Hollywood trade publication acknowledges the role of legacy media in promoting left-wing narratives.
The left’s ideas and policies, often deemed unsuccessful—especially in cities governed by the Democratic Party—rely heavily on propaganda. Legacy media serves as a crucial component of this strategy, alongside academia and Hollywood.
Since the rise of new media and the influence of Donald Trump…
…the corporate media’s ability to shape public opinion has significantly diminished—at least among certain demographics. This trend understandably concerns those on the left. The publication argues that holding established media accountable threatens First Amendment rights.
In an article titled Defeating the media: How Donald Trump’s attack on news outlets undermines initial fixes,
the lengthy piece outlines a prevailing theme…
“Trump’s tactics have caused executives from major media companies to shell out millions,” notes the article. “He labels mainstream media as ‘enemies of the people,’ repeatedly decrying ‘fake news.’
We’re at a pivotal moment… “Over the last decade, that’s nearly one instance per day.”
The author specifically mentions ABC News and CBS News, which have faced substantial financial repercussions due to Trump’s actions.
According to the piece, criticism and lawsuits against media outlets equate to an attack on free speech.
What’s really happening here? It seems these critics utilize public sentiment to deter any advocacy from the right against powerful media organizations. Apparently, they believe these large corporations deserve special protection from scrutiny.
But if we can’t criticize or sue these outlets for misinformation, how are we supposed to respond when they misinform? Always.
The article suggests that the expectation is for us to remain passive and silent in the face of unfair treatment.
Indeed, ABC News has misreported claims surrounding Trump, alleging he was “responsible for rape.”
Rape!
Yet, per this narrative, the only way to safeguard First Amendment rights is through inaction when faced with blatant falsehoods. The suggestion is to remain silent despite the spread of misinformation.
In a notable instance, just before the presidential election, CBS News edited an interview to make a candidate look less favorable, intentionally omitting key parts of her answers to influence public perception.
And yet, according to the narrative from some outlets, Trump should refrain from criticizing CBS or pursuing legal action over these actions.
True advocates for free speech understand that all speech, including criticism, is vital to maintaining that freedom. Supporting legal recourse for slander is part of this commitment. The idea that speech can undermine total free speech is nonsensical, right?
It’s not like these massive corporations lack the resources to combat lawsuits. Perhaps they fear the scrutiny that comes with discovery. What happens when they think no one is watching?
Does claiming that criticism damages free speech really threaten it? It seems that some outlets are suggesting just that.
The notion that good people would simply accept false allegations, especially regarding serious matters, is not only misguided but dangerous. These are folks consumed by a self-righteous attitude, believing they are above reproach. All they have left is the attempt to silence dissent in the name of protecting free expression.
