A nice idea and while we don’t believe the Founders were naive, it’s possible they never could have envisioned a press that mostly disregards their privilege as government watchdogs and would become blatant cheerleaders for one political party over another. The bias is obvious to the point of extreme journalist malpractice. The public is either given one side or not given relevant information at all, to the detriment of everything from civil discord to affecting election outcomes.

A bias, moreover, can be the foundation for investigative journalism. It may prompt the news organization to right a wrong and take up an unpopular cause. Thus, the job of journalists is not to stamp out bias. Rather, the journalist should learn how to manage it. And to do that, the journalist needs to become conscious of the biases at play in a given story and decide when they are appropriate and may be useful, and when they are inappropriate.
— American Press Institute

As a new reporter at the Guam Tribute in 1989, I was told by the newspaper’s editor, “It’s the job of the media to report the news; not incite it.” It’s NOT the job of the media to right wrongs or take up any cause. There should be NO biases, useful or inappropriate. It’s that kind of manipulative thinking that leads to bias-by-omission where, in one example, the medias (legacy and social) intentionally withheld pertinent information we later found swung an election.

A belated “My bad” doesn’t cut it, especially when these same people would be screaming bloody murder if it had happened to them.

The media’s First Amendment protection must be revisited as they have proven themselves undeserving. There are too many recent examples of false reporting and plagiarism that makes them unworthy of any kind of Constitutional privilege and protection. When they lie and are proven to have done so, especially when it damages individuals or groups, the aggrieved should be able to be sue until the offender offers genuine contrition; verbal and monetary. The fact they believe they alone can dictate what is fact and what is not, just because they say so, is obviously not what the Founders intended. “Misinformation” is the latest excuse they use to steer the public towards narratives the press and their preferred politicians desire.

So, let’s go there; declare the Constitution a “living document” and when the press is targeted, bites them in the ass, and costs them jobs, remind them we gave them what they wanted.

In simpler words, Joe Biden won the election, there was no cheating, the “media” said so; shut the fuck up… or else.

Dominion Voting Systems is even going as far as issuing million dollar lawsuits against anyone who dare imply their machines did anything to alter the solemn votes of Americans in favor of one candidate over another.

Lawyers for Dominion Voting Systems have asked Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Parler to preserve posts about the company, even if the material was already removed for spreading misinformation.

The posts need to be kept “because they are relevant to Dominion’s defamation claims relating to false accusations that Dominion rigged the 2020 election,” according to the demand letters from Dominion’s law firm Clare Locke. Dominion sued Rudolph W. Giuliani and Sidney Powell for more than $1.3 billion each in January, alleging that the lawyers defamed Dominion by saying the machines were used to steal the election from President Donald Trump.

Dominion warned in its letters to the social media companies that more lawsuits would be coming.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube all have policies against spreading election-related misinformation. They have been removing — with varying degrees of success — posts falsely suggesting the election had been rigged since the baseless rumors began spreading in November. Parler was effectively knocked offline in January when Amazon, Apple and Google stopped providing it technical services for violating their policies against online posts that incite violence.
— Washington Post, 2/4/21

If ANY mention of voting machine “irregularities” can and will be met with a lawsuit, why are voting machines being blamed for an election loss?

Respondent the Oswego County Board of Elections (“Oswego County”) encountered “voting machine issues in Constantia Districts 1 and 3 and Williamstown,” which required all ballots cast to be “hand counted and added to the machine totals in those election districts.”

In this case, there is reason to believe that voting tabulation machines misread hundreds if not thousands of valid votes as undervotes, (supra at 4), and that these tabulation machine errors disproportionately affected Brindisi, (id.).
— Memorandum in Support of Proposed Order to Show Cause of Respondent Anthony Brindisi, Perkins Coie LLP, 2/1/21

Upstate New York’s Oswego County uses voting machines and software provided by IMAGECAST®.

Who makes IMAGECAST® machines and software?

Uh oh.

And what lawyer, who values his or her license to practice and speak freely, would risk it all to imply a Dominion voting system provided problematic results in an election?

