The Supreme Court’s Increasingly Dim View of the News Media

[TheGreenHornet]

The media must be reformed......a free nation must have a free press not a propagandistic arm of the democratic party posing as legitimate media.

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling (Published 2019)

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Thomas wrote, was not rooted in the text and history of the Constitution.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Concerned American]

The media must be reformed......a free nation must have a free press not a propagandistic arm of the democratic party posing as legitimate media.

DNyuz - Latest Breaking U.S. News

Latest Breaking News, U.S. and World Politics, Crime, Business, Science, Technology, Autos, Entertainment, Culture, Movie, Music, Sports.

dnyuz.com

Justice Clarence Thomas Calls for Reconsideration of Landmark Libel Ruling (Published 2019)

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, Justice Thomas wrote, was not rooted in the text and history of the Constitution.

www.nytimes.com

People need to start filing law suits against all of these lying, slanderous, libeling msm and their commentators. Civil suits would be nice to see as well--these lying bastards only understand $$.

 

[Coyote]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

 

[Gdjjr]

They best be carfeful what they wish for

Some press ain't skeered
The Government Seized This Innocent Man's Car Without Due Process. SCOTUS Won't Hear the Case.

Serrano was given several options immediately following the seizure, from doing nothing to paying the vehicle's full market value to get it back. Noticeably absent from the list: a hearing. Given what happened today, that unfortunately won't change anytime soon.


But wait! There's more!

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” — Ayn Rand

Rule by brute force.

Rule by Fiat: When the Government Does Whatever It Wants

Where's the juatice?

"When the agents seized my truck, I couldn't believe it was happening to me," said Serrano in a statement. "And now I'm back in the Twilight Zone, thinking this can't be real. How can the courts just ignore this? And how can an ordinary person afford to wait years after the government takes...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[22lcidw]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok?

The FCC I believe at one time was a lot more controlling on what we see on TV. News Cannels must be mandated to show NEWS with no bias. And that is just a start. The first amendment is also based on responsible reporting. The founding fathers did not expect the propaganda that is fed to the general population. Many of the programs also are jaded and cynical and take venom towards good traditions and religion.

 

[Concerned American]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

The courts--the ones that have always made these decisions. Media used to be held to some semblance of the truth, but what has come out of the MSM in the last 20 years has been nothing short of fiction.

 

[Coyote]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

The courts--the ones that have always made these decisions. Media used to be held to some semblance of the truth, but what has come out of the MSM in the last 20 years has been nothing short of fiction.

We have laws on libel, slander and such, which have a high bar especially for public figures (and it should). They can and do get sued. And it's not just "MSM" - you have a big blind spot for your own side. We also have a ton of media choices. If you want "reform" - well, go choose another outlet. The readership and market is where any "reform" would come out of.

Journalistic freedom is under more assault around the world these days than at any other time in modern history.

 

[Coyote]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok?

The FCC I believe at one time was a lot more controlling on what we see on TV. News Cannels must be mandated to show NEWS with no bias. And that is just a start. The first amendment is also based on responsible reporting. The founding fathers did not expect the propaganda that is fed to the general population. Many of the programs also are jaded and cynical and take venom towards good traditions and religion.

I think that was the Fairness Doctrine right? But that was also at a time when there was a very limited media presence on the airwaves and little competition.

 

[Concerned American]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

The courts--the ones that have always made these decisions. Media used to be held to some semblance of the truth, but what has come out of the MSM in the last 20 years has been nothing short of fiction.

We have laws on libel, slander and such, which have a high bar especially for public figures (and it should). They can and do get sued. And it's not just "MSM" - you have a big blind spot for your own side. We also have a ton of media choices. If you want "reform" - well, go choose another outlet. The readership and market is where any "reform" would come out of.

Journalistic freedom is under more assault around the world these days than at any other time in modern history.

What you call journalistic freedom is "print whatever bs you want." Do you have a degree in journalism? No, didn't think so. And, to short circuit your next question--Yes, I do. ASU, 1968, Defense Information School, Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN, 1969. What passes for journalism today would be thrown out the back door of ANY reputable news outlet fifty years ago.

 

[Coyote]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

The courts--the ones that have always made these decisions. Media used to be held to some semblance of the truth, but what has come out of the MSM in the last 20 years has been nothing short of fiction.

