Replies

Tapper is no journalist. He’s a mouth piece for the DNC.

Journalism is about bad news, which means that journalists are always on the lookout for bad news - which means that journalists are systematically negative.
The wire services are continual virtual meetings of all major journalists. They inherently create a journalism cartel - per 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.” It’s an open-and-shut case.
The journalism cartel proclaims that “journalists are objective” - but we know that journalists are systematically negative. And we know that “negativity is objectivity” is the mantra of the cynic.
Journalism is cynical about society. But it would be incoherent to be cynical about anything and simultaneously cynical about its opposite. Accordingly journalism is naive about the opposite of society - namely, government.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel is inherently socialist-minded. Which makes it the enemy of any small-government politician or voter.
The reason the journalism cartel blithely libel small-government politicians is the unanimous 1964 SCOTUS New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which asserted
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
the novel doctrine that the First Amendment modified libel law. No court had ever suggested that before, and Antonin Scalia rejected it on the originalist ground that the First Amendment - indeed, the whole Bill of Rights - was created to assure that no rights were changed by the Constitution (“the” freedom of the press meant freedom of the press as it already existed and was understood. That is, freedom within understood limits of libel and pornography law).
Sullivan must be challenged by a prominent Republican. The Roberts Court, not the Warren Court, now sits. And might be even more favorable to liberty if Ginzberg isn’t on the court when the test arrives there.
The test case must also challenge the legality of the wire services, on grounds that their obvious cartel-forming tendency is no longer justifiable at all, since conservation of telegraphy bandwidth - their once-indispensable virtue - is a trivial benefit in the Internet Age.