Marc Elias, the election lawyer who represented Democratic challenges to state rules throughout the 2020 election, alleged in a court filing this week that a close congressional race in upstate New York was marred by faulty voting machines.

In the congressional race for New York’s 22nd district, Republican Claudia Tenney currently leads incumbent Democrat Anthony Brindisi by a razor-thin margin of 125 votes. Tenney declared victory on Tuesday, though challenges continue. In a legal filing Monday requesting a manual audit of the election, Elias, whose Perkins Coie law firm is representing Brindisi, argued that there were “substantial errors and irregularities in the conduct of the election.”

Citing alleged discrepancies between votes counted by hand and votes counted by ballot machines, Elias argued that the error rate, extrapolated across the entire district, could mean that thousands of votes were improperly counted by the machines.

Marc Elias has made a nice living casting doubt and trying to overturn the results of elections; ONLY elections where the Democrat lost.

Elias is also representing defeated Democrat Rita Hart in Iowa’s 1st congressional district, who lost by six votes to Republican Rep. Mariannette Miller Meeks (R-IA). He is asking the Democrat-controlled House to overturn the result of the election and seat Hart, despite certification of the vote by state election authorities, bypassing Iowa courts in the process.

In addition, as Breitbart News has noted, “Elias was responsible for hiring opposition research firm Fusion GPS, on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee, [which produced] the fraudulent “Russia dossier” on then-candidate Donald Trump in 2016.”
— Breitbart, 2/3/21

Of course, and as usual, the hypocrisy is in your face.

If you’re a Democrat who lost a race in 2020 due to voting irregularities with a Dominion voting machine, everything necessary can and will be done to overturn the results of that election with no fear of media criticism and legal repercussion on the horizon.

However, if you’re a Republican who makes similar claims and dares mention Dominion, you will be publicly labeled a kook sharing fact-checked and debunked misinformation, be banished from social media and sued into oblivion.

Welcome to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, circa 2020-21.

This is not to fear monger. It would be irresponsible for us to create panic when it’s undue.

Ya think, but let ‘er rip, doc!

That being said, we know 80 percent of the population is going to survive and a typically 15 to 20 percent rate of mortality for those individuals that are both elderly or have underlying conditions.”
— Dr. Joseph Fair, MSNBC science contributor, 3/9/20

The effects are something the left has little concern for and are rightfully being called out on it.

What I have a problem with is the panic and the fact that businesses are getting destroyed, that people’s lives are being upended, not by the virus, but by the panic. The panic must stop. And the press, they really somehow need to be held accountable because they are hurting people.
— Dr. Drew Pinsky, 3/9/20

We all know there are ramifications to every action and an irresponsible, pro-Democrat media is hoping for any opportunity to steer the 2020 election away from President Trump, no matter how many Americans are freaking out and harmed by their misinformation.

NY Times: Why the Outlook for the Economy Just Got Worse
NPR: The Coronavirus’ Impact On Financial Markets And The Economy
MSNBC: Examining how coronavirus can affect the economy
CNN: The coronavirus is already hurting the world economy. Here’s why it could get really scary

Rush Limbaugh was one of the first ridiculed as he put all things “pandemic” in proper perspective.

We have had 10,000 deaths from the flu so far this season, 180,000 people hospitalized with the flu. Where is the panic over the flu? Where is the market plunge because of the flu?
— Rush Limbaugh, 3/2/20

Give them time, Rush.

While the left got all butthurt after the implication they were stoking a public panic for obvious political reasons, the result of their “scary” moved right along and the effects were as hoped.

Wall Street reeled and millions of Americans worried after the stock market’s worst day since the 2008 financial crisis. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 2,000 points, or nearly 8%, based largely on concern over the coronavirus and oil prices.

They had to throw in the “oil” thing as veiled cover….

