Leftist Rage at David Brooks for Defending Covington Catholic Students

The comments on the NYT article are very telling. Almost every comment derides the apologetics of the author and continues to cast blame on the boy’s “smirk” and the lyrics of the school chant in order to continue to pursue the ‘bad catholic boys’ narrative. Doubling down, as it were.

I gather being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry. Reminds me of a line of dialog between Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal in the movie adaptation of “Love Story”. I thought the line was clueless then and still do now . . .

______________________________________________________

Despite this moment of sanity, Brooks is still every it the milquetoast, degenerate, neo-con, globalist he’s always been. Let’s not give him too much credit.

In the past 3 weeks we have seen:
White Man Shoots little Black Girl in Texas - FAKE
Buzzfeed says Trump instructing Cohen to lie - FAKE
Maga Teens harass poor innocent Indian Chief - FAKE
So anyone still think this isn’t a war?

A propaganda war, yes. The way it must be stopped is to bring a case to SCOTUS which enables it to stop it by mooting (not overturning, but mooting) New York Times v. Sullivan. That is the famous 1964 ruling which is used to dissuade politicians from suing for libel. It was a unanimous decision, so it isn’t gonna be overturned - but I do think that it should be mooted, in the sense that the Sullivan case is not representative of the modern, post-Vietnam media world.
The facts in the Sullivan case were that the Times published an advertisement which a politician didn’t like, and he sued the Times for libel. First of all, he was not even explicitly named in the ad. But of primary significance, IMHO, he was not a Republican or (by modern standards at least) a Democrat. He was a Southern Democrat - a breed which was in bad odor nationally then (and even more so now).
This set up a perfect storm for the Warren Court, which was able to dismiss an action by someone wearing a black hat and wax rhapsodic about the First Amendment and how the press had to be independent and be able to criticize politicians. And even judges. The judgement was unanimous, with three Justices filing two concurrences wishing to go even further.
But that was in the heyday of “the most trusted man in the world” - the (privately but in retirement unambiguously) “liberal” Walter Cronkite. Other than plaint by Barry Goldwater after the presidential election, in 1964 Republicans respected (it pains me now even to type it) the objectivity of journalism. It has been a long time since journalism has enjoyed as much confidence as it did in 1964. Now we know perfectly well that a rule making it difficult for a politician to sue for libel is precisely as evenhanded between Democrats and Republicans as a law against sleeping under bridges is evenhanded between rich people and homeless ones.
The fact which was not brought before the Court in 1964 is that journalism is a monopoly. “People of the same trade,” Adam Smith wrote, “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.” And via the AP “wire” (and other wire services) journalists “meet together,” virtually, on a continuous basis. An assumption that journalists do not conspire against the public is naive.
In fact, the conspiracy operates in plain view - it is the claim of “journalistic objectivity.” If it were not for the history of the Philosophers of ancient Greece - and the resulting fact that “sophistry” is a word - journalists would be claiming superior wisdom. As it is, they make a claim of superior objectivity as a euphemism for a claim of superior wisdom. The journalism monopoly perpetrates a propaganda campaign in favor of the belief in their own objectivity, and against the journalist credentials of anyone who disputes the objectivity of their own (i.e., those who go along and get along).
The wire services are an anachronism, in the sense that they were created to conserve expensive telegraphy bandwidth - and bandwidth is now dirt cheap. They are standing conspiracies against the public, and should be sued into oblivion under antiTrust law. And the members of the AP, which have an ingrained habit of collusion to go along and get along, must be forced to defend against libel suits without using each other as references as to what they relied on when they published their libels.

You’re a sweet and smart Lady.

Thanks!