Replies

that YT channel is just a ripoff site. It’s the YouTube version of a blog poser ripping off others for clicks.

I am now haunting youTube substantially. I especially like John Campbell, PhD - retired nursing professor who comments on health (and that mostly meant Covid and the effects of the societal/governmental reactions thereto).
It is excruciatingly clear that youtubers commenters are heavily constrained from saying everything they think. Campbell is quite open about it. I get the impression that there is money to be made being a (successful at attracting listeners) youTuber. But the price of that is staying within guidelines which, for example, prevent you from disagreeing with the WHO or any local health “authority.” And who knows what else?
So it’s always caveat lector, but what else is new? And if the alternative is the MSM, I’ll take it. I’m starting to wonder if the Elon Musk version of Twitter might not be worth signing up for . . .
I stopped watching CSpan after it took to having call-ins divided between R, D, and I. They did that because conservatives, having limited outlets, took to call-in shows like duck to water. Others have the MSM to promote their nonsense . . .

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. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
That applies to journalism as to any other “trade,” and altho that mattered a lot less before 1848 than it does now, people of the “trade” of journalism have been systematically “meeting together,” via the wire services, to such an extent and for so long that they assume that conspiring against the public is their job and their birthright.
This problematic situation was exacerbated in 1964 by the Warren Court’s infamous New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which made the unprecedented claim that the First Amendment modified libel law (this was unprecedented, and a fatuous claim in that the First Amendment was crafted to be noncontroversial and, because freedom of the press, etc, as limited by existing laws against libel, pornography, etc., was already taken for granted in America, “the freedom of the press incorporated libel (and pornography) law into the Constitution wholesale and untouched).
The Sullivan decision asserted that public officials including judges, BTW could not sue for libel. Close your eyes for a moment, and imagine a sitting Republican-nominated SCOTUS justice inventing that idea! Obviously the (unanimously very liberal) justices of Warren Court lived in a very different universe than that inhabited by the six sitting Republican-nominated SCOTUS justices.