The U.S. death toll rose to 26 and several members of Congress are in self-quarantine after possible exposure. Despite contact with some of those lawmakers in recent days, President Trump has not been tested for the coronavirus, according to his press secretary.
— CBS News, 3/10/20

After the Mueller Report and impeachment failed, the Democrat left and their meida launched the latest attempt to damage President Trump’s strongest 2020 election card: the economy. COVID-19 became one of the last rounds in the chamber and Democrats pulled the trigger.

Twenty-seven coronavirus deaths to-date is tragic but compared to the flu is almost nonexistent. How many even bothered to go to the CDC’s website at CNN, The New York Times, NPR, MSNBC…?

Meanwhile real business owners, employees, customers, and the general public are going to have feel the real-world ramifications of the panic caused by gleeful Democrats.

The spread of the Coronavirus could have significant implications for businesses here at home and around the globe. Industrial sectors will be impacted in waves, for example certain transportation sectors like aviation and certain trade-dependent industries are already being impacted.

Today, it’s too early to determine the long-term impact on supply chains, manufacturing, and the American economy. Given the importance of consumer spending to the American economy, much will depend on the confidence of the American public.
— US Chamber of Commerce, 3/3/20

The damage to the Trump economy and Democrats want to come off as compassionate saviors before November.

Paid sick leave is one of several measures that House Democrats are advocating for to help mitigate the economic impact of the coronavirus. They also want to ensure unemployment insurance for people who lose their jobs due to the outbreak and expand food assistance to low-income families.

The Trump administration and Republicans on Capitol Hill, meanwhile, are focusing on “targeted” measures such as tax deferments for industries most affected by the outbreak, such as the travel and hospitality sectors.
— The Hill, 3/9/20

The media creates a panic, the economy reacts and politicians use Americans’ money to pay off those affected by the panic. Normally, those who create a panic are held legally and sometimes financially responsible, but the bomb-throwing media hides behind a First Amendment privilege the Founders may have pulled back had they known just how much journalism would devolve.

Successfully suing a hostile media is not without precedent.

CNN’s decision to settle a multimillion-dollar defamation lawsuit filed by Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann is a big victory for the “little guy,” Cornell Law School professor William A. Jacobson told Fox News.
— Fox News, 1/9/20

Hopefully those businesses adversely affected by media hysterics will lawyer-up and hold those with the biggest mouths accountable.

UPDATE

We said this Coronavirus was the equivalent of a bad flu season and it turns out our initial assessment of the media/politician/agency panic was correct. As written above, “We all know there are ramifications to every action and an irresponsible, pro-Democrat media is hoping for any opportunity to steer the 2020 election away from President Trump, no matter how many Americans are freaking out and harmed by their misinformation.”

Fox News finally caught up on June 10, 2020….

So, what are we going to do about it?

Over the years, we’ve seen many displays of what could be considered obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, indecent language, suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature, and threats of illegal or immoral acts. Whether those displays originate online or at public protests, the left is the most egregious of offenders, they’re proud of it and consider such First Amendment-protected free speech.

When a bully gets a taste of his or her own medicine, that bully usually backs down. That is unless we’re talking about an aggressive Democrat majority in Virginia who now deams offensive speech issued towards them something that should be treated as an act of  criminality.

Included in House Bill No. 1627, offered January 16, 2020 by Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne (D-Richmond)….

If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he shall be is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which the communication was made or received or in the City of Richmond if the person subjected to the act is one of the following officials or employees of the Commonwealth: the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.
— § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty

Public officials, candidates, government employees can and have called taxpaying constituents everything from stupid, uninformed, racists, haters, fascists, religious bigots, homophobes and worse, but the thought of someone calling them something mean could soon become a criminal offense punishable by up to 12 months in jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.

Virginia Democrats appear to believe the citizenry must show them due reverence and respect they believe they (as “public servants”) are due, and we may soon have our First Amendment right of free speech criminalized when it comes time for any kind of Constitutionally protected dissent. And let’s be real, while we all have our crazies, liberals are far and away more rude, obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, publicly display indecent language, making suggestions or proposals of an obscene nature (i.e. “fuck yourself”) than anything you’ll see or hear at a conservative and/or Republican gathering.

