Replies

Uh, demoncrats——morality? Does not compute!

Exactly LLoyd’s point.
Democrats know fake news media will help them feed the American people any bogus narrative they desire. This emboldens Democrats to lie with impunity, be hypocritical, and lecture us about morality. The truth is that the Democrats' agenda is the height of immorality, evil from the pits of hell.
It’s a full-on propaganda war against American traditions and American society. The only response I see having a hope of reining it in would be for the Republican Party—the Trump Republican Party;mdash;to sue “the media” (read, "the AP and its members individually and collectively, and all other wire services, and the FEC and the FCC”) for antitrust violation in the prosecution of a conspiracy against the public, and the Republican Party in particular.
Journalists have been conspiring against Republicans for so long that they have no recognition of the limitations of their right to do so. But the right to sue for libel preexisted the First Amendment, and is not abolished by it (1A speaks of the freedom of the press, not unqualified absolute freedom of the press).
Journalists rely on the 1964 NY Times v. Sullivan decision as near-absolute protection from libel suits by Republican politicians, but Sullivan - tho a unanimous decision - did not consider antitrust concerns at all, and did not consider the abuse of psychoanalysis to “recover” (actually manufacture) memories which are then used to libel Republicans.
The most prominent recent case was of course the Kavenaugh hearing, which was not it a court and not subject to SCOTUS. But the same thing was involved in the destruction of Roy Moore’s reputation. The use of “recovered” memory to justify a hit piece should be understood as prima facie evidence that the charge is false. Because the memory was not accessible without psychoanalysis, and the rules of legal proceedings are foreign to the process of psychoanalysis, what comes out of psychoanalysis - although it is a memory in the sense that it is indistinguishable by the patient from other memories - is fatally tainted by the procedure used to evoke it. And the process is hidden behind a veil of HIPPA.
It is often claimed that journalism is “the first draft of history.” So much the worse, if so, for history. Because rules such as “If it bleeds, it leads,” “‘Man Bites Dog,’ not ‘Dog Bites Man’,” “Always meet your deadline,” and “There’s nothing more worthless than yesterday’s newspaper” filter historical perspective out of the news. Journalism is emphatically not historical perspective. For that reason, the perspective of journalism is inherently at odds with that of conservatism. The 1964 Sullivan decision predates most of the controversies which have arisen over “bias in the media.” People weren’t saying that journalism was a monopoly, or that journalism was hostile to conservatism - but they are now, and they are right.
Sullivan can’t be overturned, but it can and must be marginalized in light of what it did not consider at all. And what has hit more than one sitting SCOTUS Justice squarely on the nose. Courts are supposed to be conservative. They exist to preserve the rights of the people, not to create law. The right to sue for libel, having preexisted the Constitution and not having been suppressed explicitly by the Constitution, is recognized in the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution and must be available to Republicans. The fact that Democrats never get libeled, and thus don’t need it and are happy to oppose it, does not properly extinguish that right.