Replies

We’re just trying to repair reputations that have been damaged by a blood libel....that’s all.

Obviously . . . but IMHO there is only one possible way to do it effectively, and that is not to restrict ourselves to "arguing with people who buy ink by the carload." No, the must be a major civil libel suit. Not a suit for a symbolic dollar, either - it must be a suit which

is winnable, and
alleges damages in the billions of dollars.
The first question is, what is the defendant in such a suit? Certainly not "the media," nor even "big journalism," which are amorphous entities with apparently no head and no pocketbook. No, the defendant in the suit must be the Associated Press and its membership. That is a serious target (ahem). And one with the deep enough pockets to have skin in the game, and to be worth skining.
The Associated Press is the mechanism which created Big JournaIism, and Big Journalism is the "nonfiction" entity within "the media." The Associated Press spreads libel far and wide, injecting it into the nation's discourse while at one and the same time claiming "First Amendment freedom" as "the press," and laboring to deny that same freedom to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh et al. The Associated Press is like an ant colony or a bee hive - simultaneously a single entity endeavoring to exclude all competition from its market, and a swarm of "individuals" claiming the First Amendment rights of individuals.
Big Journalism assays to exclude from "the press" anyone who criticizes any journalist. Big Journalism has been able to get "campaign finance reform" legislation through Congress when the people, if polls are to be believed, did not care about McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold is corrupt because it assigns to Big Journalism rights which it denies to the people, as if "the press" were co-extensive with the Associated Press. The fact that Big Journalism has succeeded in extracting unconstitutional benefits from Congress by the power of its flattery and derision marks it as the legitimate target for a RICO suit. Big Journalism demands that it be accorded rights in the name of "the people" while systematically exerting itself to stifle the voice of the individual person. Big Journalism demands respect as a sort of nobility, a class distinct from either the government or the people. Big Journalism is the enemy of liberty.
Big Journalism's claims of objectivity not only are not proof of its objectivity, they are evidence - in conjunction with the plentiful examples of self-dealing which are endemic to journalism - rather evidence of the very tendentiousness which they seek to deny. For if any tendentiousness at all can be demonstrated, a claim of objectivity is simply an amplification of that very bias. Journalism's bias is that it represents the public interest, whereas in fact it represents only the titillation of the interest of the public. And things which interest the public not only are not certain to be in the public interest, they are often inimical to it. Pornography is one example, and bad news in general is another. Although public knowledge of ill tidings can certainly be in the public interest, exclusive emphasis on the negative is a lack of perspective.
Skepticism is valuable, but cynicism is destructive of the public good. It would take objectivity to discern and act on that difference - but journalism's mission of promoting itself over those who take responsibility for results is inherently cynical. Big Journalism's slurs on Republicans and the middle class amount to promotion of the idea that advocates of constitutional ordered liberty are the primary danger to society - rather than the guarantors of its safety.