And as is the ongoing pattern, overreaching Democrats will high five themselves when H.B. 1627 passes but seeing how politics IS cyclical, there will be a Republican majority in Virginia again and these same Democrats will be whining how their inability to hurl an insult is a violation of their freedom of speech.

Well, until Democrats demand future Republicans repeal that law, fuck you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Even though it roughly translates, when it comes to “religion”, that the government can’t create a church, i.e. the Church of the United States. It doesn’t say anything about ignoring religious tenets like the evil “In God We Trust” or the antiquated restrictions found in the “Ten Commandments”. But anytime there’s a conscience issue regarding religious beliefs (Muslims excluded), the left is the first to pounce and remind us there’s to be “separation of church and state” even though that phrase appears nowhere in our founding documents.

So, where did it come from? You guessed it; an old white guy.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1794

The whole “separation of church and state” issue was explained later in the belief that only something greater than ourselves provides that moral boundary that could keep our country from descending into chaos.

Back in the late 1700’s, narcissism clearly wasn’t at the epidemic levels we endure today.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
— Thomas Jefferson, reply to Danbury Baptist Association, 1802

To be clear, Jefferson’s intent was that the government can’t create a religion nor can it dictate how religion is conducted.

Tell that to California.

The California State Assembly voted 9-2 to send to the state senate a resolution calling on “religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy.”
— The New American, 7/2/19

While the left relishes any opportunity to recite “separation of church and state” when our sense of morality imposes on their anything-goes stipulations, they happily use government to forces the church into a capitulation-or-else stature.

And again, stealing from sentiments evoked by the term “civil rights”….

ACR 99, Civil rights: lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people.

.

This measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders with conviction to counsel on LGBT LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and on upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state.

.

WHEREAS, The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming; and

.

WHEREAS, Major professional associations of mental and physical health recognize that being LGBT LGBTQ is part of natural variations that occur in sexual orientation and gender identity, and recommend responsive services that foster self-acceptance and skills to cope with social stigma and discrimination; and

.

WHEREAS, Practices or therapies that attempt to create a change in a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often referred to as conversion therapy; and

.

WHEREAS, Some family, caregivers, and communities promote conversion therapy when a person is known or thought to be LGBT; LGBTQ; and

.

WHEREAS, California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful; and

.

WHEREAS, Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States; and

.

WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBT LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBT LGBTQ and questioning individuals; and

.

WHEREAS, The State of California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including LGBT LGBTQ youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by family rejection and attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity; and

.

WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities; now, therefore, be it

.

Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance; and be it further

.

Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders with conviction to counsel on LGBT LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy; and be it further

.

Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBT, LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state; and be it further

.

Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.
— ACR-99 Resolution

.

Resolutions are usually non-binding, feel good declarations.

You know what almost always comes next….

 

On October 14, Duty To Warn events will be held around the country. Mental health professionals and community members will gather at teach-ins to learn and march together, warning the public about the dangers posed by Donald Trump.

Duty To Warn is a group of mental health professionals and other concerned Americans who are acting on their ethical and legal obligation to warn when someone presents a danger. Mental health professionals overwhelmingly describe Donald Trump as psychologically impaired, unfit to serve, and dangerous. Over 60,000 of them have signed a petition to call attention to this impairment and calling for his removal under the 25th Amendment.
— Duty To Warn GoFundMe page

I requested permission to shoot video of the event as this was a legitimate news event and received an email at Friday, October 13th at 1:35 am from event organizer John Gartner granting permission and he asked me to ask for him when I arrived at the event.

A little background on Mr. Gartner….

Upon my arrival at the Kimpton Glover Park Hotel in Washington, D.C., as instructed I asked for Mr. Gartner and a woman at the desk in the lobby escorted me in and pointed to Mr. Gartner. As he was surrounded and talking to attendees, I found a place close to the table where the panel would be sitting and started to set up the equipment. Within a minute, another woman walked up to me and asked me if I had signed the waiver and had proof of company insurance with me; if not, I could not record the event. I told this woman (who it turns out was Carol Dreyfus, event coordinator who also works for The World Bank) that Mr. Gartner had approved me to shoot yet Ms. Dreyfus said that no one could shoot without those documents. Dreyfus attempted to justify by saying that other videographers had to scramble yesterday to get the required documents so no exceptions could be made.

