Posted on 03/23/2020 10:40:19 AM PDT by Hojczyk
And for the ChiComs.
Sounds like Tapper needs to go back to kindergarten, because he hasn’t learned “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
As I have said many times: “never let the truth get in the way of the agenda.” Here is a classic example. Fake Jake is a pathetic fool who calls himself a journalist. Big money rots the mind, right Fake Jake?
My mistake. Stephanopolous “corrected” OBeelzebub’s truths.
“If Tapper can be honest about anything, there’s hope for him.”
He is probably lying here/there or omitting something.
Common Sense Licensing and Regulations on “Professional Speech” for compensation or gain would solve our Fake News Media problem
Why is an honest man working for the Propaganda Machine?
No, he’s not; an ass is a four legged animal that eats grass.
Jake Tapper is a two legged animal that takes it up the ass.
Time for the Lincoln Gambit.
Perhaps both?
Journalism is about bad news, which means that journalists are always on the lookout for bad news - which means that journalists are systematically negative.The wire services are continual virtual meetings of all major journalists. They inherently create a journalism cartel - per Adam Smith, “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’s an open-and-shut case.
The journalism cartel proclaims that “journalists are objective” - but we know that journalists are systematically negative. And we know that “negativity is objectivity” is the mantra of the cynic.
Journalism is cynical about society. But it would be incoherent to be cynical about anything and simultaneously cynical about its opposite. Accordingly journalism is naive about the opposite of society - namely, government.
The upshot is that the journalism cartel is inherently socialist-minded. Which makes it the enemy of any small-government politician or voter.
The reason the journalism cartel blithely libel small-government politicians is the unanimous 1964 SCOTUS New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision, which asserted
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”the novel doctrine that the First Amendment modified libel law. No court had ever suggested that before, and Antonin Scalia rejected it on the originalist ground that the First Amendment - indeed, the whole Bill of Rights - was created to assure that no rights were changed by the Constitution (“the” freedom of the press meant freedom of the press as it already existed and was understood. That is, freedom within understood limits of libel and pornography law).Sullivan must be challenged by a prominent Republican. The Roberts Court, not the Warren Court, now sits. And might be even more favorable to liberty if Ginzberg isn’t on the court when the test arrives there.
The test case must also challenge the legality of the wire services, on grounds that their obvious cartel-forming tendency is no longer justifiable at all, since conservation of telegraphy bandwidth - their once-indispensable virtue - is a trivial benefit in the Internet Age.
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.