We have laws on libel, slander and such, which have a high bar especially for public figures (and it should). They can and do get sued. And it's not just "MSM" - you have a big blind spot for your own side. We also have a ton of media choices. If you want "reform" - well, go choose another outlet. The readership and market is where any "reform" would come out of.

Journalistic freedom is under more assault around the world these days than at any other time in modern history.

What you call journalistic freedom is "print whatever bs you want." Do you have a degree in journalism? No, didn't think so. And, to short circuit your next question--Yes, I do. ASU, 1968, Defense Information School, Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN, 1969. What passes for journalism today would be thrown out the back door of ANY reputable news outlet fifty years ago.

Wrong.

What I call journalistic freedom is freedom from political interference (ie the government). We have laws now that cover egregious abuses. How far do you want them to go?

What makes it problematic now is anyone can call themselves a journalist, and print anything without responsibility via the internet, blogosphere, and a host of non-traditional outlets. There is no code of conduct beyond individual ethics. Should there be a crackdown? If so, then what exactly? Who enforces it?

Traditional media outlets can be and are sued. Look at what happened over Seth Rich and Nick Sandmann. But you can't sue them just because you don't like their point of view or because they only report on the nasty stuff you do.

I don't need a journalism degree to know something about journalism, nor frankly, does anyone else here. Yellow journalism is not new.


Edited to add:

Regarding your comment -
What passes for journalism today would be thrown out the back door of ANY reputable news outlet fifty years ago.

I totally agree. There has been a monumental slide since the days of Walter Conkrite. A constant blurring of news and opinion, reckless fact checking, and sloppiness spurred on by what is now the 24-hour news cycle.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

When you hear something like "the media must be reformed" it ought to be sending chills down your spine.

Who reforms it? Who decides what is ok and what is not ok? Your version of The State?

The courts--the ones that have always made these decisions. Media used to be held to some semblance of the truth, but what has come out of the MSM in the last 20 years has been nothing short of fiction.

We have laws on libel, slander and such, which have a high bar especially for public figures (and it should). They can and do get sued. And it's not just "MSM" - you have a big blind spot for your own side. We also have a ton of media choices. If you want "reform" - well, go choose another outlet. The readership and market is where any "reform" would come out of.

Journalistic freedom is under more assault around the world these days than at any other time in modern history.

What you call journalistic freedom is "print whatever bs you want." Do you have a degree in journalism? No, didn't think so. And, to short circuit your next question--Yes, I do. ASU, 1968, Defense Information School, Ft. Benjamin Harrison, IN, 1969. What passes for journalism today would be thrown out the back door of ANY reputable news outlet fifty years ago.

Wrong.

What I call journalistic freedom is freedom from political interference (ie the government). We have laws now that cover egregious abuses. How far do you want them to go?

What makes it problematic now is anyone can call themselves a journalist, and print anything without responsibility via the internet, blogosphere, and a host of non-traditional outlets. There is no code of conduct beyond individual ethics. Should there be a crackdown? If so, then what exactly? Who enforces it?

Traditional media outlets can be and are sued. Look at what happened over Seth Rich and Nick Sandmann. But you can't sue them just because you don't like their point of view or because they only report on the nasty stuff you do.

I don't need a journalism degree to know something about journalism, nor frankly, does anyone else here. Yellow journalism is not new.


Edited to add:

Regarding your comment -
What passes for journalism today would be thrown out the back door of ANY reputable news outlet fifty years ago.

I totally agree. There has been a monumental slide since the days of Walter Conkrite. A constant blurring of news and opinion, reckless fact checking, and sloppiness spurred on by what is now the 24-hour news cycle.

You cannot see the forrest for the trees.....any objective observer with just average intelligence has no problem seeing how propagandistif and biasd the MSM is.

Amazon productAmazon productAmazon productFormer CBS Head Admits: Yes, Mainstream Media Is Biased - The New American



This form seems to have a probem with posting links.....tried 3 times to get it to post a link...you see the remnants

 

[my2¢]

Defendents of Dominion Voting Systems defamation lawsuits have abandoned their opportunity to defend their claims and instead are hanging their hats on ability to lie and spread falsehoods freely without suffering any consequences. If the court wishes to clean up the media these defamation lawsuits (especially the one against Fox News) offer great opportunity for a lid to be put on all media by placing a risk of having to pay up if they can not back up the lies they're reporting.