Below is my column in the Hill on the victory of Elon Musk last week against the liberal media outlet, Media Matters. This follows similar recent victories by others against CNN and the New York Times to clear paths to trials. For those who have embraced advocacy journalism as the new model for media, a bill is coming due in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits.
Here is the column:
This week, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit by Elon Musk against Media Matters can move forward in what could prove a significant case not just for the liberal outlet but the entire media industry.
The decision comes at the same time as other court wins for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times and a Navy veteran against CNN.
For years, media organizations and journalism schools have expressly abandoned objectivity in favor of advocacy journalism. This abandonment of neutrality has coincided, unsurprisingly, with a drop in public faith in media to record lows.
Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University journalism professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones has been lionized for declaring that “all journalism is activism.” Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, similarly announced that “Objectivity has got to go.”
“J-Schools” have been teaching students for years to discard old-fashioned ideas of simply reporting facts and, as stated at the University of Texas at Austin, to “leave neutrality behind.”
In a series of interviews with more than 75 media leaders, Leonard Downie Jr., former Washington Post executive editor, and Andrew Heyward, former CBS News president, reaffirmed this new vision of journalism. Downie explained that objectivity is viewed as a trap and reporters “feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
As the public abandons mainstream media for alternative news sources, news organizations are now facing the added costs of bias in the form of defamation and disparagement lawsuits. Media lawyers are citing protections secured by the “old media” while their clients are publicly espousing their intention to frame the news to advance political and social agendas.
CNN, for example, is now facing a trial in a lawsuit by Navy veteran Zachary Young, the subject of an alleged hit piece over his work to extract endangered people from Afghanistan after the Taliban takeover. In a Nov. 11, 2021, segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” the host tells his audience ominously how CNN correspondent Alex Marquardt discovered “Afghans trying to get out of the country face a black market full of promises, demands of exorbitant fees, and no guarantee of safety or success.”
Marquardt named Young and his company in claiming that “desperate Afghans are being exploited” and need to pay “exorbitant, often impossible amounts” to flee the country.
Discovery revealed how Marquardt said that he wanted to “nail this Zachary Young mfucker.” After promising to “nail” Young, CNN editor Matthew Philips responded: “gonna hold you to that cowboy!” That sentiment was echoed by other CNN staff. In allowing the case to go to trial, a judge found not just evidence of actual malice by CNN but grounds for potential punitive damages.
Likewise, Palin recently won a major appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which found that Palin was denied a fair trial in a case against the New York Times.
In 2017, liberal activist and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) supporter James T. Hodgkinson attempted to massacre Republican members of Congress on a baseball diamond, nearly killing Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). The New York Times, eager to shift the narrative, ran an editorial suggesting that Palin had inspired or incited Jared Loughner’s 2011 shooting of then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
The Times’ editors stated that SarahPAC, Palin’s political action committee, had posted a graphic that put a crosshair on a U.S. map representing Giffords’ district before she was shot, suggesting that this was direct incitement to violence. In reality, Palin’s graphic “targeting” about 20 vulnerable House Democrats all across the country is typical of graphics used in political campaigns by both parties for many decades. No evidence has ever been offered that Giffords’ deranged shooter even saw it.
But Musk’s lawsuit may be the most defining for our age of advocacy journalism. He is suing Media Matters, the left-wing outlet founded by David Brock, whom Time described as “one of the most influential operatives in the Democratic Party.”
Although Brock is no longer with the site, Media Matters has long been accused of being a weaponized media outlet for the left. After Musk dismantled the censorship system at Twitter, he became something of an obsession for Media Matters, which targeted his revenue sources.
The outlet ran a report suggesting that advertisements of major corporations were being posted next to pro-Nazi posts or otherwise hateful content on the platform. As I discuss in my new book, this effort mirrored similar moves by the anti-free speech movement against Musk to force him to restore censorship systems.
Companies including Apple, IBM, Comcast and Lionsgate Entertainment quickly joined the effective boycott to squeeze Musk.
The problem is that it is hard to squeeze the world’s richest man financially. Musk told the companies to pound sand and told his lawyers to file suit.
The allegations in the lawsuit read like a textbook on advocacy journalism. Media Matters is accused of knowingly misrepresenting the real user experience by manipulating the algorithms to produce the pairing alleged in its story.
