Posted on 09/18/2020 8:22:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rush Limbaugh is tired of a term he used for several years: the Drive-By Media. He wonders what our feckless, reckless media should be called now.
The question is not easy. The media have become bizarrely the opposite of what they were. What label would capture the curious absence of truth, vitality, and intellectual excitement? The goal now is to control news, not to find news. Today's journalists have much in common with meter maids and elderly bureaucrats. Fatigue and desuetude hang in the air.
The Moribund Media — that's perfectly accurate but perhaps not enough.
Where can we look for inspiration? How about an immense cemetery with tombstones row on row as at Flanders Fields?
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
in Flanders fields
Or perhaps we should contemplate a deserted city, with nothing left but buildings constructed long ago, now empty and collapsing.
Years ago, the American West was dotted with abandoned towns. Everything had been left to rot and steadily fall to dust. Snakes slithered through once boisterous saloons.
These places were called ghost towns. On the one hand, they were ghosts of their former selves. Equally, the name announces that nobody lives there now but the unhappy dead. Once hell-bent gunfighters or unhappy prostitutes, now they puzzle over where they went wrong. Ghosts are commonly said to be stubborn and immature. If they want to hang around placing invisible bets in invisible games of poker, they will do it. If they want to report what isn't there, they will do it.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Deep State Media
...this is really not that hard people.
Pravda
I’ve been using the term “fakestream media” for awhile now.
Conservative Billionaires who we need to entice to buy NBC/Comcast and other public companies.
Minitrue.
I think of our ‘media’ as a counter-culture in the US... independent, out of touch and unaccountable!
They are detached and removed from the system that in fact subsidizes them. They exist wholly protected by the same rights they want to destroy in taxpaying citizens.
Our enemies’ fifth column right here!
Yellow media; yellow journalism.
Fake media, fake journalism
Propaganda
Liberal elite thugs pay the salaries in exchange for those 'reporters' (bought and paid for propagandists) writing 'awareness' stories about 'systemic racism', global warming, criminal "justice" etc....
If you though the press was whoring for democrats, you ain't seen nothing.
I use Drive-by media also, and some other terms.
Burning pants media
The modern so-called mainstream media is neither “drive by” nor “ghost.” About 90% of them are rabid adherents to one flavor or another of Marxism. This is nothing new. After he retired, Walter Cronkite admitted on the Larry King show that he was a Communist. The only difference is that today’s media denizens make no pretense of being other than far left mouthpieces and “opinion leaders.”
I would call them sell-outs. Because they sold their souls and now just repeat press releases like good little PR people, instead of “comforting the afficted and afflicting the comfortable.”
If I weren’t a lady I would spit at this point, so disgusted with the amateurs we see and read day and night.
Gaslight Media.
Pravda always worked for the Commies. Literally and figuratively.
“the drive-by media” expresses the fact that journalism continuously changes the subject in a way which prevents the facts from catching up with them.But “the media” is, IMHO a terrible misnomer because it is journalism (the "drive-by" aspect) which is objectionable, and the defining characteristic of the phenomenon. Radio, TV, Movies, print - all are media irrespective of whether they are or are not used for journalism/leftist propaganda. So “the media” just doesn’t cut it.
But the key point is that journalism is interesting/important in a crisis - and that society prospers best in the absence of crisis. And government is the mechanism for preventing/ameliorating crisis. This means that journalists and power-hungry politicians are inherently simpatico. Journalism inherently promotes the conceit that there is a crisis under way, and that (therefore) more government is needed.
“Socialism” is the term for such a tendency. But “Socialism” is better understood not in reference to society but to government. My conclusion is that anyone - be they Democrat or journalist - who promotes big government is a governmentist.
Once upon a time, fear of libel suits constrained journalists to respect the truth.Did you ever wonder why pornography laws survived the ratification of the First Amendment? It’s actually quite simple. The Federalists never wanted to bring up the subject of rights, but were forced by the Antifederalists to promise a bill of rights by amendment in order to obtain ratification of the Constitution.
Understand, the Constitution and its federal system was a huge novelty in 1788; the difference between it and the Articles of Confederation which preceded it was dramatic. In that context the Federalists were therefore desperate to suppress controversy, not to risk provoking it. They had all the controversy on their hands that they needed, and then some.
But how to create a noncontroversial bill of rights? Rights were - indeed, still are - a matter of Common Law, and Common Law is a bunch of court decisions/precedents. Common Law was nowhere codified comprehensively anywhere. No matter what rights they listed, they stood in mortal danger of controversy. So they did two things:
Under the Ninth Amendment it is not sufficient to assert that the First Amendment, say, does not mention a right. The First Amendment - or the first eight all togather - do not claim to be all of the rights which are enforceable in court. The First Amendment refers to “the” freedom of speech and press to specifically refer to the freedom of expression which was already in place before the Constitution was adopted.
- They “enumerated” certain rights - not all, just the ones most prone to abuse by tyrants historically - in the first eight amendments. And,
- they added a catchall amendment:
- Amendment 9
- The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
But note well the Ninth Commandment:
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. Exod 20: 16The Federalists were not about to try to make slander and libel legal; none of them would have admitted it and libel and slander were already illegal. And now you know why no court, from the foundation of the Republic to the 1964 announcement of the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, had ever suggested that the First Amendment had any implication at all for libel law.We all love us some First Amendment freedom of expression - but
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”is malarky. In the Sullivan decision the Warren Court was unanimous - unanimously wrong.And the Democrat Party and the journalists have exploited Sullivan to the hilt. They lie without shame.
“DEEP STATE MEDIA”
DING DING DING DING....WE HAVE A WINNER!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.