A federal appellate judge said that the Democrat Party is close to controlling the press as he detailed what he described as shocking bias against Republicans.
We support the limitations placed on plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits—that is, the requirement of actual malice
Last week, a federal judge said that the Democrat Party is close to controlling the press as he detailed what he described as shocking bias against Republicans.
The judge’s views are shared by millions of Americans, conservative and liberal, we think, across the nation.
D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s pivotal decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which established “actual malice” must be proven in certain defamation cases. In the process, the judge weighed in on the one-sided composition of the mainstream press.
“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.
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. Source: theepochtimes.com
We support the limitations placed on plaintiffs in defamation lawsuits—that is, the requirement of actual malice.
The part of Judge Silberman’s analysis we strongly agree with is his conclusion that the mainstream press is exceptionally biased against conservatives and their practice of suppressing pro-conservative views. Suppression of opposing views is a dangerous path to go down.