynicism toward society and naiveté toward government which we see in journalism.
What is then to be done? IMHO the Associated Press and its membership should be sued, joint and several liability, for all the abuses of the people which their cynicism toward society has motivated them to perpetrate. One egregious example is the George Zimmerman case, in which a propaganda campaign sought to railroad Zimmerman into jail, and all of “the MSM” joined in it. Zimmerman had to defend himself from an attacker motivated by that propaganda. The Duke Lacrosse team “rape” fraud by Crystal Mangum and Michael Nifong is another obvious case. And so is the FL 2000 call of Florida for Gore before the polls were all closed, resulting in the narrowest of margins of victory by the Republican who should have won relatively comfortably. The name of such cases is “Legion, for we are many.” The AP should be sued into oblivion, on antitrust grounds. And claims of “objectivity” by its membership should be completely delegitimated.
We have a free press. We require free and independent presses.

Executive Editor Dean Baquet has erased the barrier between news and opinion and turned every page into an opinion page.

. . . and we are supposed to be surprised?
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
The reality is that it is only necessary to follow the standard rules of journalism to produce a front page which is an exemplar of extreme “liberalism”:

Follow the dictum that “If it bleeds, it leads,” and also the “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” rules of story selection and emphasis. Any society will always, by its own standards, cause ‘Man Bites Dog’ to imply “Man we count on fails to deliver for us.” IOW, all negativity, all the time. And,

Claim to be objective. How else to maximize your influence? Standard journalistic practice, right?

The claim of actual objectivity - not a claim to be trying to be objective, which is perfectly unobjectionable if true - is inherently arrogant, and actually stands as proof that you are not even trying to be objective (for why would have to “try” to do something you are already sure you are?).
Worse, to claim objectivity knowing that you are in fact negative is to indict yourself of believing that “negativity is objectivity.” And I submit that if “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is a Jeopardy^® answer, the corresponding Jeopardy^® question is, “What is the definition of ‘cynicism’?”
Journalism, under normal operating rules, is cynical. But nobody, and no institution, can be cynical about everything. For if “B” be the antithesis of “A”, you cannot express cynicism toward “A” without insinuating faith in, or naiveté toward, “B.”
In reality journalism is cynical about society. Thomas Paine explains the relation between society and government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Common Sense (1776)
Journalism is cynical about society, and implies faith in, or naiveté about, government. And again, if “cynicism toward society and naiveté toward government” is a Jeopardy^® answer, the corresponding Jeopardy^® question is, “What is the definition of ’socialism’ (or 'Progressivism’ or ‘liberalism’)?” This analysis does not imply that the opposite posture - that of cynicism toward government and naiveté toward society - is ideal. Rather, as Adam Smith’s dictum above suggests, we are well advised to apply “incredulity” - skepticism - both toward government and society. Not no government at all, but limited - and, as Paine would have it, cost-efficient - government is the counsel of prudence.

The whole point of Haidt’s thesis is the left is unbalanced, while conservatives value all the moral foundations.

Agreed.
Well, his whole point is more like, “I am am atheist who wants to explain the world via evolution. And although I am a liberal, I perceive that liberalism leaves too much off the moral landscape. It is too simple, and I find that conservatism has far more explanatory power than I was taught to believe."
This reply comes long after the start of the thread, because I saw a later thread on Haidt’s work and that mentioned The Righteous Mind and it sounded interesting. I finally got the chance to read it this past week. Haidt lists the moral foundations of conservatism (and their opposites) as
Care        Liberty      Fairness    Loyalty    Authority      Sanctity
harm     oppression     cheating    betrayal   subversion    degradation
Haidt suggests that Liberalism has two strains - now called “liberalism” and “libertarianism” - which split about a century ago. The commonality between them, he says, is that both liberals and libertarians drop “Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity” pretty much off the list. The difference between them being, in Haidt’s telling, that while Liberals emphasize care first and do not emphasize fairness, Libertarians emphasize Liberty uber alles, fairness second, and caring is no more on their radar screen than Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity are. My opinion is that Haidt’s characterization of the difference between conservatives and liberals is (never mind his reasons) spot on.
However - and note that this is my personal hobby horse - I have been calling attention to the fact that commercially successful journalism heavily emphasizes negativity. Call it “If it bleeds, it leads,” or call it “‘Man Bites Dog’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’” (and note that while the standard of living has been on an exponentially rising curve since the Industrial Revolution noteworthy short term changes in welfare overwhelmingly are negative. In journalist's terms, good news isn’t news - ordinarily, it’s advertising). And, I note, journalists and also others who also know that journalism is negative claim that journalism is objective. But I put it to you that “the conceit that negativity is objective” is very serviceable as a definition of cynicism.
Now look again at Haidt's description of the difference between “conservatism” and “liberalism.” A liberal is a conservative minus loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
IOW,
Any conservative has to consider any liberal a cynic.
And if you take my analysis of journalism seriously, you do not wonder that journalism and “liberalism” are simpatico.

