Democrats, The Media, Big Tech, And The Big Lie

I first read about Judge Laurence Silberman's ruling in an Epoch Times story.

Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along,” he added.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman concluded. “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”

It made me think about the first time I remember realizing how collective the voice of the major news outlets truly are. It was when John Kerry used the term hubris. The word is not that widely used, but once Kerry said it in relation to the Bush Whitehouse, it was parroted for months by the media.

Rush Limbaugh had a 3+ minute montage of different media outlets using the term hubris. They weren’t quoting Kerry either, they were applying it to the Bush administration at every turn. I don’t think it was just because they liked the sound of the word. It’s because they wanted “hubris” to become synonymous with the Bush Whitehouse. Hubris became a household word in 2004 when Kerry used it in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations.

He vowed that if elected he would go directly to the United Nations in the first 100 days of his administration to "make it clear that when the secretary of state speaks, he or she speaks for America -- not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger."

It was obvious to me at that point that there was no coincidence in the use of the word. This phrasing was coming from pretty much every major news outlet. Different shows, different hosts, all using the exact same phrasing when describing the Bush Whitehouse.

Far from parroting the same lines. Some news outlets even go after each other. They attempt to discredit news outlets that they disagree with. Project Veritas an undercover news outlet exposing many large companies and left leaning organizations sued The New York Times. The suit was based on a story in which the NYT reporters made up sources, and tried to make it appear as if the reporting from Project Veritas was false, or misleading. The NYT moved to have the case dismissed, but the judge disagreed and is allowing the suit to go forward.

In the ruling, where the NYT motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied, the judge said that the writers used “reckless disregard” and “acted with actual malice” by denigrating Project Veritas without supporting their claims with actual evidence.

Last year, NYT writers Tiffany Hsu and Maggie Astor made unverifiable claims that a video by Project Veritas about election irregularities in Minnesota was deceptive in five articles. The non-profit journalism group’s lawsuit claims the articles contained falsehoods and defamation.

“Mr. O’Keefe and Project Veritas have a long history of releasing manipulated or selectively edited footage purporting to show illegal conduct by Democrats and liberal groups, ” wrote Astor, in one of her articles.

In one of Hsu’s articles, she claimed that the organization “magnified the reach of the deceptive video released last month by Project Veritas, a group run by conservative activist James O’Keefe.”

“The video claimed without named sources or verifiable evidence that the campaign for Representative Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, was collecting ballots illegally,” Hsu added.

Of course this is not true. Project Veritas goes to great lengths to make sure that they verify the people in the videos. In fact the majority of their footage is taken by whistleblowers from within these organizations. The NYT didn't just attack Project Veritas, they also went after the credibility of the whistleblowers.

Think about all of the stories about Trump that use "unnamed sources" from wherever. There's a reason for that, it's called making things up. The sources are too often unnamed. Most readers assume that the publisher, often some of the largest in the world, would verify their sources. In many cases there isn't a source, they are simply making it up to shape public opinion, take this Washington Post article for example.

President Trump urged Georgia’s lead elections investigator to “find the fraud” in a lengthy December phone call, saying the official would be a “national hero,” according to an individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.

Of course that's not what was said on the call.

The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump’s Dec. 23 call in January, describing him saying that Watson should “find the fraud” and that she would be a “national hero,” based on an account from Jordan Fuchs, the deputy secretary of state, whom Watson briefed on his comments.

In fact, he did not use those precise words.

Rather, Trump urged the investigator to scrutinize Fulton County, where she would find “dishonesty,” he said.

He also said, “whatever you can do, Frances, it would be — it’s a great thing. It’s an important thing for the country. So important. You’ve no idea. So important. And I very much appreciate it.”

When The Post first reported on the call, state officials said they did not believe that a recording existed. Officials located the recording on a trash folder on Watson’s device while responding to a public records request, according to a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal process.

The Washington Post ran with the story knowing it was false. They did this because they didn't think they would be caught, they didn't know that the call was recorded. I can think of another time this happened. Remember the first impeachment attempt? The phone call with the Ukrainian president. Trump called their bluff and declassified the call, then released the transcript.

Then you have the Big Tech aspect of the media. They do more to suppress news they disagree with. This happens any number of ways. Either by banning President Trump from Twitter, or simply stopping people from sharing links to news sources, like what happened to The New York Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop.

The judge [Silberman] also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.

Funny how it's always a mistake with Facebook and Twitter when they ban someone. It's not a mistake, until they are called out. But they have very complex systems including AI and who knows what other moving parts. They can always blame the bans on the AI, this provides them with plausible deniability. Twitter and Facebook like to give the impression that they are unware of what goes on within their own platform. This becomes less likely when the "mistakes" keep happening to conservative voices. How many Democrat lawmakers have had their accounts mistakenly banned?

Judge Silberman's ruling does give me some hope though, that there are at least some people within the system that know there is something wrong, and are willing to do something about it!

For too long now the media have worked together, in total lock step, on almost every political issue, always pushing further and further left. The media today are little more than propaganda outlets for the left. The real "Big Lie" is that the media are objective and are providing their readers with accurate news.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.