>>> There is no independence and integrity in MSM journalism anymore - it is all propaganda for one side or the other. Presstitutes is the right word for them.
>
>The Supreme Court's "Sullivan vs New York Times" decision made US defamation claims by public figures against media more difficult if media can claim "credible" sources. This is why the Covington High victim was able to successfully pursue media defamation- he was not a public figure until media tried to make him one, so media had the usual duty to confirm rather than just quoting the activist beating a drum in the boy's face and calling the boy a racist. Whereas Trump can be openly defied and defamed.
>
>At the time of Sullivan vs NYT, media was very careful about anonymous sources and I agree with the decision allowing media to publish well-researched information in the public interest without risk of lawfare. But in the Age of Trump, MSM abusively seems to rely on anonymous sources more often than not. Even if every real-life participant denies it, media smugly insists on their "credible" secret sources, quoting and amplifying each other, knowing that mud sticks and that it's difficult +++ for the public person victim to defend themselves.
>
>So here's my prediction: unless the Democrats sweep the field, I expect to see Sullivan vs NYT overturned in the next term, with this Atlantic article forming Exhibit A. We will see whether I am right.

I wasn't aware of this law, thanks for explaining it. Interesting prediction and I hope it comes true although I have zero faith that the MSM will suddenly get a case of integrity.