The business model of commercial, general-audience journalism is to attract and keep attention - for fun and profit - by systematically reporting, and systematically emphasizing, bad news. That fact is encapsulated in the newsroom saying, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Another way of putting it is to say that journalism reports plans of improvement - but with no great emphasis - but it reports unexpected problems fulfilling those plans with relish and enthusiasm.Journalism’s default is to propagandize against American society and, ipso facto, to propagandize for unlimited government. And altho in the founding era, and Gilded Age, newspaper printers were fractiously independent and famously didn’t agree about much of anything, technological innovation planted the seeds of change to that in the middle of the Nineteenth Century. That innovation was the telegraph (demonstrated by Morse in 1844) and the wire service (1848 for the AP). The AP, incidentally, doesn’t serve “customers,” it serves members - printers who join the AP. If, that is, they are accepted into membership.The effect of that is that while the big picture may be that society is building a great city, journalism's depiction will be of a place where houses are burning down. In short, journalism is systematically negative about society and its (individual) leaders.
But the flip side of that is that
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, Common Sense (1776)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.
The real novelty of the AP, hiding behind the fact that it enables newspapers to report news from far-flung places “instantaneously” (in historical terms), is the fact that The AP “wire” is a virtual meeting of all its members . The effect has been what Adam Smith would have predicted:
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)It thus requires profound naiveté to assume that “people of the same trade” of journalism have, after their virtual meeting has been in continuous effect for over a century and a half, found no occasion to engage in any “conspiracy against the public.” In point of fact, they have an obvious motive staring us all in the face:
And that means that journalists have the motive to go along and get along, ideologically - to claim objectivity for members of their community in good standing, and to read any dissenter among them out of the group. And since as noted above journalism is negative towards society and positive towards government, the default posture of journalists is to promote government and denigrate society. Including “so confound[ing] society [a blessing] with government [an evil], as to leave little or no distinction between them." That makes them perfect propagandists for socialism. And the Democrat Party effectively exists to go along and get along with journalism.
Thus, any charge against a Republican will be piled on by all journalists, and by Democrat politicians as well. "The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .” A subtlety of that formulation is, per Antonin Scalia, the definite article “the” preceding “freedom. Justice Scalia explained that freedom of speech already existed in the [newly united] states and so did limitations such as laws against slander and libel. Had the First Amendment merely said “freedom” rather than “the freedom,” it could have been read to legalize slander and libel - but that was not the intention of the amendment.
And that fact implies that
can be properly understood as protecting our right to redress if we are libeled or slandered. And the whole problem I am addressing is the fact that we are not being protected from libel. We face a propaganda machine which turns the concern addressed by the First Amendment on its head - not that the government unifies journalism against us as the AntiFederalists feared, but that due to technological innovation journalism has unified itself to control the government - and, not so incidentally, to libel us.
- Amendment 9:
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The First Amendment intended to preclude the unification of journalism against liberty, and thus against diversity of thought. And therefore it is not legitimately a defense of the unification of journalism against liberty, and thus against diversity of thought. The Sherman AntiTrust Act of 1890 is valid against the unification of journalistic enterprises no less so than against Standard Oil, or any other “conspiracy in restraint of trade.” A lawsuit must be filed under Sherman, demanding triple damages, and alleging torts of such magnitude that the Associated Press (and any other wire service) is financially ruined. Historically the wire services were “too big to fail.” Their great advantage lay in its economizing on expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the dissemination of the news. But since formerly expensive bandwidth is now dirt cheap, their advantage to the public has been technologically nullified and now they are little more than a conspiracy against the public. They have to go.
As to the members of the AP, they must be forcefully put on notice that the laws of libel are in full force. That means that SCOTUS must overrule the NY Times v. Sullivan decision which makes it very difficult for politicians to sue for libel - a decision which applies to Democrats and Republicans alike, in precisely the same way that, famously, a law against sleeping under bridges applies to rich and poor alike. Because Democrats don’t get libeled, and Republicans are libeled as a matter of course. Because the First Amendment intended to preserve the founding era milieu in which “printers famously didn’t agree about much of anything,” SCOTUS in 1964 made its Sullivan ruling on the basis that it had preserved it. That is a fallacy.
