In a dissent in a libel case, D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman lashed out at the 1964 Supreme Court decision that set the framework for modern defamation law — New York Times v. Sullivan.
Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling (see below) 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.
That isn’t anything we didn’t know.
“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.
He is deeply concerned about Big Tech as well, referencing the censorship of the NY Post article about Hunter Biden which was 100% accurate..
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.
Silberman stated that there are few notable exceptions to the outlets he mentioned, including Fox News, the New York Post, and the Journal’s editorial page.
-
The Importance of Prayer: How a Christian Gold Company Stands Out by Defending Americans’ Retirement
“It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship,” he wrote.
The uniformity of news bias has a political impact, the judge continued, pointing to author Tim Groseclose’s 2011 book: “Left Turn.” Professor Groseclose found outlets perform more positively to Democrats by 8 to 10 percent in a typical election.
Silberman was writing a partial dissent in the case of Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain versus Global Witness Publishing, an organization that investigates human rights abuses.
“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.”
The Judge is being demeaned in the MSM for his comments, but everything he said is accurate. It’s not just outlets, it’s education, entertainment, and government.
The Judge’s Statement:
udge Laurence Silberman on Scribd
wpDiscuz