The complaint accuses Media Matters of running its manipulation to produce extremely unlikely pairings, such that one toxic match appeared for “only one viewer (out of more than 500 million) on all of X: Media Matters.” In other words, the organization wanted to write a hit piece connecting X to pro-Nazi material and proceeded to artificially create pairings between that material and corporate advertisements. It then ran the story as news.
Indeed, two defendant employees of Media Matters did not deny that they were aware of the alleged manipulation and that they were seeking to poison the well for advertisers in order to drain advertising revenues for X.
Although the media covered another judge blocking an effort by state officials to sue Media Matters over the anti-Musk effort, there has been comparably less coverage of the green light for the lawsuit in Texas.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas rejected an effort to dismiss the case on jurisdictional and other grounds. Musk will be able to continue his claims of tortious interference with existing contracts, business disparagement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage.
Musk is also suing the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which also targeted advertisers to choke off targeted sites.
Not surprisingly, although the media has heralded lawsuits like the one by Dominion Voting System against Fox News (which led to a large settlement), they are overwhelmingly hostile toward the Musk lawsuits.
It is not hard to see why. The Media Matters lawsuit directly challenges the ability of media outlets to create false narratives to advance a political agenda. As with the CNN and New York Times cases, it can expose how the media first decides on a conclusion and then frames or even invents the facts to support it.
While rejecting the longstanding principles of journalism such as objectivity, these media outlets are citing the cases and defenses secured by those now-outdated media organizations. They want to be advocates, but they also want to be protected as journalists.
These cases still face tough challenges, including challenging jury pools in places like New York. However, they are exposing the bias that now characterizes much of American journalism.
In the age of advocacy journalism, a bill has come due. That is why Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters . . . well . . . matters.
Jonathan Turley is a Fox News Media contributor and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster, June 18, 2024).
* The root of it goes back to the Bill Clinton regime and the FCC. Safeguards were removed and private people could own media across kinds or types and Disney media bloomed. Magazines, newspapers, movies, television, radio, networking with academia and textbooks, music, comedians etc can and are owned by groups creating monopolies in information.
The ROOT is the change in the original rules, regulations, laws regarding free speech and press.
*FCC created monopolies under Bill Clinton and changes in the law. That is the root.
Clinton is one architect in this dystopian idea of reimagining 1st amendment as what can be when what was is no more.
I have a hypothesis. If Sullivan was decided at the time of the apex of journalistic professionalism and Chevron at the apex of governmental administrative professionalism, did these opinions contribute to the demise of both?
I
If it’s possible every media outlet must be required to place a Chyron banner on screen or on their publication indicating that they do not publish or report objectively. This way viewers and readers can separate the wheat from the chaff.
Wouldn’t that be like asking a KGB agent “Are you telling the truth?” and taking his answer as the gospel? The honor system will never work to regulate those who are determined to dupe the public….they are not honorable people.
When I read that those journalism “thought leaders” felt that telling the truth was against the spirit of advocacy, then I knew that journalism has lost its meaning among the practitioners. Journalism is all about telling the truth, using actual events as the method of coverage of the story. It has absolutely nothing to do with the feelings of the reporter presenting the story. It has nothing to do with advancing a narrative about the reporter’s opinion of a story. And it should result in absolutely no cover for those who practice the promotion of lies in their coverage.
When the publishers of “advocacy journalism” see diminishing returns from their efforts, then they should realize that they have departed from the norms of their industry and destroyed their business model.
My real exposure to advocacy journalism was between the 1st Gulf War, which was admirably covered by CNN and others (for the most part), but had taken a nose dive by the time of the presidential election of 2000. The selective discussion of the lawsuits in Florida going to the Supreme Court was totally confusing because of such radically different reports with “facts” being demonstrably found to be false and clear misinterpretations of the legal decisions themselves and which continue to this day. The hostility of the MSM to the Bush administration was eye opening and only got worse. The only thing that deflected the media was the 9/11 attack. The total lack of any significant accomplishment of Obama other than he won elections was wild. I kept looking for something that was important and found nothing but speeches and “transform America”. In truth McCain was no better except “he deserved to be elected”.
And it has only gone downhill since. Trump went from being a media darling prior to 2015 to a threat to democracy ever since. And the total coverup of the senility of Joe Biden, which was already there in 2020 was just a nail in the coffin, so to speak.
We need clarity and facts and if we need a lot more slander and libel suits to accomplish that then so be it.
OK, GEB. But what about deceitful infowarriors who studiously avoid defaming anyone while crafting their false narrative? Mike Morrell used his PsyOps training received at Langley to do exactly this when pushing out the cover-up narrative about Hunter’s laptop.
