Listen Live

In most of the civilized world, at least where there exists a modicum of free expression and idea exchange, one may take issue with the opinions and utterances of others without implying at the same time that those with whom we disagree must be censored from saying what we don’t like or that with which we find no common ground.  In public politics, we take a position, either as a candidate, officeholder or exponent of some set of ideas, and those who don’t like it are free to say so and support what they think—or don’t think. 

Enter the fourth estate, that which is variously known as the mainstream media, the “legacy” press or the like.  What it really means is those organs of reporting and opinion that are represented by persons whose words and conclusion, no matter how obtuse or unsupported by fact, are to be embraced as some kind of secular grail (if unholy).

They of that “estate” long ago wrapped themselves in something akin to Harry Potter’s Invisibility Cloak, so that no matter how far from reality, how skewed and oppressive their conclusions and how widely divergent from fact it might be they were to be immune from criticism or objection.   But when those of differing opinion, mostly conservative or independent mindset rise up to speak in opposition to their faux orthodoxy the whole game changes, and they instantly scream that their hold on the First Amendment and free speech is being abridged.

Then we see no longer through the mirror and dimly, but face to face with the tyranny of the press that has left us to deal with claims of censorship when what we are thinking and saying is that we disagree, object, and controvert their perversions of fact.  And it is because of the twists and frailties of Leftist thinking that we face such fraud; socialist writing and thinking has for a hundred years been predicated upon the notion that what they write or say is, opriori, the ultimate reality, and those who would or might find fault or disagreement must be thrown off the island, under the bus or over the side, whichever metaphor you prefer. 

In point of fact, there is nothing in the constitution or any rule of law that prescribes some kind of immunity from criticism for the press; to the contrary it is the sacred obligation of the media to at all times give voice to the many sides to public debate and not to taint or poison free speech with their own predilections, prejudices and animosities.  Further, the arrogance and seeming imperviousness of Mika, Morning Joe, Lemon, Rachel, Wolfe or the rest to balance or even the intellect required to hear others makes it clear that what they do, while protected speech, cannot be viewed ever as immune to the light of truth.  Fake news is still after all, fake.