Posts

Threat to Independent Media Worse Than You Know

I feel like the prophet Jeremiah. He was always the prophet I did not want to be when I grew up. He not only was the bearer of bad news to Israel, but he did not exactly live a mostly comfortable life – like Ezekiel and Daniel.

But it’s been my misfortune to raise alarms about the devastating attacks by the Digital Cartel – Google-Facebook – on the independent media. They’ve been going on for a long time to be sure. But the scorched-earth policy began last summer – and it’s been killing sites like WND, Breitbart, Daily Caller, et al.

Just this week, for instance, Politico published a story almost gleefully reporting that my friends at Breitbart.com have lost half their traffic and even more advertising during this siege by the politically motivated giants of the internet. Even if the reports are exaggerated, we’re talking about an imminent, existential threat to the biggest of the big independent media sites . . .

This war on us is not going away. We’re all in the same boat – and Google-Facebook are shooting holes in it. It’s a massive power play that not only threatens the independent media that were so important as a reality check in the 2016 presidential election but is crippling us in the critical 2018 election battle for control of Congress.

But it’s even bigger than that, I’m afraid. I honestly believe that this fight, at the end of the day, will determine whether or not freedom of speech on the internet will survive. I think the independent media are just the lab rats in a grand and gruesome experiment for total control of thought by the left. If the lab rats die, it will be on to stifling other voices through intimidation and humiliation. (Read more from “Threat to Independent Media Worse Than You Know” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

POLL: This Second Most Annoying Phrase Has to Do With News

For the ninth consecutive year, Americans say “whatever” is the most annoying word or phrase used in casual conversation. But, fewer Americans feel that way than in previous years. Residents under the age of 45, compared with their older counterparts, do not find the word all that bothersome.

33% of Americans consider “whatever” to be the most annoying word or phrase. The recent addition of “fake news” takes second place with 23% followed closely by “no offense, but” with 20%. 11% think “literally” is the most grating word used in conversation while 10% assert “you know what I mean” is the most agitating.

In 2016, “whatever” received 38% to 20% for “no offense, but.” “Ya know, right” and “I can’t even” each garnered 14%. Eight percent of Americans deemed “huge” to be the most irritating word or phrase spoken in casual conversation. (Read more from “POLL: This Second Most Annoying Phrase Has to Do With News” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

SNOPES TAKEN HOSTAGE: Left-Wing “Fact-Checker” Reveals It Has Lost Control of Its Website

At one point in the distant past of the Interwebs, Snopes.com was taken seriously as a leading de-bunker of urban myths.

As the years went by, its founders — a once-married couple named David and Barbara Mikkelson — decided to drift into political commentary. As their site grew, they hired an openly partisan, left-wing blogger named Kim Lacapria.

Lacapria had earlier declared herself “openly left-leaning” and very liberal. She has tarred conservatives as “teahadists” who “fear female agency”.

After joining Snopes, Lacapria quickly found herself and the site embroiled in controversy as her various posts read like Democrat op-eds and not any sort of fact-checking.

The Mikkelsons themselves are an interesting pair. They divorced in 2014, but appear to be engaged in a vicious battle over their assets. One court document accuses David of “raiding the corporate business Bardav bank account for his personal use… [which] he expended upon himself and the prostitutes he hired.

Well, as you might expect from an organization this well-run…

…Snopes “is now in danger of closing its doors” and has been forced to hold a fundraising campaign (link intentionally omitted).

In the letter David Mikkelson wrote describing the reason for the campaign, he admits that the company has lost control of its own website and says it’s being held “hostage” by a vendor it outsourced various services to.

That’s a big deal. In fact, Mikkelson implies that the vendor could create, alter and delete any site contents it wants to. Thus far, he claims that hasn’t happened.

Snopes.com, which began as a small one-person effort in 1994 and has since become one of the Internet’s oldest and most popular fact-checking sites, is in danger of closing its doors. So, for the first time in our history, we are turning to you, our readership, for help.

Since our inception, we have always been a self-sustaining site that provides a free service to the online world: we’ve had no sponsors, no outside investors or funding, and no source of revenue other than that provided by online advertising. Unfortunately, we have been cut off from our historic source of advertising income.

We had previously contracted with an outside vendor to provide certain services for Snopes.com. That contractual relationship ended earlier this year, but the vendor will not acknowledge the change in contractual status and continues to essentially hold the Snopes.com web site hostage. Although we maintain editorial control (for now), the vendor will not relinquish the site’s hosting to our control, so we cannot modify the site, develop it, or — most crucially — place advertising on it. The vendor continues to insert their own ads and has been withholding the advertising revenue from us.

