No One Is Safe From Biased Reporting

A free and independent press is, and should always be, an impenetrable bulwark of our democracy . . . Thomas Jefferson [wrote to that effect] in a 1789 letter. The media’s hallowed role, embodied in the First Amendment, assures near-total freedom to report (and even misreport) the news.

Press freedom, however, implies a responsibility to place truth above narrow partisan campaigns. That’s why editorial and commentary pages must be kept separate from news reporting. That separation has often been breached, but certain prominent news organizations have branded themselves clarions of truth. The New York Times long nurtured such a reputation. So it is profoundly disappointing to see the Times’s news pages increasingly corrupted by the political views of its reporters and editorialists. . . . the Times . . . and anyone with an internet connection, could have easily found the truth. I asked my lawyers to do just that by retaining someone to go online and figure out the real story from the public record. In three days this person found a deep trove of facts that the Times’s six reporters had apparently chosen to ignore. Anyone who wants to know the truth can find an article telling the real story plus a fact sheet and timeline at www.mikemilken.com . . .

The Times has now sent my office new questions that suggest another article is in the works. I will vigorously counter any further journalistic mendacity with hard facts and, where appropriate, other actions. But the greater risk is that no one is safe when a previously respected news organization deploys its considerable resources to twist the truth. Keep that in mind as you read future articles attacking opportunities for upward mobility through job creation.

Scalia argued his view on “textualism” was the ultimate defense of the First Amendment. In March 2012, an Associated Press report said he told an audience at Wesleyan University that the Court’s early justices would be “astonished that the notion of the Constitution changes to mean whatever each successive generation would like it to mean. … In fact, it would be not much use to have a First Amendment, for example, if the freedom of speech included only what some future generation wanted it to include. That would guarantee nothing at all.” That opinion didn’t prevent Scalia from harsh criticism of what is widely viewed as one of the essential court rulings protecting free speech and a free press — the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. At the Newseum in the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum, Scalia said the landmark ruling meant “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not. “Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia said. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’” But in Times v. Sullivan, Scalia said the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT

As is well known, the Bill of Rights as a set of constitutional amendments was demanded as a condition for ratification of the Constitution. It was “must pass legislation.” There could be nothing in it that could be considered a “poison pill” to prevent passage of the First Amendment (for instance).

The conundrum was that the omission of a bill of rights in the original constitution was intentional - for the reason that although things like freedom of the press and the right to keep and bear arms were established rights in the pubic consciousness, the full and exact extent of the rights of the people was a question of common law, nowhere comprehensively codified. How to formulate such a comprehensive list and gain consensus for the notion that all the rights of the people were preserved?

The answer found in the Bill of Rights is twofold:

Explicitly numerate the rights which had historically been denied by tyrants, and
Both

Amendment 9
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
and

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

But notice the wording of the First Amendment WRT freedom of the press: 1A does not refer simply to “freedom of the press” but to “the freedom of the press.” Scalia noted that freedom of the existed at the time of the composition of the Constitution - and so did the right to sue for compensation for libel.

Had the First Amendment referred to " freedom of the press” in the abstract, it would arguably have extinguished both the right of the people to sue for libel and the rights of governments to enforce anti pornography laws. And that would have been controversial - could have been the poison pill which would have subverted the entire Bill of Rights project to solidify consensus around the new Constitution. Instead 1A refers to “the” freedom - freedom within limits - of the press as traditionally understood.

The conclusion, Scalia asserted, is that the First Amendment was crafted to not touch the law of libel. And that in asserting that

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

Justice William Brennan and the entire Warren Court erred in Sullivan. The Sullivan decision comes from the position that “the press” is weak and beleaguered. The reality is that, because it functionally is a cartel, “the press” is the core of the Establishment. As such, “the press” has exploited Sullivan to prevent the truth from prevailing over lies. The press reaction to the Kavanaugh hearing certainly should have told SCOTUS that.

It’s About Corruption – Replacing a Failed and Corrupt Political Establishment
American Thinker.com ^ | January 31, 2020 | Brian C. Joondeph

The opening lines are prescient, becoming painfully obvious now almost four years after Candidate Trump laid out the scale of corruption.

President Trump has certainly given strong speeches, such as at the recent March for Life. But he may be remembered more for his raucous rallies and hilarious tweets. Yet one speech has flown under the radar.

On Oct. 13, 2016, just weeks before the election, Trump spoke at a campaign rally in Florida. Leading up to the election, he was holding several rallies each day, giving numerous speeches, but this seemingly random speech stands out.

Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you, the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.

The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason: to protect and enrich itself.

The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal they’d like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists.

For those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our campaign represents an existential threat.

Candidate Trump then went on to say:

It’s a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities.

This is money given to corrupt foreign countries, disguised as aid, only to be returned to the political elite by hiring their unqualified family members for do-nothing jobs, as in Hunter Biden, or funneling these U.S. taxpayer dollars back into political foundations, consultancies, or campaign contributions.

Once upon a time, journalists investigated such corruption. Now they ignore it, aiding and abetting the deception. As Trump said in his speech:

The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.

Speak up against the cabal and you will be destroyed, or even commit suicide. Trump went on:

The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known. Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career
and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more.

Excerpted: For more go to:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3812493/posts

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.