Media needs to go down hard. Totally corrupt. Not even slightly interested in telling the Truth to the American people.
They will do anything for the right amount of $$. FOX news hiring if Donna Brazil is really bad in my opinion. She was right in there.
Chuck Todd seemed very uncomfortable with having to listen to Guiliani on today’s “Meet The Priss”.
Should have been an investigation and hearings many years ago, and most definitely during the Obama regime, and during Clintons campaign, namely Donna Brazile and CNN. If this were to happen, we would find rampant corruption, bribery, blackmail, and payoffs between the democrats and media.
"People of the same trade,” according to Adam Smith, "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.” And journalists “meet together,” virtually, over the AP “wire” and all other wire services. And the “meeting” goes on continually, decade after decade, since before the Civil War in the case of the AP.A “conspiracy against the public,” therefore, became inevitable a long time ago. And what else would journalists who were conspiring against the public do but to propagandize in favor of their own self-interest? They propagandize in favor of their own self-proclaimed objectivity, even knowing that their focus is on bad news. Knowing, that is, that journalism is negative. And only a cynic would claim that “negativity is objectivity.”
Since journalism is cynical about society, it is correspondingly naive about the institution - government - which exists to discipline evil in society. Journalists following their own incentives, therefore, tend to produce socialist propaganda.
It follows that journalists must be disciplined by laws of libel and antitrust. The presumptive barrier to libel suits by Trump is the unanimous 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan SCOTUS decision. Which says that public figures can’t sue unless they first prove “actual malice” on the part of the defendant. SCOTUS was enthusiastic in its “defense of freedom of the press.” But contrary to popular opinion, the First Amendment did not institute freedom of the press. Freedom of the press - limited by libel and pornography prohibitions already existed before the Constitution was written. And laws against libel and pornography were not controversial when the First Amendment was written - and if 1A had been written to create absolute freedom of the press then the First Amendment would have been controversial. But it was not - because 1A preserves “the [existing, limited] freedom . . . of the press.” Not “freedom of the press, but "the freedom of the press.” So said Justice Scalia.
The Sullivan decision overreached in “protecting freedom of the press” at the expense of the right, existing and recognized at the founding and thus covered by the Tenth Amendment, of any person (in or out of government) to sue for libel. Also, Sullivan did not consider that journalism was a monopolistic "conspiracy against the public” precisely to propagandize in favor of big government, and thus specifically against conservatives. Mr. Sullivan was not a Republican, but as a southern Democrat of that era he would be considered a (dis)honorable Republican by the press and by Democrats. See "Duke, David.” The point is that the Sullivan decision has clear political import because Democrats don’t get libeled. And therefore conservatives and Republicans are actually the target of Sullivan's strictures.