I immediately walked over to Mr. Gartner and informed him about this sudden “requirement”. He replied that this was something he only found out about Friday afternoon around 5:30pm and there was nothing he could do and apologized. I then walked over, got my equipment and was escorted out by Ms. Dreyfus.

As you know, I always like to look at a situation as if it were the other way around.

Let’s say there was a stealth conservative event that centered around the removal of Barack Obama because he was this dangerous narcissist who was undoing policies they liked.

Let’s say this conservative event of around 50 people, only TWO of whom were black and ONE other working, told the ONLY black videographer he had to leave and escorted him out in a rather humiliating fashion. Chances are that black videographer would be now doing the rounds on CNN, MSNBC, maybe ABC This Week, Meet the Press, etc. decrying the racist conservatives that denied him his First Amendment right of Freedom of the Press. It would also be asked why they didn’t want a complete, unedited recording of this event out there?

First, I have been a professional video producer, cameraman, editor on every level of print and video production for over 30 years. I have obtained press credentials to cover events for myself and video crews for events including RNC and DNC conventions. I’ve set up and shot interviews in and around Capitol Hill so I know the protocols and this is the FIRST time I’ve ever run into a requirement that I have “insurance” to cover an event.

Again, had this been the other way around, this would have been deemed racist behavior, so let’s go there!

I don’t know if this “insurance” requirement was dreamed up to weed out those deemed undesirable. It’s clear they don’t want the American people to know what they’re up to, especially those who support President Trump. Even if I decided to shell out the money to obtain “insurance” to cover the event, there was no way at last minute notice I could contact a company after 5:30 late Friday afternoon to obtain such insurance before an event 17 hours later.

Did Ms. Dreyfus look at me and think I was some stupid black man she could just issue some bullshit excuse so she could escort me out like I had done something improper?

What’s ironic is these people, I was told, made much about the First Amendment yet look how they honor it.

And they’re accusing Donald Trump of being a delusional narcissist to the seal claps of almost all in that room.

CPJ chairman says Trump is threat to press freedom
Guaranteeing the free flow of information to citizens through a robust, independent press is essential to American democracy. For more than 200 years this founding principle has protected journalists in the United States and inspired those around the world, including brave journalists facing violence, censorship, and government repression.

The Committee to Protect Journalists appears to be yet another liberal career mill where money is raised, salary tallies are fudged or omitted altogether because the math doesn’t appear to add up.

Donald Trump, through his words and actions as a candidate for president of the United States, has consistently betrayed First Amendment values. On October 6, CPJ’s board of directors passed a resolution declaring Trump an unprecedented threat to the rights of journalists and to CPJ’s ability to advocate for press freedom around the world.

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign. Trump has routinely labeled the press as “dishonest” and “scum” and singled out individual news organizations and journalists.

The so-called “Committee to Protect Journalists” are equating the questioning of American media ethical standards (and lack thereof) with the violent repression of the press in some totalitarian nations.

Then again, we’ve all been told during this presidential campaign cycle that speech equates action so this Committee believes calling the esteemed media “dishonest” and “scum” is some kind of violence that can’t be tolerated. We respectfully remind this Committee to Protect Journalists that Americans observe ALL of the First Amendment, not just the part that refers to infringing on the press and we would hope the American media is tough enough to withstand a few names hurled their way.

He has mocked a disabled New York Times journalist and called an ABC News reporter a “sleaze” in a press conference. He expelled Univision anchor Jorge Ramos from a campaign press conference because he asked an “impertinent” question, and has publicly demeaned other journalists.

Trump has refused to condemn attacks on journalists by his supporters. His campaign has also systematically denied press credentials to outlets that have covered him critically, including The Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, The Huffington Post, The Daily Beast, Univision, and The Des Moines Register.