"I can have an argument with somebody who doesn't think it's worthwhile for us to sacrifice economic growth in order to reduce carbon emissions. It's much harder to have a debate with somebody who doesn't believe that the planet is getting warmer despite the ~~fact~~ ^{published claim} that 99 out of 100 scientists say it is. … When you don’t have ~~a common set of facts~~ ^{absolute propaganda control of the political narrative,} it’s hard to ~~have, then, a basic democratic conversation~~ ^{railroad through your agenda without opposition.} ”

Half the truth is often a great lie. - Benjamin Franklin
That being the case, the fact that nobody tells “the whole truth” because they don’t have time (or space, in a newspaper) means that every report must be taken with a grain of salt:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors. . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
A similar lesson from the ancients can be found in the etymological dictionary: sophist 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments. philosopher O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage." "Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein] The “sophist” studies how to persuade at any cost; the philosopher studies what argumentation forms lead away from the truth and into emotional but specious results.
Journalists only tell the part of the story which most readily grips the attention of the public. And since the construction of a thousand houses may not grip the attention of the public as much as a fire burning down a single house, journalism is about bad news. The assumption that the supply must be dwindling because the only reports in the paper are of houses burning down and not of houses being built is the negative bias of journalism. Journalists are very aware of this bias, and yet journalists claim that journalism is objective. But the assumption that "negativity is objectivity” is cynicism.
Cynicism has religious and political implications. First and most obviously, “cynicism" is an antonym for “faith.” And
"Without faith it is impossible to please God.” — Hebrews 11:6
Journalists who assume that they themselves are objective cannot be assumed to have faith in God.
Secondly, the seminal writing which explained the American revolution starts out,
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
If "SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them,” and if "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one,” then
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! —Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)
seems clearly applicable.
Skepticism towards society implies acceptance of the necessity for government to "promote our happiness . . . NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices.” But cynicism - the extreme case of skepticism - towards society leads to (or follows from) naiveté towards the possibility of “intolerable . . . evil" in government.
Cynicism towards society motivates “some writers” to advocate for government to absorb the positive roles of society. “Conservative” skepticism towards government argues that the positive roles of society are too subtle for “a punisher” to accomplish. And that in attempting the role of “patron” government all too readily becomes the problem rather than the solution.

The Commerce Clause established uniform rules for producers from different states for the purpose of preventing states from levying unjust taxes and fees on out-of-state products. To govern interstate commerce, the UCC was established and one idea is for information and digital content to be considered as products subject to the UCC. The UCC is tried and true whereas Net Neutrality is susceptible to political whim.

Regulation of commerce among the several states is one thing, and - IMHO - regulation of communication has to be seen in a different light. Namely,
Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
does not establish a ceiling over the rights of the people. Rather, as
Amendment 9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
makes plain, it is to be understood only as a floor under our rights.
The First Amendment could not list all the communication technologies of the future, of course - that would be an anachronism which would prove that it was written much later than the Eighteenth Century. But
Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
clearly establishes that such advances were anticipated in principle by the same people who ratified the First Amendment. Hence, although “speech” does not cost money, the fact that printing presses, ink, and paper were not a free good establishes the principle that Freedom of the Press is freedom to spend your own money to use any legal (legal for anyone, not merely for those favored - i.e., licensed by - the government) means of promoting your own opinions is an inalienable right.
I interpret that to mean that the Federal Election Commission, and its very mission, are unconstitutional root and branch. The FCC stands as a difficult case only in the sense that licensed FM, AM, and TV bands are by now traditional. Otherwise they constitute clear violations of the First Amendment. The Internet (and FTM the cell phone) represents technology which transcends the rationale of the “scarce” bandwidth rationale on which the FCC edifice was erected.
Although the FCC stands as an illegitimate decider of who gets to broadcast on the AM, FM, and TV bands, it is far from the only offender - the chief offender is not even (officially) part of the government. I refer to the news wire services generally and the Associated Press in particular.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
The AP and its membership constitute all of major American journalism, and the AP “wire” constitutes a continuous, unending, virtual meeting of them all. Consequently we have nothing to expect from the AP but "a conspiracy against the public.” And that is precisely what we observe. This “conspiracy” enables/requires its membership to make the fatuous claim that “all journalists (in good standing with the membership of the AP) are objective.” How is that claim defective? Let me count the ways:

in their field - hyper topical nonfiction - there is always room for legitimate controversy due to the “fog” of conflicting early reports of any major event - the “fog of war” being merely the most excruciating example.

given the above, any claim of actual objectivity - not a claim, laudable if true, to be trying to be objective - implies that the arrogant believer of such self-praise actually is not even trying to be objective, because such a person takes his own objectivity for granted.
because journalists have rules of operation which include “If it bleeds, it leads,” which are unrelated to the public interest but intimately linked to the journalist’s ability to interest the public (a very different thing), journalism is negative. Journalists are knowingly negative, and yet they claim that journalists are objective. This amounts to suggesting that negativity is objectivity - a conceit which can be considered the very definition of “cynicism.”

