Replies

Without the media Bambi wouldn't have gotten 40% of the vote this time around.

If we don't take out the media, it won't matter how well crafted our image becomes, or how pure we become.

That is what I have been about since Carter Administration times. Not that I can claim any success but I have made intellectual progress, at least.
The first and fundamental point to make is that if you want to preserve the First Amendment, there is no point in going after fiction, whether books, TV, or movie. And in fact as far as nonfiction goes, they will stand or fall on their own merit, or lack thereof. Therefore, we should focus our attention on the topical nonfiction. To put it plainly, journalism.
If you can’t take on journalism head on, you are nowhere. If you can, then the whole problem of “the media” would be tractable.
The vulnerabilities of journalism are:

journalism needs the presumption of objectivity to attract an audience,

journalism needs the presumption of objectivity to retain broadcast licenses.

journalism needs the presumption of independence, so that when one news report quotes another news report, the effect is cumulative and the quoting newspaper can rely on the existence of the quoted report as good-faith reason to believe that the report is true.
The third vulnerability, independence, was subverted by the advent of the wire services, particularly the Associated Press. Adam Smith pointed out that
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. - Wealth of nations, Book I, Ch 10
Since the AP newswire constitutes a 24/7/365 virtual meeting of all the major news outlets, the presumption has to be that all major journalism outlets are in cahoots as regarding anything which touches the collective interests of journalists.
The interests of journalists are to attract audiences to advertisers and to promote the influence of journalists (since “making a difference” is the driving motivation of aspiring journalists). Rules of journalism such as “If it bleeds, it leads' and "'Man Bites Dog', not ‘Dog Bites Man’” have nothing to do with objectivity and everything to do with interesting an audience. In fact they promote sensationalism rather than serious analysis. Since journalists do not get “in the arena” and make tough decisions in a timely manner before all facts are known in order to provide the public with food, shelter, clothing, water, and security, but are eager to set themselves up as superior to those who do, journalists are eager to point out the errors and failings of the people who work to a bottom line. There are others besides journalists who do the same thing - union leaders, socialist politicians, college professors, even high school teachers.
It is no accident that those who promote the same interests as journalists do get positive labels from journalists: “moderate,” “progressive,” “liberal,” . . .
And of course those who defend interests which journalists attack get negative labels such as “right wing,” “conservative,” extreme,” . . .
Viewed from that perspective, journalism is not at all independent - individual news outlets subordinate their individuality to the Associated Press consensus, and journalism as a whole promotes the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party promotes the interests of journalism as a whole.
The Associated Press and its entire membership promote the idea that “journalists are objective” for the very good reason that the individual member of the AP need the credulity of the public for reports written by reporters whom the editor of the individual news outlet not only does not employ but does not even know. But there is a logical oxymoron entailed: you cannot become a reporter for an AP member news outlet without knowing that the AP will claim that you are objective, and that makes accepting employment by an AP news outlet tantamount to claiming objectivity for yourself. But it is impossible even to attempt to be objective without being open about the motives and incentives you have which might tend to influence your perspective. And you cannot admit nonobjective motives and simultaneously claim to be objective.
This shows that journalists, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, do not even attempt to be objective. They cannot. It is impossible. Even when they think they are giving “the other side of the story,” they do not do it because they cannot. Since they “know” that they are objective, they do not accept the legitimacy of any other side of the story and, such being the case, they cannot avoid setting up mere straw man versions of the (“conservative") arguments they have already rejected.

One would hope, given this ammunition, that it would be possible to counterattack in any place where facts and logic, as opposed to PR, might prevail. I have reference to the Supreme Court. At least as long as there is no conservative retirement there . . .