Posted on 06/10/2020 7:39:15 AM PDT by JV3MRC
For those looking for any good news in the market, don’t rely on NBC, ABC or CBS evening news shows to cover it consistently for you, especially when it really matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
The rule: If you can’t spin it, spike it.
Can’t imagine the founders thinking that freedom of the press meant being aligned with a single political party, although we’ve had a political press for much of our history.
If the DJI hits 30,000 before election day everyone will know.
It’s amazing isn’t it? Now for once, this is REAL news but the “news” media is not reporting it. Says everything about the so-called evening news broadcasters.
It’s why we have the internet and it’s why people in the East Bloc watched US shows like Dallas and Dynasty from TV stations in West Germany and paid little or no heed to what Tass and Pravda were telling them.
It’s non-stop Leftwing bias, Democrat cheerleading, takedown of the GOP, and anti-Trump. It’s full of lies and they ignore anything positive for Trump.
I’m surprised that the GOP isn’t working with billionaire donors to buy one of the big 3.
“The most insidious power the media has, is the power to ignore.” — Chris Plante, WMAL-DC
One script fits NBC, ABC or CBS and cable evening news.
People who don't own stock either don't care or are a little offended.
People who do own stock (which is a huge number via IRAs and 401Ks) will know without hearing it on the news.
PBS Newshour has the closing prices for the DJIA, Nasdaq and S&P500 every night.
LOL, who watches the Evening News to get stock prices?
BUT each night we hear the count of the new CCP virus numbers. I delved a bit deeper into our state numbers which have “spiked” the last week. Well, it seems the static number has BUT the percentage of those positives in the number of tests given has been going down. This would be Florida. The point is the press touts the static number because the gov was a GOP frontrunner for being careful, not jumping into closing everything down across the state.
It isn’t “stock prices” it is good economic news.
Actually, I can.
Each little publisher with his own press only put out stuff that he agreed with.
What I don't think they saw coming was the domination of the news by only a few.
but they did have an article in the news section about "Trump weighs racial issues thru his own economy"....an objective headline if there ever was one...NOT!
ping
Our very republic depends on voting decisions made by an informed public that has access to a free press and honest press. We don’t have that right now.
Its no coincidence that a corrupt and unfair press is contributing to our corrupt and unfair government.
In an odd way, the First Amendment is “overrated.”Recall that the Federalists omitted a bill of rights from the unamended document, on purpose. The reason was precisely that they wanted no implication that the Constitution changed Common Law. At all.
After the Antifederalists forced them to promise a bill of rights by amendment, the Federalists still didn’t want any implication that the Constitution modified Common Law. And that is the purpose of
As Scalia explained in a speech somewhere on the web, the first eight amendments enumerated only those rights which had historically been abused by tyrants. And - key point - even those enumerated rights are articulated in a calculated way not to change Common Law.
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Thus, the Second Amendment enumerates “the” RKBA - without specifying exactly what its boundaries were/are. Nobody has suggested that RKBA entails the right to commit armed assault, because “the” RKBA as it existed in 1788 had never meant that. That is, “the” RKBA was and is limited. In order to compose his Heller decision, Scalia did a deep dive into the history of the boundaries of the RKBA - and didn’t simply say, “You can have any gun you want anywhere you want because Second Amendment."
Well, guess what! The First Amendment doesn’t simply enumerate “freedom of the press.” It enumerates ”the” freedom of the press. Same language, same implication. “The” freedom of the press existed, and was limited, in 1788. Libel and pornography restrictions notable among the limitations. All this was well understood until the Warren Court - unanimously - upset the apple cart in its 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan made the novel claim
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”that the First Amendment did modify Common Law as regards libel. Sullivan has inhibited libel suits by conservative politicians (and judges) ever since. Of course Sullivan doesn’t explicitly target conservatives - but as you suggest, ”liberals” don’t get libeled. Scalia agreed with Thomas that Sullivan - unanimous or not - was bad law.You are correct that there is nothing exceptionable about a press having a political POV. Indeed, prior to the advent of the Associated Press, newspapers didn’t have exclusive access to news to which the general public could not in principle be privy. And they were mostly weeklies. The upshot was that the newspapers were mostly about the opinions of their printers. Can you say, “Excellence in Broadcasting Network?”
My theory of the change from that situation to this is that the AP - and wire services in general - inevitably caused it. My reasoning is that wire services constitute virtual meetings of all members/subscribers, and that Adam Smith was correct in saying that
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. - Wealth of Nations (1776)To my mind that explains why major journalism became politically homogeneous. And since we know that journalism is about bad news, we know (and journalists know) that journalists are negative. Knowing that, however, journalists claim to be objective - thus in effect claiming that “negativity is objectivity.” And “the conceit that negativity is objectivity” is a very serviceable definition of “cynicism.”Cynicism is an antonym for faith, and thus is incompatible with conservatism. Journalists are cynical about society, and - since as Common Sense explains, "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,” cynicism towards society maps to naiveté towards government. Why wouldn’t someone who was cynical about society be a socialist???
The advent of the wire services started in 1848, four decades prior to the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890). The mission of the wire services was to disseminate the news while conserving scarce and expensive telegraphy bandwidth. At this point, telegraphy bandwidth is plentiful and dirt cheap, and the wire services should be sued into oblivion under antitrust law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.