Journalists are cynical about society, but since the rationale of government is precisely to constrain the failings of society, cynicism towards society inherently corresponds to faith in, even naiveté towards, government. And the combination of cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government is the defining quality of socialism. Via the medium of the AP wire, journalists conspire against society by promoting socialism.
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government] - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

The interest of journalists is pretty well summarized by Adam Smith:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
Journalists attract attention and gain credence by telling people Interesting things that they don’t know. There are many things ordinary lay people don’t know, most of which journalists don’t know either. Journalists have a system for acquiring, selecting, and telling attention-grabbing stories which are simple enough for ordinary people - including journalists - to understand. For those simple things to be equally understandable by journalists and other ordinary people - yet not already known by people other than journalists, those “simple things” must be recent enough that journalists know them before ordinary people do. Hence, the journalist’s continual propaganda campaign to the effect that the “breaking news” is important. But in reality, ”breaking news” is important only in a crisis.
Crisis mentality is fed by bad news, and interesting (and thus persuading) the public by an emphasis on bad news is a staple of journalism. The system by which journalists select their stories is quite simple: “If it bleeds, it leads.” The worse the news, the harder it is for the public to ignore it. Obviously the crisis mentality that breaking news is important is antithetical to caution and thus to wisdom. Hence, the routine promotion of crisis mentality in the general public is directly counter to the public interest.
“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton

The natural disposition is always to believe . . . The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments

There is a Constitution in this country, and part of it says

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It’s in there for a reason. That reason is not that "journalists are objective.” The reason is that Americans are free to think, and to express their thoughts.
And the reason for that is not that all Americans think well, but because the Americans do not accept the proposition that government think is trustworthy. It is not for the government to tell me that journalists are not objective and not always truthful - it is up to me to figure those things out for myself. And, having figured that out, to promote those ideas to the extent of my own desire and resources.
But there is something the government legitimately can do about Establishment journalism. Establishment journalism is wire service journalism, and the wire services only date back to the advent of the telegraph in 1844. The Associated Press was in being by about 1850. The Sherman AntiTrust Act only dates to 1890, and the AP was aggressively monopolistic before and after 1890. In fact it was successfully sued by another wire service under Sherman in 1945.
But even that is not the point. The point is that, according to Adam Smith
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
the fact that the AP “wire” is a continuous virtual meeting of all major journalism outlets in America which has been ongoing since before the Civil War implies that "a conspiracy against the public” among journalists is presumably in effect. And anyone who starts with the a priori assumption of independence among journalists is being naive.
But what would "a conspiracy against the public” by journalists look like? Put another way, “What motives do journalists have in common?” Adam Smith suggests an answer to that:
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
But what good is it if you, as a journalist, simply tell people you agree with them? How does that cause them to see you as their “leader and director??” It may make people more disposed to listen to you, but it doesn’t change their mind about their default assumption that they know their own minds and anyone else need not assume that they know better. No, the motive is change the minds of the public and cause them to look up to you.
In addition, journalists need to attract attention by telling people things that the public does not know. The problem with that is, that journalists are not rocket scientists. And the public at large is not, either, and would not understand if told anything really subtle. The only way journalists can tell people things they don’t already know is to report news of things that just happened, which the public has not heard yet. And the news which is interesting is almost uniformly negative. The upshot is that journalists report bad news about American society, thereby attracting attention and casting American society in an unflattering light. And thereby promoting the idea that journalists are above and looking down on American society. Included in that is the conceit that “journalists are objective.”
The truth is that although everyone should try to be objective - and I hope you do - nobody can know that he, or anyone who agrees with him, is objective. To claim that you are (not are trying to but actually are) objective is effectively to admit that you are not even trying to be objective (what would “trying to be objective” look like if you think that you are objective?). Thinking that you are objective is the essence of subjectivity.
In the case of journalists, who are negative and know it and will tell you that “If it bleeds, it leads,” a journalist who claims that “journalists are objective” is claiming in effect that negativity is objectivity. And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is hard to improve on as a definition of cynicism.
Journalists are cynical about society and - concomitantly - naive about government:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no [government]; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
The conclusion is that journalists’ “conspiracy against the public” is the promotion of the conceit that breaking news is important (in practically any situation other than a battle, that is untrue), the conceit that journalists are objective (and properly command respect as “leaders and directors”), and that cynicism towards society is justified, and properly justifies metastasized government.
Individual Americans are allowed to think that (within limits, considering that acting on such cynicism could easily turn antisocial), but a unified propaganda Establishment of any sort - let alone one promoting cynicism - is not legitimated by the First Amendment. The Associated Press destroys the ideological diversity of “the press,” and it is in violation of the Sherman AntiTrust Act. It was found so by SCOTUS in 1945, but the idea of breaking up the AP was not even sought, nor thought possible as a remedy, in that era. But this is the 21st Century, and as the Internet and FreeRepublic.com illustrate, the mission of conserving scarce expensive communications bandwidth in spreading the news nationwide is now obsolete. Communication bandwidth is now dirt cheap. The AP systematically libels American society, white Americans, and Republicans. Both as groups, and as individual members of those groups. It should be sued into oblivion.
In the meantime, we should take to heart another quote from Theory of Moral Sentiments:
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.
We pool our “incredulity” here on FR in order to limit our tendency to "give credit to stories which [we are] afterwards both ashamed and astonished that [we] could possibly think of believing."

