Replies

You think the politically undecided will be confused and vote for Hillary Clinton thinking she's a conservative?

Many people think that they understand politics as well as anyone else, without actually knowing what conservatives think--or even that conservatives do think.
Consider the fact that journalists routinely label Republican presidential candidates "dumb" and Democratic ones "smart." Do they do it because
a) It's true.
b) it's false.
c) they are Democrats and they are preaching to the choir, or
d) they are Democrats and they are hoping to gull the naive into believing it.
They did it with Reagan, and it turns out that the man was a genius--as indicated not only by the fact that he has the largest body of writing in his own hand of just about any president, but by the fact that he got the country going again, whipped inflation, ended the energy crisis, and transcended Communism.
And they did it with GWB, notwithstanding that he has a Harvard MBA and his opponent had only a BA degree.
As a libertarian you will understand that the First Amendment gives you the right to be wrong at the top of your voice without legal consequence; as an FR poster/lurker you can scarcely be ignorant of the consistent anticonservative tendency of journalism. That tendency inheres in so-called "objective" journalism as a genre of nonfiction and--so far as journalism is co-extensive with "the press"--is immune from government intervention if not from public criticism.
As a libertarian you will however understand that the prosecution of violations of the regulations of the FCC constitutes pure-and-simple unconstitutional censorship. The implication of which is that the FCC is in the business of determining what so-called "speech" is "in the public interest"--and the simple fact is that the FCC allows patent--and politically significant--falsehood to be broadcast by its licensees without consequence. The misleading "Gore Wins Florida" message contrasts with the spirit of secret-ballot restrictions on undue influence on voters in areas where the polls were still open. That spirit would indeed suggest that there should be no reporting of election results from unofficial sources, so that we-the-people, nationwide, would vote for the electors of our states without undue influence of the opinions, right or wrong, as to what decisions the voters of Eastern Time Zone states may (or may not) have made.
But FCC licensees, apparently for excellent cause, evince no concern that the FCC might sanction them for such blatant efforts to influence the voters on election day. Instead of playing only neutral classical music when the people are expressing their sovereignty on election day--as the media of the USSR did when the dictator had died and a new dictator was not yet in charge--FCC licensees declare states for the Democratic candidate in unseemly haste, and declare states for the Republican candidate in stately dignity, reluctantly. And while doing so they explicitly claim that the difference between the relative speed of their announcements for the two candidates reflects the relative strength of those candidates. That would be questionable on secret-ballot undue-influence grounds even if the perpetrators did not depend on government licenses for the capability to broadcast those claims. In short,
Broadcast Journalism is Unnecessary and Illegitimate