The American press should really listen to Kellyanne Conway, whose tweeted advice to reporters is spot on:
Dear Media Types, Your job is to get the story, not get the President. If you dove into #buzzfeed headfirst yesterday, you own it too. “If true” was a faint murmur. Impeach was said 200x on CNN and MSNBC. The 3 networks devoted 27 minutes to it. Maybe just apologize.
Of course, the president’s advisor was referring to Buzzfeed’s bogus report that “President Donald Trump directed his long time attorney Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about negotiations to build a Trump Tower in Moscow…and even as Trump told the public he had no business deals with Russia, the sources said Trump and [his children] received regular, detailed updates about the real estate development from Cohen.”
Ms. Conway was right: liberal media outlets, such as CNN and MSNBC, went cuckoo with impeachment hysteria. CNN mentioned “impeachment” 82 times in one day, and Wolf Blitzer asked Democratic Rep. Jim Hines about the implications of the Buzzfeed report. MSNBC mentioned “impeachment” 97 times, and Katy Tur opened her show with this lead: “Donald Trump is facing the most damning report to date for his presidency. A story that could lead to his impeachment.”
THIS is a clear and present definition of fake news, because it was refuted Friday evening by Mueller investigation spokesman Peter Carr. Sadly, that was after it had been regurgitated by every liberal media outlet – because, because, because, because, BECAUSE! – – because they so wanted it to be true.
The Bill of Rights ensures a free press because it is we the people’s watchdog over those who govern. However, what we witnessed this week was the propaganda arm of one political party – not freedom to report the news. This begs the question: are reporters free to spread fake news and pundits free to enjoin sedition? This is a real question – if you believe Democrats and their media allies intend to destroy a democratically elected leader.
And why? It’s not because he threatens their existence: his political energy has boosted readership and viewership for the mainstream media. It’s not because he’s un-approachable: his rallies and verbal sparring with reporters give unprecedented insight into what he is thinking. And it’s not because he has actually made a dent in anonymous leaks.
It is reasonable to suspect Democrats and like-minded media of colluding to control the electorate’s information. Social-media giants have been outed for restricting the flow of conservative viewpoints and outright bouncing pro-Trump personalities (e.g. Diamond and Silk) from the likes of Twitter and Facebook. Time and again, major media companies have had to walk back mis-information their employees rushed into the news cycle.
Consider the Buzzfeed reporter, Jason Leopold, who admits to a “checkered past” that includes retracted reporting, accusations of plagiarism, and a proven-false story about Karl Rove during the Bush years. Don’t forget that Buzzfeed ran the bogus Russian dossier story in 2017. Both anti-Trump stories were textbook disinformation campaigns.
It is possible a conservative Supreme Court could rule freedom of the press no longer protects falsity-based damning reports or unlawful anonymous sources. Freedom of the press has endured because of the legal principle of stare decisis (the court adheres to its own precedent). However, stare decisis would not apply if the Supreme Court found the precedent unworkable or not in the nation’s best interest after transformative societal changes.
One can reasonably argue that protecting anonymous government sources is “unworkable” because the leaks are so commonly found to be false claims. A “free press” is meant to have unfettered access to the hidden truth the powerful don’t want known. And, while one can debate whether Twitter and Facebook are too ubiquitous, too “invisible” and too partisan, it would be absurd to suggest they have not transformed how voters get their news.
The mainstream media needs to self-reflect and re-commit to Kellyanne Conway’s advice: (1) start getting the story, (2) stop getting the president, and (3) continue their best journalistic traditions. If the mainstream media is restricted from complete freedom in any way, it will largely be of their own partisan doing.