The Columbia Journalism Review has lamented the lack of transparency from the Obama Administration and we would hope the Committee to Protect Journalists would understand the difference between a political candidate that limits unfriendly press access and an actual government that has done so for almost eight years; an administration that refuses to not only answer the press, but to be consistent, government oversight committees as well.

Many in the American media have issued an incidental bitch-and-moan response, but nothing near the outrage of invoking the First Amendment and whine because insults had to be endured. In the United States, it’s still legal under the First Amendment to mock (and lie) about those you disagree with.

Liberals insult Republicans all the time; it’s expected and they take it with their big boy pants on without whining to have speech curtailed.

It’s legal in the United States to, heaven forbid, criticize the accuracy and integrity of the media. There have been more than enough examples of media bias, bias by omission, deceptive audio and video editing, plagiarism, and outright lies that justify any skepticism of anything a partisan media outlet distributes. The Committee to Protect Journalists, in invoking the First Amendment, conveniently omits the fact the media is not required to issue their journalism under oath.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has routinely made vague proposals to limit basic elements of press and internet freedom.

In the United States, any person has a right to invite and dis-invite anyone that person chooses to any event they may have, especially if in the case of the media, a reporter is sharing perspectives not consistent to the mission of that person. Should Tyson Foods be required to allow a press representative from PeTA to cover a press conference? Should Planned Parenthood be required to allow anti-abortion activist bloggers to their press events? In the United States, there is also a line in the First Amendment that guarantees freedom of association which also means you don’t have to be around people hostile to your interests.

Granted, a campaign for the presidency of the United States is of greater public interest but if a reporter goes out of his or her way to intentionally publish misleading and/or incorrect information to the public, that candidate has every right to expel that reporter.

At a rally in February, Trump declared that if elected president he would “open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.” In September, Trump tweeted, “My lawyers want to sue the failing @nytimes so badly for irresponsible intent. I said no (for now), but they are watching. Really disgusting.”

While some have suggested that these statements are rhetorical, we take Trump at his word. His intent and his disregard for the constitutional free press principle are clear.

The Founding Fathers gave the press a First Amendment protection because the media was supposed to be a watchdog of government and made that privilege to keep said government accountable to the people. Journalists were never intended to be friends with the powerful, go to their parties, donate to their campaigns and give off the stench of favoritism. Journalists were never given that First Amendment protection as a shield for lies, lack of industry standards and ethics like the use of anonymous sources, lack of attribution, one-sided accusations without thorough investigation and verification; you know, Journalism 1.01.

Sorry, if a journalist intentionally attempts to injure a politician or private citizen using false information, he or she shouldn’t be allowed to use the First Amendment as a shield. But they do, and they sure whine like stuck pigs with any assertion that THEY may have to get a taste of their own medicine and have their dirty laundry revealed to the public.

A loose network of conservative operatives allied with the White House is pursuing what they say will be an aggressive operation to discredit news organizations deemed hostile to President Trump by publicizing damaging information about journalists. It is the latest step in a long-running effort by Mr. Trump and his allies to undercut the influence of legitimate news reporting.

Oh, puh-leez….

Four people familiar with the operation described how it works, asserting that it has compiled dossiers of potentially embarrassing social media posts and other public statements by hundreds of people who work at some of the country’s most prominent news organizations.

Operatives have closely examined more than a decade’s worth of public posts and statements by journalists, the people familiar with the operation said. Only a fraction of what the network claims to have uncovered has been made public, the people said, with more to be disclosed as the 2020 election heats up. The research is said to extend to members of journalists’ families who are active in politics, as well as liberal activists and other political opponents of the president.
— New York Times, 8/25/19

Sucks, don’t it?

“It’s one thing for Spiro Agnew to call everyone in the press ‘nattering nabobs of negativism’, and another thing to investigate individuals in order to embarrass them publicly and jeopardize their employment,” former Washington Post editor Leonard Downie Jr. said, referring to the former vice president’s famous critique of how journalists covered President Richard M. Nixon.

