Replies

Yes, we've always had partisan papers. But the difference today is that instead of declaring their partisanship openly, papers -- and media in general -- operate under the rubric of being "objective." That's the Big Lie. As a consumer of news I like to hear both sides of issues in a forthright way, not cloaked in phony neutrality.

IMHO, the rubric of being "objective” - the Big Lie - is explained by Adam Smith:
" 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.”
"People of the same trade” of journalism “meet together,” virtually, via the wire services. They have been doing so on a continuous basis since before the Civil War.
The claim of journalistic objectivity is logically impossible, and cynical. The claim that “journalists are objective” is a claim that journalist don’t even have to try to be objective. False - What is true is that journalists go along and get along with each other - and call that “objectivity.” And others go along and get along with the journalism cartel just like journalists do, but they are not called “objective.” They are called “liberal,” of “progressive” or “centrist” or “moderate.”
Since “liberals” go along perfectly with the journalism cartel, ”liberals” never get libeled - whereas conservatives routinely do. Thus the Warren Court’s 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision - which made it impractical for politicians to sue for libel - affects Democrats and Republicans alike, in precisely the same sense that a law against sleeping under bridges affects the rich and the homeless alike.
Since Sullivan practically eliminates libel suits by politicians, it gives journalists delusions of grandeur of being “the Fourth Estate” - of having rights not applicable to the people at large. That is no wise a constitutional conceit; the only difference between a journalist and any other person its that others do not have presses yet. But they are fully entitled to buy one within their means whenever they wanna.
In Sullivan, SCOTUS claimed that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
. . . which sounds great until Antonin Scalia sinks his teeth into it. In reality, the Bill of Rights was subtly crafted not to change the right to sue for libel, or any other right. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was precisely to assure that the rights of the people, as then understood, would not be changed. And thus it was understood, until the Warren court subverted it in Sullivan.
It is the fact that Republicans cannot prove objective facts in court via a libel suit which is the engine of political correctness. That is, it establishes that “liberals” have a right not only to their own opinions but to their own facts. Sullivan must be challenged and overturned.

Antagonism toward Sullivan is misplaced. Prior to the decision, threats of or the filing of a libel suit were often used to punish or intimidate and silence critics and opponents. Indeed, the Sullivan case was of such a type, with the NY Times being sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police chief and losing in a local court in Alabama for running an ad critical of the police department.

Granted, the ad, which was by supporters of Martin Luther King, contained factual errors, but surely the often brutal conduct of the Montgomery police department was a topic of legitimate political discussion and controversy. Requiring lock cinch factual accuracy of anyone commenting on public issues would shut down all but the most determined and cash-flush critics.