Court affirms media was wrong!!
Planned Parenthood leaned heavily on the defense that the videos were unfairly doctored. This defense was ‘parroted immediately’ by a ‘servile press’ as follows:
‘Politico’ reported,...“Report for Planned Parenthood finds sting videos manipulated,”... that ‘Fusion GPS’ was careful to bring in “video and transcription experts” who are “not associated with Planned Parenthood.”
‘New York Times’ reported...”Planned Parenthood Videos Were Altered, Analysis Finds,”
‘Huffington Post’...”’Sting’ Videos Of Planned Parenthood Are Totally Manipulated, Forensic Analysis Finds,” adding that even “the supposedly unedited ‘full’ footage is misleadingly altered, experts say.”
‘Slate’ declared confidently...”Second Heavily Edited Planned Parenthood Attack Video Is Also a Big Bust,”
‘Mother Jones’ reported,... “ignited a firestorm by releasing ... selectively edited videos.”
‘Vox’s’ Sarah Kliff...“I thought I saw all the Planned Parenthood sting footage. Turns out the tapes were edited.”
(Not a single one of these reports mentioned Fusion GPS’ historical ties to the Democratic Party)
I love your quotes from the article, but was not sure what to think initially, until I confirmed that they were quotes from the article. Since you didn’t use Italics. Since I’m aware of the limitations of using a smartphone for composing HTML, I’m not complaining, just saying.Be that as it may, the salient point is that “the MSM” can be documented to have been monochromatic on the issue, as your quote suggests. Hardly a novel point today - but it was otherwise in 1964. I cite that date because that was when the famous New York Times v. Sullivan decision was handed down by SCOTUS. That unanimous ruling is used to discourage politicians, and even judges, from suing for libel. But your quotes are examples of why the presidential effect of that ruling from a half-century ago needs to be modified.
Understand, any court, including SCOTUS, would have to affirm the Sullivan decision if presented with the Sullivan facts. But if you read Sullivan today, it sounds quaint. First of all, the losing plaintiff was a Southern Democrat - a breed which was in bad odor nationally in 1964 and which has not gained prestige since then. On that basis alone, you would expect the Warren Court to come down on him pretty hard if given the opportunity. Secondly, the compliant was about an ad, not editorial content of The New York Times. But most of all, 1964 was the heyday of Walter Cronkite; “bias in the media” was not often spoken of in those times. Although Barry Goldwater did complain about “the referees” after the presidential election in that year. Certainly we didn’t have a POTUS complaining consistently about “fake news.”
The point is that Sullivan applies to Democrats and Republicans alike, in precisely the same way that a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich and poor alike. Because rich people don’t ever need to sleep under a bridge, but poor people do. Likewise, Democrats don’t get libeled - but Republicans routinely do. Any impediment to suing for libel affects only Republicans. The facts before SCOTUS in Sullivan would not make anyone suspect that.
IMHO the Republican Party must sue the wire services and their members/clients, on antitrust grounds. And also sue the government agencies which place the imprimatur of the government on claims of journalistic objectivity. That is the entire purpose of the FEC, so it should be thrown out - McConnell v. FEC should be overturned. And no school should spend government money promulgating that lie, any more than Planned Parenthood should be allowed to lie about Project Veritas without losing government money.