Finally, all regulatory agencies of the government must withdraw from any implication that journalism’s claims of objectivity have the imprimatur of the government in any way. In the first instance, the FCC must eliminate any such implication, which affects the way broadcast licenses are justified. The Federal Election Commission - well, the FEC is unconstitutional, root and branch. “Campaign Finance Reform” laws such as McCain-Feingold are incoherent if seen through the lens of free and independent presses having no governmental imprimatur as well as no governmental interference. Such laws essentially elevate certain people - whom the government officially sanctions as journalists - to a status where their money spent promoting their political ideas is clean, and yours is dirty. The plain intent of the Constitution in ruling out titles of nobility and ruling out priesthoods in government-sponsored religions is that your money is as good as that of the owner of the NY Times.
Again, all of which just proves exactly how clear-eyed President Trump really is when he tags the fake news media as the Enemies of the People.
Antonin Scalia pointed out that the First Amendment does not protect “freedom of the Press” in an absolute sense - the actual formulation is, “the freedom . . . of the press.” The difference Justice Scalia explained, is that “the freedom . . . of the press” refers specifically to the freedom and the limitations applicable there to (read, the laws of libel) the press enjoyed when the First Amendment was written. This, IMHO, implies constitutional recognition of the right of the people not to be libeled. A right not explicit in the Bill of Rights but a clear example of a right which existed before the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights and which, under the doctrine of the Ninth Amendment, is not extinguished by either.And if you think about it, the right not to be libeled is precisely what needs to be vindicated in court. This requires a lawsuit against the guilty parties, by the offended party(s). Demanding restitution on a scale sufficient to end the abuses. The guilty parties are, IMHO, centrally the Associated Press and its members individually. Because they have conspired - over the AP “wire,” and otherwise - to mount a massive propaganda campaign against those they have chosen as their enemies. Those “enemies” are, essentially, the Republican Party, and anyone else who defends society against unlimited government.
The First Amendment is not a defense against lawsuit or prosecution under the Sherman AntiTrust Act of 1890. Because the objective of 1A is not simply to protect journalists from the government but to protect the public from journalism which is unified and able and willing to promote the government over the liberties of the people. Strictly protecting journalism from government would free journalism from punishment under the laws of libel. The wire services in general and the AP in particular now have the unification of journalism as their primary effect. Their nominal justification came with the advent of expensive telegraphy bandwidth which they economized on - and went with the advent of dirt cheap telegraphy bandwidth which is not worth conserving. The wire services are therefore simply an abomination under Sherman. Punitive damages should put them out of business.
As for the individual journalism outlets, they must be disciplined to revert back from mere “outlets” to actual producers of editorial content - and prevented from continuing their predation on opponents of unlimited government by the overturning of the misbegotten 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision. Sullivan makes it very difficult for politicians to sue for libel, on grounds that if one newspaper attacks a politician, another newspaper will defend him. On grounds, that is, that the First Amendment accomplishes its objective of keeping journalism a business of fractiously independent printers. But, primarily IMHO because of the wire services, it presently does not accomplish that objective. And until and unless that situation is reversed, Sullivan is as evenhanded between Democrats and Republicans as a law against sleeping under bridges is applicable to rich and poor alike. Democrats don’t get libeled; Republicans routinely do.
SCOTUS has work to do with the regulatory agencies as well. The FCC must be required to handle licensing of broadcasters in a way that keeps the imprimatur of the government off of journalism and its claims of objectivity. And the FEC - predicated as it is on the conceit that the money of the owner of the New York Times is politically “clean,” and your money and mine is politically “dirty” - is unconstitutional and must be abolished.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3703872/posts?page=35#35