Ashe Schow demolishes the Obama Age media:
The point here is that in example after example, the prevailing narrative sold by the media and social justice activists has been disproven after an investigation of the facts. When it comes down to it, it’s cheap and easy for Obama to say something in public to show solidarity with popular opinion. But having to back up that same popular opinion in a legal proceeding . . . is often impossible.
(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)
Whenever I see the liberal media jumping to a particular conclusion, my instinct is that the opposite must be true. Whenever I see the liberal media ignoring a story, I figure that story must be very important. Is it possible that the liberal media sometimes might be correct about one of these “social justice” narratives? Hypothetically, I suppose, but you’re seldom going to lose money betting against them.
Meanwhile, Christian Adams offers an important media parable.
I’m Hispanic but I look white
Would it count if I denounce Zohydro instead?
barack is a siztpinkler, so Shrillary can’t be the first female POTUS.
Yes, that would count! Z needs a good denouncing, IMO.
Well, that makes sense, since Hil is nilist and micro?encephalic.
He really is a pansy.
[…] The Other McCain features the social justice lynchmob […]
It will be just like Obama, where any criticism is racist, except now it will be sexist. Its a lot easier to be a tyrant if nobody is allowed to criticize you.
First white, wealthy, Ivy-League, cis-female President. And she’s already lived in the White House before. So historic!
We fear the worst-case scenario, that this wishy-washy administration would allow for justice itself to be perverted by the narratives of the SJWs. Despite the best efforts of those radicals, the system has continued to work on facts.
This is a tangent, but at the same time, people with a printing press generally needed business from regular folks that wanted something printed up. The British governors of the colonies practiced a soft censorship on political screeds by keeping the rules vague, so that individual printers would keep their rules strict, in order to keep from having that expensive machine that put food in their kids’ mouths from being confiscated.
In its historical context, the First Amendment was intended to protect the Revolutionary equivalent of bloggers. When the internet was younger, there was a push to class individuals performing online political advocacy as making “in-kind” campaign donations, and to force them to fill out the paperwork and follow the limits. It was defeated because the “press” isn’t really about the printer; it’s about the writer.
But that’s just a tangent, because a publisher is a whole different beast.