What we have is a 1½ party system.One party is on the side of Establishment Journalism, never gets libeled, and is entitled not only to its own opinions but to its own facts. The other party gets libeled continuously, and thinks it has no legal recourse because - according to the Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision - the First Amendment requires that government officials not sue for libel. The Sullivan decision was unanimous, with enthusiastic concurrences - but it’s just as wrong as the Rehnquist Court’s Morrison v. Olson decision, with only then-freshman Justice Scalia vehemently - and in historical retrospect correctly - dissenting.
The Sullivan decision neglected the fact that the First Amendment did not, was not intended to, change anything. The Bill of Rights was intended precisely to prevent change in our rights as they then were understood. When 1A speaks of “the freedom . . . of the press,” it refers to the (limited) freedom which existed before the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Laws agains libel and pornography were not touched by 1A, and were not intended to be. Thus, when the Ninth Amendment says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,” it is clear that the right not to be libeled without recourse falls in that category.
In 1964 “the media” was in full flower. It was less controversial then than now, not because it was less influential but because it was more influential. It was able to cover its tracks better. The Sullivan decision does not truly “Let a hundred flowers bloom.” Instead it nips flowers in the bud if they are expressed by a Republican politician.
The press has lost their 'gatekeeper power'...