We need a more comprehensive legal toolchest to put a dent in journalism meant to mislead. I use the term “public frauds” to describe attempts to dupe the public for political gain. If we expanded defamation law to allow for public frauds lawsuits, yes, there are practical problems to be solved (the worst being the lethargic pace of the court process). We would need “fast due diligence” for public frauds litigation to work — meaning that a powerful political actor pushing out a whopper could expect within 72 hours to receive subpoenas demanding depositions, emails, tweets, etc. That speedy response would frighten most domestic infowarriors into taming their ambitions to dupe the public. Under public frauds lawsuits, not only the originators of the lie, but sympathetic media who go along spreading it could be named in the lawsuit.
I greatly appreciate defamation law as it acknowledges there are limits to free speech, and it provides a means to challenge artful liars other than through govt. prosecution (verboten under the 1st Amendment for good reason).
Nobody these days is arguing against defamation law except those being sued for defamation. Every successful defamation case (e.g., Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox, Nicholas Sandmann v. CNN/WaPo) shows the way toward bringing back objective truth to the public square.
Pbinca-I understand where you’re coming from and in an ideal world where men and women are angels I would like something like what you describe BUT the problem would be enacting it and making sure it was unbiased and who would have this all powerful ability to act so fast. Thats the rub and that much power to act that quickly and comprehensively would quickly be suborned because of the power that would accumulate to this Fact Checker Agency. It could literally make or break campaigns in days. Do you want something like the FISA court? We have already seen how it has been politicized and suborned . Fast is great except in justice where I still like it to be a little slow and prudent. But not glacial.
Overall we could pursue some things to speed up deliberations, remove delays that keep cases in limbo for years and financially break individuals who would likely win and maybe clearly delineate “standing” when the court does not want to deal with something unpleasant.
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to E. Jean Carroll: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Stormy Daniels: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Arlington Cemetery Employee: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to MSNBC Nicolle Wallace: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to CNN Joy Reid: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to NBC Kristen Welker: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to ABC Rachel Scott: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to NPR Mary Louise Kelly: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Donna Brazile: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Fani Willis: “Just the facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Jack Smith: “Just the facts, ma’am (sic), just the facts.”
Supervisor of Dragnet Detective Joe Friday, to Joe Friday: “Just the facts–that ain’t gonna sell… You’re fired.”
Dear lin: Because Trump doesn’t like the testimony of Carroll and Daniels, because he doesn’t like the fact that the ANC employee reported being assaulted so he could, once again, insult our military, and because he doesn’t like the crimes that various journalists and prosecutors are prosecuting him for does NOT make these things either untrue or not factual. Trump is the biggest liar in US political history–and, that’s saying a lot–starting with the Big Lie that left a supporter and 5 Capitol Police officers dead. Trump lies every single time he opens his mouth. He lies about his record. He lies about “winning by a lot” in the polls. The safest thing to assume about Trump when he says anything is to asssume it is a lie. Then, there’s MAGA media. How about the whoppers spoon-fed to the faithful every day by Fox, News Max, OAN, Breitbart, News Nation and even some of the darker internet lie–peddlers? Some of them are even funny–to wit: Joe Biden has been dead a long time now and we’re just seeing his doppelganger. And, BTW, as to Carroll and Daniels–juries believed both of them and ruled against Trump. He had his day in court– and lost. As to Jack Smith and the charges in Georgia–we all saw the facts–we heard the call with Raffensberger to “find” 11,780 votes. We saw the insurrection-heard the “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country any more”. We waited over 3 hours while he basked in the glory of his power over his followers who were destroying the Capitol and assaulting police officers. Well, we have a country–a thriving economy, record low unemployment, and we are back to work, back to school, businesses open again, record travel, inflation dropping like a rock, manufacturing returning to America–all because Biden beat Trump. WE’RE NOT GOING BACK, even though Trump lies about our country being in “horrible” shape and being invaded by “murderers, rapists, animals and vermin” that are doing the work that Americans don’t do. Just think what would happen to the price for agricultural goods if we don’t have migrants picking our fruits and vegetables. Who’s going to do roofing, construction work, housekeeping in hotels, kitchen work in restaurants, etc. if Trump rounds millions of them up, puts them in concentration camps and then deports them? How many billions of tax dollars will that it will cost–and how many tax dollars will we have left after Trump gives more tax breaks to the wealthiest? Oh, according to Project 2025, he’ll just take it out of Social Security Medicare, school lunch programs and SNAP benefits.
