Camille Paglia: Democrats are colluding with the media to create chaos

Camille Paglia is much more worried about the media than about the steady string of Trump-related scandals they claim to be uncovering.

In a Tuesday interview with the Washington Examiner, Paglia excoriated the press for its coverage of Trump's decision to fire FBI Director James Comey and his alleged sharing of classified information with Russian officials.

Fresh off a spirited panel with Christina Hoff Sommers hosted by the Independent Women's Forum, the iconic feminist dissident, who serves as a professor of media studies at the University of the Arts, accused journalists of colluding with the Democratic Party in an effort to damage the Trump administration.

"Democrats are doing this in collusion with the media obviously, because they just want to create chaos," she said when asked to comment on the aforementioned stories. "They want to completely obliterate any sense that the Trump administration is making any progress on anything."

Paglia's assessment of media bias in the Trump era leaves little room for optimism. "I am appalled at the behavior of the media," she declared. "It's the collapse of journalism."

"I'm looking forward to voting Democrat again," the acclaimed philosopher explained. "But the point is I feel that the media has so utterly lost its credibility that I think people are going to vote against the media again."

"But the point is I feel that the media has so utterly lost its credibility that I think people are going to vote against the media again."

Further corroboration of Rush's theory that the MSM is actually in power, that the Democrat Party is just an adjunct.

The First Amendment is contains a loophole, through which trans-national organizations can take control of the American government by buying up our media and using it to control the flow of information to the people.

Of course, that's not nearly as big a problem if the central government is not all-powerful.

“the steady string of Trump-related scandals they claim to be uncovering.”

They are not uncovering anything. They’re making it up. If they had uncovered anything over the last year plus they have been digging, and stalking, they would have been able to supply evidence to it and make an actual charge in the house or senate. They don’t have a single thing to provide. And when Obama left office, and they couldn’t use the CIA, FBI, or NSA to stalk, they had to hire Obama to use his connections to try to do the same. And again, they still don’t have anything for evidence. They lied.

rwood

"But the point is I feel that the media has so utterly lost its credibility that I think people are going to vote against the media again.”

Further corroboration of Rush's theory that the MSM is actually in power, that the Democrat Party is just an adjunct.

Journalism is negative, and journalists (“If it bleeds, it leads”) know it. Yet journalists will claim - or take for granted, and powerfully insinuate - that journalism is objective. Wake up call! I challenge you to come up with a better definition of “cynicism” than “the idea that negativity is objectivity.”
Journalism is cynical about society, and about the people and institutions which make society work. That is inherently so, simply because journalists know that bad news sells, and because journalists are powerfully motivated . . .
The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .
The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
. . . to claim objectivity.
Once establish journalism’s cynicism about society, you are left to consider the political implication, which is painfully clear: if society is “no good,” government needs to make society better. Thus, “objective” journalism is “liberalism.” Liberal politicians exist in symbiosis with “objective” journalists, and it is IMHO a moot point which leads which. As Rush points out, Lois Lerner didn’t need marching orders from Obama to obstruct the Tea Party - she was put in that position because she would do it when given the chance.

1A intends that we-the-people be able to access to the opinions of anyone who arranges to share them with us. 1A says “the freedom . . . of the press - but it does not intend that “the press” should be under unified control. The Associated Press is a mechanism which achieves precisely that. The AP violates the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and should be sued into oblivion. The nominal raison d’être of the AP (and any other wire service) is to conserve scarce, expensive bandwidth while disseminating the news nationwide. But FR alone might be using as much bandwidth as the AP did in 1945, when SCOTUS found against the AP on Sherman grounds.
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 is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

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.