Tell that to the many who’ve lost positions when journalists gleefully dredged up irrelevant but inconvenient tidbits on Republican targets. In some cases, careers and reputations were irreparably damaged while the media high-fived themselves for another good day’s work done.

Another problem is how journalism students ARE taught nowadays. Instead of going into what should be a very boring profession where they’re hired to simply report what happened, many narcissists seek to be activists as well and “make a difference” by any means necessary. See: Katie Couric.

A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States, but the consequences for the rights of journalists around the world could be far more serious. Any failure of the United States to uphold its own standards emboldens dictators and despots to restrict the media in their own countries. This appears to be of no concern to Trump, who indicated that he has no inclination to challenge governments on press freedom and the treatment of journalists

When MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough asked him in December if his admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin was at all tempered by the country’s history of critical journalists being murdered, his response was: “He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country… Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too.”

One would think the Committee to Protect Journalists would know the difference between nations where journalists are “murdered” for telling the truth and the United States where journalists can produce “fake but accurate” stories about presidential candidates and if not immediately fired, in some cases be rewarded with promotions.

The First Amendment is NOT a license to lie with impunity. That happens within our government by officials and is applauded by a partisan media; the same media that doubles down on their outrage and demand for accountability when a member of a party they’re not in agreement commits a fraction of impropriety.

Through his words and actions, Trump has consistently demonstrated a contempt for the role of the press beyond offering publicity to him and advancing his interests.

For this reason CPJ is taking the unprecedented step of speaking out now. This is not about picking sides in an election. This is recognizing that a Trump presidency represents a threat to press freedom unknown in modern history.

Funny how the Committee to Protect Journalists failed to mention the collusion exposed in the WikiLeaks between Hillary Clinton’s campaigns and American journalists friendly to her and her ideology. Donald Trump’s campaign has managed to successfully sidestep the media by way of Twitter and his consistent large rally attendance to get his message out unfiltered by a media that’s demonstrated their ability to twist words and meaning to suit their personal preferences.

The Committee to Protect Journalists whine about things President Trump might do and conveniently sidestep all the Obama administration actually did against journalists.

The Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists … more than all previous administrations combined.
— Jake Tapper, CNN

In fact, this very same CPJ issued a 2013 stinging indictment of the Obama administration liberals lament the loss of today.

In the Obama administration’s Washington, government officials are increasingly afraid to talk to the press. Those suspected of discussing with reporters anything that the government has classified as secret are subject to investigation, including lie-detector tests and scrutiny of their telephone and e-mail records. An “Insider Threat Program” being implemented in every government department requires all federal employees to help prevent unauthorized disclosures of information by monitoring the behavior of their colleagues.

Reporters’ phone logs and e-mails were secretly subpoenaed and seized by the Justice Department in two of the investigations, and a Fox News reporter was accused in an affidavit for one of those subpoenas of being “an aider, abettor and/or conspirator” of an indicted leak defendant, exposing him to possible prosecution for doing his job as a journalist. In another leak case, a New York Times reporter has been ordered to testify against a defendant or go to jail.

“This is the most closed, control freak administration I’ve ever covered,” said David E. Sanger, veteran chief Washington correspondent of The New York Times.

Again, the First Amendment privilege given to journalists was always intended to guarantee their freedom to criticize government and inform The People of their activities, pro and con. NOT to be a propaganda arm of a party and/or ideology they prefer.

If journalists in the United States were truly doing their job, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would be treated fairly and equally and the Committee to Protect Journalists would still be a nonprofit few would know existed.

I think it’s dangerous. People need good, strong, skeptical journalists to be covering whoever it is — whether it’s Barack Obama or President Donald Trump — and we’re in a dangerous phase right now, where too many millions of Americans aren’t listening at all to what the press tells them.
— Megyn Kelly, NPR, 12/7/16

Well, aside from the narcissistic arrogance, whose fault it that, Megyn?

Despite the media’s overconfidence, mocking, and best efforts, Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election, the media didn’t have the influence they expected, and now all gloves are off.