And, just like Trump, you don’t seem to be able to discern the difference between real people and fictional characters–Joe Friday was fictional, as is the (not) “late great Hannibal Lector”.
Great column professor!
“it can expose how the media first decides on a conclusion and then frames or even invents the facts to support it.”
That is how MSM operates now. All the more important to support alternative media like The Free Press, Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, Sharyl Attkisson and many more.
I never felt that free speech gave me a license to slander or libel anyone. Thats why I try to refrain from talking about things that I have no knowledge of, or expertise in. Being a student of history also helps although I must admit there are many on this site who also demonstrate a wonderful knowledge of history. They seem to reside mostly on the right side of center. Progressives (modern day) kind of live in a world without facts or context. Those little facts or truth can be, understandably, messy.
I am personally quite happy to see these suits given new life and hope that they go all the way to the Supreme Court and we see major parts of Sullivan vs NY Times chiseled away. It seems to me that the license that SCOTUS gave the news industry (Journalism) in the Sullivan decision may have contributed to the wanton disregard of fact checking and adherence to truth and gave rise to a lot of advocacy “Journalism” we deal with now. An appropriate decision or 2 by SCOTUS could go a long way to cleaning up the profession and presentation of the news.
If that happens then we will all need to clean up our game and lay out the facts of our positions more clearly. Hopefully the News Industry would take such a decision to heart and clean up their profession and give us back a profession that once again deserves our respect.
North Carolina’s failure to hire Nicole Hannah-Jones is treated in media and academia as a misstep when, in fact, the University’s J-school should never have tried to hire her. Her “1619” has been royally panned by eminent historical scholars (and knowledgeable amateur historians) as a big, ideological lie. That she is “lionized” for subjective reporting speaks poorly of the lionizers, who are becoming way too influential in their fields.
North Carolina’s problems are a self inflicted wound.
GEB,
To see these cases get to the SC and ruled in favor of Musk, Palin and Young would be a “joy” to see!
Interesting.
I know the media I read, or listen to is biased, I didn’t realize it was taught in J school, or that it was an accepted thing. I get it, the connection between advocacy journalism and making stuff up.
“What constitutes a “troll” depends on which side your bread is buttered on.”
To me, a troll is any poster on this site who primarily attacks people, rather than argues positions, particularly if that poster typically initiates the personal attacks. There a number of easily identified posters here who do exactly that, over, and over. many of them post anonymously, but there are a few who appear to use consistent screen names, who also indulge in that behavior. So your comment is either ignorant (if you haven’t visited/read enough here to realize that) or a disingenuous pile of barnyard excrement.
Re; Ragnar D “To me, a troll is any poster on this site who primarily attacks people”
That definition is limited to you. At most ghetto sites, anyone who challenges ghetto ideology not specifically ghetto personalities is considered a troll by the ghetto dwellers.
I don’t make the rules, I just note them.
I should amend that to clarify that what I identified above are a variety of troll that is frequently not identified as such. There is also a small number of “classic” trolls here, again a mix of anonymous and screen name posters, who do nothing but post prepared or pirated political POV boilerplate, over and over. Nevertheless, my point refuting the claim that classifying this behavior is completely subjective still holds.
Ragnar D,
Yep. Just scroll past. Nothing of interest to read or waste one’s time on reading.
Ragnar, your description/definition of a “troll” is a good starting point. 3rd grade playground name-calling is a big part of what they do.
Their other main tool is to flat-out lie. They rely a lot on nobody checking their assertions for truth. On the infrequent occasions they’re caught out, there’s no deterrent. They go right back to spewing their lies as if nothing happened. With the anonymity of the internet, one’s reputation has no importance.
The trolls are not really different from that of the MSM- which is the point of Turley’s piece here.
I knew Media Matters was bad, but didn’t know they were that bad. Good for Musk to sue, they certainly deserve to have their dirty tricks exposed and justice meted out. Couldn’t happen to nicer people.
What? No mention that the judge owns TSLA stock? Gee, you thank having a financial stake in the outcome of a trial might have been mentioned by JT
What has garnered less attention: O’Connor’s investment in Tesla, between “$15,001 and $50,000” of Tesla stock, according to his most recent publicly available financial disclosure filing.
Lmao tesla
Idiot
“[Y]ou thank [sic] having a financial stake in the outcome of a trial . . .”
