The same NY Times that completely ignored the death camps until 1944 are NOW plying propaganda for the Chinese government against the United States.
One of the things the report said, "The media needed to take more responsibility for its actions". I don't know how much responsibility the media will ever take these days, but we the people must (somehow) erase the media as it exists today.
As is, most of the media is working against our President AND our country.
The media today gives us a pretty picture of China.
In reality, China (may have) allowed the new coronavirus to spread across the world by allowing international flights to and from Hubei province, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, while taking stronger measures to ensure the virus didn’t spread within China.
Under the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan Ruling by the Warren Court, the press is (politically speaking) all freedom and no responsibility. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan asserted that". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”But - surprising, but obviously true - the conceit that the First Amendment affected libel law at all was an entirely novel ruling in 1964.So you knew all along that exercising rights entailed responsibilities, and neither 1A nor 2A change the fact that that is as true with a printing press as it is with a gun.
- The ratification of the Constitution was a close-run thing. It only was achieved by the Federalists after they answered the criticism of the Antifederalists that the Constitution lacked a bill of rights with a pledge to promptly insert one by amendment.
- American rights, following English custom, were a matter of common law. That is, it was organic and, as such, no comprehensive listing of them existed then (or, FTM, now). Thus, assaying to compose such was a fool’s errand. But the Federalists solved the dilemma with
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That is a catchall which, by itself, would have included all the rights alluded to in the first eight amendments.
- So what are the rights enumerated in first eight amendments actually? They are the rights which tyrants had historically denied. Thus, politically,the rights of most concern.
- But - most obviously in the First and Second Amendments - the enumerated rights are not all precisely defined within the BoR. What is “the” freedom of the press? What is “the” right to keep and bear arms?
- The RKBA not only means the right to have a gun, it means the right to have ammunition and, safely, to practice. But no one has suggested that the RKBA entails the right to shoot out the windows of your least favorite politician - let alone make an attempt on the lives of Steve Scalise and his baseball teammates. Writing for SCOTUS, Scalia did a lot of homework to produce the Heller decision. What did he research? “The” RKBA as it existed in 1788.
- Likewise, “the” freedom of the press does not entail the unrestricted right to print porn. Who seriously thinks that 1A would not have been controversial - would have been at all certain of ratification - if it had been seen to have that effect? And the arbitrary destruction of peoples’ reputations - libel - was illegal in 1788 and remained so after the ratification of 1A. The meaning of “the” in both 1A and 2A obviously entails historical context.
And you know that ". . . libel . . . must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment” - and the entire Sullivan decision as precedent against libel suits by (Republican, since Democrats don’t get libeled) officials - is balderdash.
This was all part of propping up the myth of journalistic ethics, a scam to get the people to trust the press, which in turn would be controlled by the powerful in order to mold the mind of a more and more gullible public.
The Hutchins Commission was as much of a scam as the press is.