>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe this MSM bollox should should be M. I'm not aware of any branch of the media that stands out as being unbiased in one direction or another. I usually try and take a look at them all (even fox and OANN ) and try and work out whats what from that.
>>>
>>>Not sure what your first sentence means; "should be M"? Yes, agree that it is good to look around at many sources - all mainstream media is heavily biased. One needs to look elsewhere and read sources which do not depend on advertiser money; he who has the gold and all that business ...
>>
>>M is for media.
>
>OK, I thought you were trying to use M for something else.
>
>>But how do you know your other sources are any more than opinion pieces.
>
>I guess that takes some time and homework and recognizing one's one biases and actively looking to read/hear the other side of most issues. The MSM issue is not "bolloxs" as suggested. There is no truth in MSM journalism, it is all shills for one agenda or another. But one can still find sources which do not parrot the party line and mainstream narrative and indeed challenge that narrative and the Overton window.

MSM seems to be typically use by fox and the right leaning media as a term of abuse. I'm not quite clear how fox with their large market share can not recognise they are part of the main media environment.