DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Federal judge accuses NY Times, WaPo of being 'Democratic Party broadsheets'

Federal judge accuses NY Times, WaPo of being 'Democratic Party broadsheets'

A federal appeals court judge in his dissenting opinion in a defamation case on Friday accused The New York Times and The Washington Post of being “Democratic Party broadsheets.”

Washington, D.C., Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman, who was appointed by former President Reagan, argued in his opinion that the news industry at large is dominated with a “bias against the Republican Party” that he wrote was “rather shocking.”

While the case did not specifically relate to either paper, the judge used his opinion to argue that the Times and Post served largely as mouthpieces for the Democratic Party, adding “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),” he continued. “Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

He added that Silicon Valley “also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news” and said "it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party." He wrote that other outlets, including Fox News, The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, serve as “notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control.”

“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,” Silberman continued.

He went on to say, “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.”

The conservative judge then suggested an overturning of the precedent established in the Supreme Court’s landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan decision, which requires parties filing defamation suits to prove “actual malice” in that a news organization or publisher intentionally reported false information or did so with reckless disregard for the truth.

Silberman argued Friday that the high court’s decision has “increased the power of the media,” and that this power is “now abused” by allowing “the press to cast false aspersion on public figures with near impunity.”

The judge’s tirade against outlets like the Times and the Post was included in his dissenting opinion in a 2-1 decision in an unrelated defamation case that tossed a lawsuit filed by two former Liberian officials against environmental group Global Witness.

According to the court’s majority opinion, the former officials failed to prove actual malice in Global Witness’s publishing of a report that falsely suggested the two had accepted bribes in connection with the sale of an oil license.

Silberman’s criticisms of several mainstream news organizations and tech giants come amid increased arguments among the GOP of an anti-conservative bias within the press and on social media platforms.

Claims of conservative censorship particularly ramped up following the removal of social media accounts tied to former President Trump and several of his supporters and allies after the deadly Jan. 6 Capitol riot. Platforms defended the bans as a means to reduce the spread of misinformation surrounding the 2020 election that could lead to further violence.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/54414...rty-broadsheets

This whole thing is a BS talking point for the right, woe is me victimhood BS. I agree that these outlets are left leaning favoring the dem corporatist establishment. BUT the few facts that are rarely mentioned in this topic is that the right has a stranglehold on local news, network news, and talk radio across the country. They pump so much propaganda into the livingrooms of America through their media outlets that it's just insane. Yet, they are silenced... the truth is they want to silence the left and remove all the left's influence in media... I don't support either side being silenced. My skin crawls from the 'Qrazy' on the right, right now, but conservatism is just as essential a checks and balance as liberalism in our two party system.

AND I think any judge who spews this kind of political messaging from the bench should be removed immediately. Judges, regardless of personal political leanings, are supposed to remain impartial, unbiased, and apolitical on the bench. Same would go for any judge from the left. This guy sounds like he might be a little 'Qrazy' too, and the last thing we need is Q on the bench.

Good. It's about time the media was held to the fire.

Yes.
The sooner it is the sooner we can toss liars and hate sowers like Carlson and Hannity. If we only could have done something before Rush poisoned so many.
Return to the fairness doctrine times. I’m fine with it.

There's no more Partisan media outlet than Fox. It was state run broadcasting when Trump was in power.

Yet he said nothing about FOX News, OAN or Newsmax. I'm all for getting better, more level coverage. But don't pick a side and act like one side is the bad guys without being honest enough to look at both.

Often the news turns into an enthusiasm filled hate rally.

I agree 100%. If he kept it to the lawsuit I would have defended him. The fact that he brought in other organizations but excluded ones that don't fit his agenda shows his true colors.

I think the main difference here is that Fox is generally (correctly) considered extremely partisan, while many left-leaning outlets only have to stop short of being MSNBC to largely get a pass.

OCD was completely correct regarding the judge. Partisan outbursts from the bench should be called out and addressed somehow. Supposedly this case wasn't even related to the media but he decided to spout off anyway.

Then you post it on Dawgtalkers.

Lemon and Cuomo are just as bad. CNN is every bit as bad as FOX.

This is something we've all seen and known for several years now. Probably a decade or more, actually. There are no unbiased news sources any longer.

That a federal judge has cited it as such in a formal court opinion just squashes any pretense of pretending otherwise... though, I'm sure some will still hold on to beliefs to the contrary.

WGN has News Nation which does a pretty good job. It was previously called WGN America.

Yeah, that's concerning. The whole point of the setup behind federal judgeships is to remove politics.

Now if it was put into some sort of a context where a party quoted Rachel Maddow to refute a notion that is generally supported by Republicans, I might see the rationale in that, but I doubt it was in that kind of a context.

I agree with you that federal judges aren't "supposed to be political". But if we look at what has happened we can see that politicians dictate otherwise.

VERIFY: Yes, Mitch McConnell did take credit for Obama administration's court vacancies

https://www.king5.com/article/news/verif...45-ad3e08f6dcd5

With the senate majority, McConnell blocked over 100 federal judge appointments of Obama's. That created a situation that caused Trump to inherit over 100 open judge seats to fill when he won the 2016 election, which they quickly filled with conservative judges.

Silberman was appointed by Reagan.

Oh I've been very vocal in my disdain for McConnell's procedural hypocrisy in filling judgeships, and that's coming from someone who more-often-than-not prefers to have judges more in line with the "originalism" approach.

It's a complete scam on his part, but he's shown that he does not have consistent morals.

How does this fool figure FOX, Brietbart and OANN handle the truth?

Bari Weiss had the New York Times pegged correctly when she turned in her resignation!

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor...Bari Weiss


https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

People like Sidney Powell should be brought up on charges for the lies she’s told on behalf of trump. Anyone that spread the lies should be taken to the woodshed. OANN, Faux, Tucker, Hannity, the list goes on.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/sidney-powell-dominion-defamation-lawsuit-take-seriously-2021-3%3famp

“Attorneys representing the attorney Sidney Powell filed a motion Monday to dismiss a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems, arguing her conspiracy theories about the election-technology company having ties to Venezuela and secretly rigging the 2020 presidential election should not have been taken literally.

"Even [assuming] that each of the statements alleged in the Complaint could be proved true or false, no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact," Powell's attorneys wrote in the filing.”

——————————-

For those still shilling for donny, she’s calling you morons.

So Fox News is claiming that no reasonable person would believe the things they broadcast?

I am pretty certain that's what they just said.

Someone from Trump of Cult please advise if you have a different interpretation of that ...

That happened, yes. But this lawsuit is about one of the Trump lawyer's lawsuits regarding election fraud. She's arguing the conspiracy theories she was peddling shouldn't have been taken seriously. I'd love to hear someone from the StopTheSteal camp try to explain this one.

It's just a defense strategy. I doubt it works but you just never know.

I thought maybe mgh was getting this mixed up with that one Tucker Carlson lawsuit. Same argument, but very different situation. It makes my blood boil, so I hope this backfires on her and hers spectacularly. There absolutely has to be accountability for firing up the (mindless) droves.

And yet another one who refuses to expect the same accountability from his own that he expects from others.

#usualsuspect

A single lie discovered is enough to create doubt in every truth expressed.
Nov. 3 2020.

Troll says what?