“The abandonment of objective truth and, worse, the rejection of the principles and values of America’s early press and revolutionaries, is not new for the Times… it has led the Times and other media outlets into a very bleak and dark place, destructive of the press as a crucial institution for a free people. If newsrooms and journalists do not act forthwith and with urgency to “fundamentally transform” their approach to journalism, which sadly is highly unlikely, their credibility will continue to erode and may well reach a point soon where it is irreparably damaged with a large portion of the citizenry – and rightly so. The media will not only marginalize themselves, but they will continue to be the greatest threat to freedom of the press today.” ~ Mark Levin, excerpt from 'Unfreedom of the Press'
Levin continues to remind us day in and day out how the mainstream media and the Democrat Party are tied at the hip! And rolling out of August into September has been no exception...
Furthermore, their flagrant discourse, right alongside the outright hypocrisy, is more out-in-the-open than ever before, at least in most of our lifetimes. And you know damn well if we still had libel laws, they wouldn't be spewing such outrageousness!MLS, 9/28/19: The media isn’t destroying themselves, the media has already destroyed itself. When you have journalists that are supposed to be objective and they take a firm political position against a candidate and then the President of the United States to sabotage his campaign in concert with partisans in the government, the media is already dead. When you have no way to police the media because libel laws no longer apply to public figures, as a result of the U.S Supreme Court case: the New York Times vs. Sullivan, our press is no longer vibrant and free. When you have Lawrence O’Donnell from MSNBC claiming to have confidential bank loan documents from the sitting President of the United States with connections to Russian oligarchs, and then claiming he made an error in judgment, our press is no longer vibrant and free. How does this serve the public? Remember, a free press was created to objectively and truthfully inform the American People.
“Now there’s no policing mechanism. So someone can go on television, dressed up as a journalist, and call the president ‘Hitler.’ Now you know damn well if we still had libel laws that could be used against somebody making an allegation like that, the president wouldn’t be called ‘Hitler,’ now would he? You could still be very aggressive in your coverage and your characterization of a president, but ‘Hitler,’ ‘Stalin,’ ‘white supremacist,’ ‘neo-Nazi,’ ‘treasonous,’ ‘mentally ill’? Those would all be actionable. Now, to say the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the mass media is not to say that you oppose a vibrant free press — quite the contrary. It’s to say you support a vibrant free press. A press that needs to reform itself. A press that needs to get its focus back: the pursuit of objective truth.”Objective truth appears hard to come by when the party and press agendas coincide however. It's no wonder that polling shows the public backing criticism of journalists and approval of the President 'appropriately' firing back. And why wouldn't he, particularly when...
“The New York Times has a lot of explaining to do, but it’s not going to explain anything. The New York Times has a lot of explaining to do, because — not only with its history, but even in recent days. Why would they hire somebody that they don’t vet, who’s an anti-Semite, and who is covering the senior editor desk for politics? … The New York Times wants you to believe that the America of today began in 1619, with slavery. The vast majority of Americans have never owned slaves. You can go to 1619, or 1719, or 1819, or 1919. The vast majority of Americans did not own slaves. So why are we beginning in 1619? Because the New York Times has a narrative, that’s why. And they’re not only pushing that narrative through the media, they’re pushing it into our schools.”
And here's an excellent example of the latest Pravda-style prodding...The mainstream media does not simply report on the politics of the Democratic Party but instead help lead it and prod along its top policy platforms, according to radio host Mark Levin.
It is difficult to tell most journalists from official Democratic Party activists and commentators...
"The media do not follow the Democratic Party, the media lead the Democratic Party. You cannot distinguish between most so-called journalists in the modern media, and the Democratic Party and the left. The media push and prod the Democratic Party and the social activism agenda."
We'll return to this example momentarily, but all of this provides a clear basis on which to observe, if one is honest with one's self, that the mainstream media in this country and the Democratic Party are undoubtedly in lockstep. They are one in the same. And that is quite the opposite of a free press.“Now this is called propaganda, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the heart and soul of the modern media.”MLS, 9/4/19: The media doesn’t follow the Democrat Party, the media leads the Democrat Party. Politico’s headline says, will the media’s climate change blitz take root? That title is a confession that the media is pushing the democrat climate change ideology. Climate change is about changing the economy from our current capitalist system to a system that concentrates the power within the government. If the left can nationalize climate through the federal government, then they can take over almost everything that the climate touches. This would open the doors to nationalize almost all industries. The Green New Deal is really a ‘Red’ new deal that would make all citizens less free. CNN and MSNBC are preparing various propagandistic programs as the UN’s Climate summit convenes to spread the ‘climate change’ hegemony. Then, the degrowth movement is a social movement towards Marxism and rejects the traditional economic reality of growth.
Related link: Levin: The Green New Deal is ‘the old Red movement dressed up as a Green movement’