You hear that, Judge Merchan? The Left is coming after you (and your daughter).
Oh, wait. Your end was “noble” — to “get Trump.” So you’re safe.
Bull’s eye!
First, did you bother to check that lie? Or did you just cut and paste from Vox and approve the professors point.
Second, what does a steak in Tesla have to do with X?
Waha ha ha ha ha
*prove
*stake
Wow, such vitriol.
“First, did you bother to check that lie” And you know it’s a lie because?
I do hope all you trump supporters go through some mass deprogramming when trump loses in November.
How does a judges ownership in TSLA have anything to do with X?
Hmmm Perhaps you heard that Musk owns a very large stake in TSLA? Any financial implication to Musk via X could impact the value of TSLA.
Yea, I know this is hard stuff to follow since trump never talks about it. But I’m sure you are all great at talking like pre K kids on the playground trying to insult the new kid. Such dweebs. Sheeeeesh.
“Any financial implication to Musk via X could impact the value of TSLA”
Thanks for certifying that you are a spastic idiot.
And for verifying that you didnt bother to look at the data for yourself, you just took the word of the Salon “reporter”.
Good job dweeb.
Many of those who use free speech to the max are those wishing to suppress your free speech.
They would do that why? A typical post on this blog has 200-300 comments, almost all written by 3-4 people that anyone else who follows the Professor knows enough not to read
The way to stop the Left Wing DEM/Washington Elite supporting News Service and groups like Media Matters/GMA is to take their $$$$$$$ away from them. the one thing they hate and are afraid of is their loss of large amounts of $$$$$$$. Elon has the means and the determination to pursue Media Matters/GMA and others.
BlackRock has partial ownership in both Dominion Resources and Fox News Corporation. This speaks for itself.
No, not really. So go ahead and say it.
Bravo. I’ve been waiting literally several years for JT to take up a legal position opposing conscious attempts to dupe the public on the part of media-savvy infowarriors. His default has been to classify any form of communication delivering a political viewpoint as “protected free speech”, no matter how connivingly misleading, no matter how powerful the infowarrior’s position and reach — with just one exception — defamation.
Here comes “tortious interference” and “business disparagement” as expansion of the toolset.
Of course, Media Matters will base their defense on a definition “free speech” so wildly permissive as to cover the weaponization of news for political gain — including destroying one’s perceived opponents. (You can expect
Media Matters to bolster their defense with quotes from “The Indispensable Right”).
I never really knew for sure that Turley sincerely stood ready to legally defend deceitful infowarfare as practiced by professionals with an axe to grind — his “antidote” was to publicly denounce each instance of it, but only reach into the legal toolkit if defamation.
The book “This is Not Propaganda – Adventures in the War Against Reality” by Peter Pomerantsev documents the professionalization of deceitful infowarfare worldwide, and examines the profound impact it is having. The title indicates how modern, internet-based psy-ops techniques make Cold War-era style censorship and propaganda seem antiquated (easily detectable). By deftly mixing believable falsehoods into otherwise credible reporting and banter, the listener/reader does not question whst they are being told — manipulation is kept beneath the threshold of detection. This is an important book — it bears directly on how “the freedom of the press” is being abused, with those seeking to undermine democracy utilizing that very freedom as the primary weapon.
Kudos to JT for looking into the torts toolbag for ways to confront outright deceptions waged to intimidate and weaken a political adversary. The weaponization of free speech is quite distinct from censorship — though the goal is exactly the same — to get the public to believe that which is in the infowarrior’s interest for them to believe. It seems to be working! That doesn’t bode well for a free society founded on the notion that objective truth will carry the day.
MORE TORT!!!
Yes, tortious interference seeking to destroy a business. A smorgasbord of tortillas. Happy Labor Day.
You are certainly the Taco Bell of Turleyville. Same crap, different day.
I would caution against mixing your ethnic food references, The Swedes might sue you, tort boy.
Do trolls like you ever take a day off? If you ever have an original, constructive idea to offer, I hope you’ll come out from behind your veil of anonymity, so we can put a name next to the idea. Happy Labor Day
Or, you could just eat shit
I think for many people, I think the first taste of infowarfare was the Russia hoax. It showed us all that a willing, politically corrupted, media is nearly capable of taking down a president. What should have been a pretty easy “case” for just about anyone investigating this to have dispelled, it seemed to drag on for over two years. Then you hear about the lengths they went to for the Alpha bank portion of this, getting computer science professors to make it appear that there were emails going back and forth, etc. It really took the FBI and the DOJ that long to figure out that it was all a hoax that was bought and paid for by the DNC?
