(Tea Party PAC) – A federal appellate judge has issued a scathing dissenting opinion against the legacy media outlets the New York Times and the Washington Post, accusing the papers of being “Democratic Party broadsheets” displaying “shocking” bias against the Republican Party.
Judge Laurence Silberman of the Washington DC Court of Appeals even extended his scathing rebuke to the establishment media complex overall in his written opinion on Friday.
“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),” he wrote. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”
He also set his sights on Big Tech for facilitating the dissemination—or lack thereof—of these stories, which he pointedly noted was all in line with the same partisan bias.
Silicon Valley, the judge wrote, “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news” and “similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party.”
He gave Fox News, The New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page a nod for being “notable exceptions” to this rule among media outlets, while contesting that “a number of Fox’s commentators lean as far to the right as the commentators and reporters of the mainstream outlets lean to the left.”
He’s certainly got that right!
“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,’” he continued. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”
“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,” the judge continued, adding that “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.”
He declared that the Supreme Court ought to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, which is the 1964 case which holds that when public figures are discussed by a media outlet, the entity should be liable under state defamation laws only if the plaintiff is able to prove “actual malice.” The court defined this as when the speaker either knowingly makes a false statement or makes a false statement with “reckless disregard for the truth.”
“The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace,” Silberman wrote in conclusion. “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.”
Breitbart notes that the case involved is Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc., No. 19-7132 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Copyright 2021. TeaPartyPac.org