What Do You Do When Your “Free Press” Become Subversive Conspirators In Cooperation With Government?

OK, rather than write another post that some people will take as me screaming when I’m actually pleading with people to pay attention, I thought I would just throw this out there and then ask you a few questions:

AP Retracts Rand Paul Story After Reporting the Opposite of What He Actually Said

The article, which can still be seen on many of the sites that utilize the Associated Press, began: “WASHINGTON — A Republican senator says he sees some in his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would ’round people up … and send them back to Mexico.’”

The retraction notice explains:

The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., saying he sees some in the his party favoring a 2016 presidential candidate with an immigration policy that would “round up people … and send them back to Mexico.”  That quote was in the transcript of “Fox News Sunday” that was distributed after Paul’s interview on the show.  A subsequent Associated Press review of an audio recording of the show determined that the transcript had dropped the word “don’t” from that quote, and Paul actually said, “They don’t want somebody who wants to round people up, put them in camps and send them back to Mexico.”  ​[Emphasis added]

OK, I want to start by openly stating that the AP’s original story was not a mistake.  There are simply too many layers of editing that these stories go through for this to NOT be caught.  Besides, this is political, and, as FDR explained, nothing happens in politics by accident.  If it happens, we can bet it was planned that way.  So I AM saying the AP originally ran a story they knew was a lie, and they did it to damage Rand Paul’s reputation.  Now here are my questions:

1 – What do we do when the press stops being the press and becomes a willing participant with the government and openly shares in the government’s objective to undermine our system of government and our economy?  A free and self-governing people have to rely on a free press that acts as a government watch dog, not as a partner with government.  When the “media” ceases to perform this function, the people lose their ability to obtain the information they need to perform their duties connected to self-rule.

2—At what point does the First Amendment cease protecting this sort of propaganda?  At some point, this becomes subversion: a deliberate attempt to undermine and destroy our system of government.  The First Amendment does NOT protect such actions.  So when do we start prosecuting for subversion (remember, many of Wilson’s laws are still on the books).  At the very least, people such as Rand Paul must be allowed to sue for damages in cases like this: where there is clear intent to harm through false witness and where real damages can be shown.

3 – How do we get people to understand that they cannot trust the “Main Stream Media?”  How can we convince them that the MSM has truly become an enemy of our founding ideals and principles?  How can we wake them to this threat when our culture does so much to re-enforce the notion that they cannot put lies on TV or in the papers?

About these ads

15 thoughts on “What Do You Do When Your “Free Press” Become Subversive Conspirators In Cooperation With Government?

    • James,

      First, get over your FOX, FOX, FOX mantra. It hold NO weight here — not when your “ah-ha” is as obviously one-sided as it is. When you start seeing the same in “your” news sources, then — maybe — we might listen. Not until then.

      Especially since I have already made a REAL argument against FOX News. So the implication that I somehow excuse your boogeyman is a non-starter.

  1. ” I have already made a REAL argument against FOX News.”

    Indeed, and congratulations for that. So back to my question, why — in your opinion, of course — did Fox lie in the first place? After all, they’re the ones who released the transcript, and who still have it posted.

    • SBJ; I think that is what B. is asking in his post. What do we do about it? I don’t know the answer to that, but I think it would be a good start if folks like Paul did sue. Could he sue for libel or slander?

      • Kells,

        If our society still understood and embraced natural law, yes, he could sue. Just because he is a “public figure,” that does not grant people free license to slander/libel him. Wrong is wrong — period! And people should be allowed to seek redress for damages through the courts in matters like this one, where there is no “opinion” involved. What must be remembered here is that this was an intentional lie, not a matter of editorialism.

        • “What must be remembered here is that this was an intentional lie, not a matter of editorialism.”

          That is simply your opinion, of course. And even if Paul weren’t a public figure, he’d have to prove that it was intentional (or a “reckless disregard for truth,” in which case he’d have a better case against Fox, which dropped the word in the first place). He’d also have to prove that he’d suffered actual harm, which seems unlikely. Frankly, I’ve been “libeled” worse here–and no, I don’t have a case, either.

      • Agreed, Joe. And most courts have determined libel cases on monetary damages (probably because it’s easiest), though some have considered a fuzzier and harder-to-measure damage to reputation.

  2. How is this for punishment. Doesn’t even require a Jury of 12.

    Revelation 21:8
    But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

  3. I would challenge every journalism student and any “alleged” journalist to watch an episode from an old TV show call Lou Grant that starred everyone’s favorite socialist, Ed Asner. The episode is called “Conflict” and can be found on you tube or click this link. The newspaper in the series decides to look at the various outside interests of the staff at the paper and see if any of them could be viewed by their readers as a conflict of interest. The reporter chosen for the assignment does not win any friends for doing his job, and the way they destroy his creditability is as vicious as the media really is today.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s