The First Amendment did not create freedom of the press, it merely reified, or fixed in place, the freedom that the press already enjoyed. That is - as Scalia noted - the press was subject to laws against libel before the enactment of the First Amendment, and it was still subject to those same laws afterward. So the press can be regulated - but only with a light hand and with the soundest of justifications.
For example, there is no reason why the public should accept a single monopoly press; journalists have no right to expect that the Sherman AntiTrust Act does not apply in their business. And the unifying principle of “the MSM” is the Associated Press. Essentially every major journalism outlet is a member. The very word “associated” in its name should make the AP suspect, and Adam Smith’s analysis of monopoly
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
applies very directly, since the AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all its members which has been in continuous operation since before the Civil War. You have to be "naive as a babe to believe” that in over a century and a half journalists have never found common cause to the detriment of the public.
There is more than one analysis that suggests strongly that claiming objectivity for journalism is inappropriate. I put it to you that everyone knows that “If it bleeds, it leads” is sound advice for commercial viability in journalism. Certainly every journalist knows it. Journalism is negative - and any claim that "negativity is objectivity” should be dismissed out of hand as sheer cynicism. Another, more general and less pointed, argument is that no one can know that they are being objective. You can try to be objective. You can even say that you are trying to be objective - if indeed you are. But to claim that you actually are objective is to confess that you actually are not even trying to be objective. Because the effort to try must start from the assumption that might not be objective. Certainly it is arrogant to claim to possess a virtue, and claiming objectivity is no different from claiming wisdom or any classical virtue.
Journalism is negative towards society, but not towards government. In fact, anyone who is negative towards society must think “there oughta be a law” whenever they seen a failing of society. Thus, journalism inherently tends to cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government. In Common Sense, Thomas Paine asserted that society and government are often conflated but are in fact near opposites:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher. Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil . . . - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
I put it to you that "cynicism towards society and naiveté towards government” describes socialism to a tee. Whereas American conservatism holds, with the founders of the Constitution, that

skepticism towards society is sufficiently justified to be an adequate rationale for having a government, but

skepticism towards people in government is even more justified than skepticism towards people in society outside of government.

The conclusion of the matter is that journalists tend to “conspire against the public” by promoting socialism. And that the wire services generally, and the AP in particular, are the nexus of their conspiracy. And, I note, the raison d'être of the wire services was the conservation of expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the wide dissemination of the news. And in the 21^st Century, telegraphy bandwidth is dirt cheap.
There is such a thing as the AP Stylebook, which establishes standards for journalism. Some, perhaps most, of it is unexceptionable - for example, the “pyramid organization” of articles which demands that the most salient points of the article be articulated in the opening part of the article. But if the Stylebook proscriptions prevent the articulation of a particular political viewpoint - if for example it proscribes the term “illegal alien” to describe foreign citizens in the US without proper authorization - that is “a conspiracy against the public.” I doubt that the Stylebook explicitly proscribes the identification of the political party of a Democrat politician caught with his hands in the till, and requires it when a Republican is so charged - but “the MSM is notorious for exactly that sort of thing.
The AP should be prosecuted (or sued civilly) - and ruined. We don’t need it, and it is anticompetitive in the one industry - discussion of current events and politics - in which competition is most significant and necessary. The NY Times v. Sullivan ruling - in which SCOTUS made it very difficult for “public figures” to sue for libel - must be overturned. It is famously said that a law against sleeping under bridges is not neutral because it forbids both rich and poor from doing it. Just so, a ruling which makes it extremely difficult for Democrats - who essentially are never libeled - to sue, while doing “the same thing” to Republicans, who get libeled continually, is utterly unfair.