When you already have a shadow, puppet government of leftists controlling things, the DNC isn’t even pretending that Biden is actually still functioning as president, its pretty easy for these people to seek the assistance of China. They appear more than happy to provide financial, technological, or intelligence assistance. The US leftist and their billionaire pals, like what they see in China. Massive govt controls, a disarmed public, and total media censorship, but with just enough hand-outs (food, housing, etc.) to keep people in line, along with a dose of “free trade” thrown in, so the wealthy at the top can still travel and enjoy their billions. It wasn’t an accident that a fairly obscure governor like Walz, who happens to embrace all things China, especially the govt controls, was tapped as VP.
This is such a clear explanation of the confusing line between ‘free speech’ and outright deception. I thank you for putting your clarity of thought to page! Some of us are not as capable of articulating this, though we discern it in our gut.
I wish Elon well in this matter
Let’s hope that the Musk lawyers can investigate the Troll Farm being operated by Media Matters, with special emphasis on its infestation of this website.
They would do that why? A typical post on this blog has 200-300 comments, almost all written by 3-4 people that anyone else who follows the Professor knows enough not to read
The “3-4 people” that you cite are the few people that go by Anonymous and comment 100 times each story, this I will agree with you on, but there are many others that comment here regularly and do so with cogent, clever, germane and relevant remarks. This is why I enjoy this site so much in spite of the fact that I have to dodge the 3-4 “Anonymous” paid actors that are trying to ruin the comments section the way they eliminated the comments section of sites likt the Federalist and The Hill.
Also, people like Dennis, Gigi and a few others could also be paid Dems due to the fact that they NEVER disagree with the Democrats no matter how egregious any liberal policy or no matter how bad it’s results end up. See the border.
We have seen that Harris and Biden pay “influencers” thousands of dollars to “opine” on the issues of the day, we have seen the Twitter Files which shows FEDERAL AGENTS actually working at Twitter, we have seen Facebook admit to working with Biden’s handlers and so why would we not think that Dennis is not a paid hack???
HullBobby,
Well said.
Just scroll past.
Although, I will read John Say’s epic take downs of Dennis or Natasha, then I have to go back and read their OP for context.
It is quite amazing how delusional they are or brainwashed by MSM.
WordPress is a horribly out-of-date platform. Not only does it allow anonymous posters, but, after multiple attempts, I just haven’t been able to change my ID to something other than “anonymous”, no matter how hard I’ve tried.
So put a name at the bottom of your posts
Just like people do when the sign letters
What constitutes a “troll” depends on which side your bread is buttered on. The internet is now a vast archipelago of ideological ghettos. Anyone who challenges ghetto ideology is considered a troll with ghetto members ruthlessly calling for censorship and banishment. E.g. the comments section of the Washington Post.
The First Amendment is first for a reason. Let the trolls troll at this and every ghetto site.
Their goal is not to participate in the discussion, or to offer differing opinions, even ridiculous or radical ones. Their purpose is to overrun conservative sites, like this one, and to drown out those posters that wish to participate in the conversation. This is not about the 1st Amendment, this is more like shouting down a speaker at a conference so that no one can listen. Leftists are long past the notion that, you have your ideas and I have mine, even if we disagree. They have now determined that your ideas are dangerous and that you have no right to express them. If you don’t believe me, look to further than what is taking place in the UK. And as far as me posting as “Anonymous”, there is no way in hell that I would register on a site like this. I have no idea who has access to this information or where any of my posts may end up.
“conservative sites, like this one”
The ‘good professor’ is liberal and votes Dem
but those here on the right think it’s their site?
I believe that the ‘good professor’ is a pragmatist, as are most intelligent people, and now realizes that he no longer recognizes what the Democratic party has become. This may not be a Republican site, but it has most definitely become a conservative site. It just shows how far down leftists have fallen.
It is not a conservative site
It is still liberal
Just actual liberal
Not left wing nut progressive
It is just that real liberals have disappeared or are hiding from left wing mobs
The problem with non-objective journalism is that it is…subjective…being passed off as objective. No trigger warnings. Anyone who has the stomach to read the NYT needs to know of its leftist bias built into every paragraph. Reading the Times is LOL if you know what’s going on.
Edwardmahl,
Well said.
Read the other day, the DNC was spending serious money to employ “influencers” to prop up Harris.