Replies

“Just who do you think will decide who is, and who is not, “people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart?”

You ask that question as though there could be no answer.

Before our legal system was turned to crap by the forces of evil, we had a concept, inherited from centuries of English common law, called the “reasonable man standard.”

That standard provides a basis for adjudicating such matters.

You are advocating for the “Fairness” Doctrine.
Surely you understand that what we disdainfully call “the MSM” - and other Democrats - defined “Fairness” under that doctrine?
The Fairness Doctrine was de facto censorship of conservatism. Impose anything at all like it again, and it will devolve into that same thing faster than you can say, “Jack Robinson.”

The fundamental problem was defined by Adam Smith:
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 natural disposition is always to believe” - and the MSM has metastasized into a persuasion monster. Again, Adam Smith:
People of the same trade ^Journalists seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion,^{let alone virtually, as on the AP newswire, to discuss what is news} 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 all wire services exist to conserve expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the dissemination of the news. The sole reason that the wire services have withstood challenges to their legitimacy is that that mission made them “too big to fail.” In the 21st Century, telegraphy bandwidth is no longer expensive: the Internet exists as we know it because bandwidth is now dirt cheap (comparatively).
The Wire services should be sued to oblivion under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Lots of luck with that, if Hillary replaces Scalia with constitutional law professor Barak Obama . . .