Federal Judge Admits Democrats Are “Very Close to One-Party Control” of Media

Leftists like to pretend there’s no such thing as media bias.

But we all know the truth.

Almost ALL media is biased…. towards the Left!

And now, a federal judge has just admitted so in a stunning ruling that has shocked the legal system.

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman railed against the Supreme Courts ruling in the 1964 case NYT vs. Sullivan.

This case has “protected” left wing outlets against lawsuits.

But now… if Judge Silberman has anything to say about it… that protection may not last that much longer.

Yes…

This means that the mainstream media may one day be held accountable for their inaccurate and misleading reporting.

More details below:

Federal Judge Laurence Silberman slams media, accusing it of left-wing bias https://t.co/5kRwwT7v0z pic.twitter.com/h3CDMP3vwD

— New York Post (@nypost) March 20, 2021

"As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an
enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the
Democratic Party," wrote Judge Silberman, highlighting the shocking suppression of stories about Biden family.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 20, 2021

"The New York Times and The Washington Post are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction." Judge Silberman noted.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 20, 2021

Judge Silberman's recent comments on the danger of media bias was spot on. In the NYT’s latest smear, they distort my recent comments and interview, twist them through a liberal prism and omit most of what I actually say.  Judge Silberman nailed it: https://t.co/pXY9GNvqqZ

— Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) March 22, 2021

The federal judge warned that the media almost has total Democratic control over the narrative.

According to Fox News:

A federal appeals court judge has offered a blistering dissent in an obscure libel case that takes the measure of the mainstream media’s bias.

The case centers on a 2018 report from Global Witness Publishing that accused Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain of accepting bribes from Exxon. Tah and McClain sued Global Witness alleging defamation and their claims were dismissed in Friday’s ruling.

However, in the course of his partial dissent, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman went on an unprecedented written tirade against the press, in which he argued that the Supreme Court should revisit the landmark 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that granted the media broad First Amendment protections from being sued by public officials.

“[N]ew considerations have arisen over the last 50 years that make the New York Times decision (which I believe I have faithfully applied in my dissent) a threat to American Democracy,” he write. “It must go.”

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions,” said Silberman, who was nominated to the federal bench by Ronald Reagan and has been a senior judge on the D.C. Circuit Court since 2000.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s,” Silberman wrote. “Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

The Reagan-appointed judge accused Silicon Valley of filtering news “in ways favorable to the Democratic Party” and fueling censorship, citing the suppression of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden in the final weeks of the 2020 presidential election.

“It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination ‘raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace,'” Silberman said. “But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government.”

Silberman also sounded the alarm about the “serious efforts to muzzle” outlets like Fox News that aren’t under “Democratic Party ideological control.”

If you are a conservative…

If you support President Trump…

This is nothing new.

We have known for years (if not decades) that the media is incredibly biased against any conservative.

However, it is refreshing to hear the truth from someone in power, especially a DC federal judge!

"The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions." Federal Judge Laurence Silberman warned in a dissent yesterday. https://t.co/FiFRyVSdD0

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) March 20, 2021

Read this amazing section from Judge Silberman's dissent today in a defamation case before the DC Circuit: on how an increasingly ideologically homogenized US media is not only threatening core free speech values, but also the ability to be informed:https://t.co/a220vqwiD5 pic.twitter.com/LGYsqPWDIM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 19, 2021

🚨D.C. Circuit Judge Silberman just released a truly wild dissent calling on the Supreme Court to overturn New York Times v. Sullivan, claiming NYT and WaPo are "virtually Democratic Party broadsheets," and accusing "big tech" of censoring conservatives. https://t.co/NvFli5sEso pic.twitter.com/mTMklTlNfo

— Mark Joseph Stern is on parental leave! (@mjs_DC) March 19, 2021

Legal precedents can be overturned.

We won’t be surprised if the same precedents that protect fake news are eventually overturned or superseded by new rulings.

Of course, we have freedom of press in this country.

That’s what makes America great!

But there is a difference between journalism and commentary… and propaganda.

It is clear that Democrats and their allies in the media are turning into propagandists.

The Epoch Times has more insight into the fight against this total one-party control:

A federal judge last week said that the Democratic Party is close to controlling the press as he detailed what he described as shocking bias against Republicans.

D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits.

Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned.

“The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he said.

“Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction.

“The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along.”

The news outlets mentioned didn’t immediately return requests for comment.

The judge also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake.

Silberman added that there are few notable exceptions to the outlets he mentioned: Fox News, The New York Post, and the Journal’s editorial page.

“It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship,” he wrote.

The uniformity of news bias has a political impact, the judge said, pointing to author Tim Groseclose’s 2011 book “Left Turn.”

The George Mason University professor said in his book that he found that the way outlets report more favorably on Democrats aids the party’s candidates by 8 to 10 percent in a typical election.

SIGN THE PETITION: Release The Epstein Client List!

Silberman was writing a partial dissent in the case of Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain versus Global Witness Publishing, an organization that investigates human rights abuses.

“It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman said.

What do you think?

Is this too little, too late?

Or is the era of Democratic control over media and Big Tech coming to an end?

Let us know in the comments below!