Our legal team is fighting hard for us, but, having been cut off from all revenue, we are facing the prospect of having no financial means to continue operating the site and paying our staff (not to mention covering our legal fees) in the meanwhile.

As misinformation has increasingly threatened democracies around the world (including our own), Snopes.com has stood in the forefront of fighting for truth and dispelling misinformation online…

The fact that Snopes says it has lost control of its site renders its already tenuous hold on the fact-checking business meaningless.

Snopes should be removed from any fact arbitration services from Facebook and Google until it can reclaim control of its site.

Meanwhile, those interested in all of the legal back-and-forth between the parties can grab some popcorn and enjoy.

(For more from the author of “SNOPES TAKEN HOSTAGE: Left-Wing “Fact-Checker” Reveals It Has Lost Control of Its Website” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Ridiculous Reason the FBI Has Decided to Investigate Conservative Websites

The FBI is investigating whether conservative news sites, including Breitbart and InfoWars, cooperated with the Russian government in an effort to influence the presidential election.

McClatchy reports the investigation is focused on the use of strategically-timed social media “bots” employed to blitz social media with pro-Donald Trump and anti-Hillary Clinton stories.

A bot is simply a program that gathers information based on defined specifications.

“The bots’ end products were largely millions of Twitter and Facebook posts carrying links to stories on conservative internet sites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars, as well as on the Kremlin-backed RT News and Sputnik News,” sources told McClatchy.

“This may be one of the most highly impactful information operations in the history of intelligence,” one former U.S. intelligence official stated on a condition of anonymity.

Federal investigators are seeking to discover if Breitbart and other sites cooperated in the efforts.

According to Alexa, Breitbart’s web traffic shot up dramatically in October, in relation to other similar websites, and has remained at a high level since. It currently is in the top 100 most viewed websites in the country, even outpacing FoxNews.com.

Breitbart reported on Nov. 19 that it experienced a record 300 million page views over the previous 31 days.

The news site did not respond for comment about the McClatchy story.

Breitbart’s former chairman, Steve Bannon, stepped down to become the CEO of the Trump campaign in August. He now serves as a top adviser on the president’s White House staff.

InfoWars’ Alex Jones responded to the story on his radio program on Monday.

“To be called a Russian asset by McClatchy and by the LA Times and by a bunch of other publications today is funny, if it wasn’t so serious,” he said.

“I don’t personally take this as a threat … I’m threatened for the country. I mean if the Russians want to secure our borders, cut our taxes, not have us go bankrupt, rebuild our military, block radical Islam — well then, hell, I’m a Russian agent! But I’m not,” Jones added, according to The Daily Caller.

As reported by Western Journalism, FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Monday in testimony before the House Intelligence Committee that his agency is investigating “alleged links” between the Russian government and the Trump campaign.

Earlier this month, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper stated on Meet the Press there was “no evidence” of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., voiced the same conclusion on Fox News Sunday. (For more from the author of “The Ridiculous Reason the FBI Has Decided to Investigate Conservative Websites” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Le Monde Labels Breitbart Fake News as Google Bans 200 Sites from Ad Network

No one likes fake news. But that can be bad news, when liberal newspapers and websites use it as an excuse to censor conservative news sources.

Facebook, for example, announced a plan to combat fake news last month, which entails using left-leaning media and fact-checking organizations to analyze stories. Stories that are considered false will be less likely to show up in Facebook’s news feed, will contain a warning flag and will be prohibited from being promoted through an ad.

Who isn’t concerned that left-leaning Facebook users will report conservative articles as fake, left-leaning fact-checkers will rule the articles fake, and journalists who lean to the left will affirm the reports?

Snopes acknowledged that a site called USA Politics Today had only one fake news article on its entire site, which was removed, but Google still banned the site from its advertising network.

Le Monde, Google, Media Matters and Buzzfeed

Last week, the prominent French newspaper Le Monde identified 600 news sites it considers to be fake news, including the popular conservative site Breitbart, until recently led by top Trump aid Steve Bannon. Le Monde‘s fact-checking division Les Décodeurs compiled the list.

Samuel Laurent, head of Les Décodeurs, said some sites may seem normal but are dispelling misinformation on areas like abortion. “You then find out they’re run by Catholic militants,” so are heavily partisan, he said. Sites that contain negative information about Muslims were also included.

The newspaper built a downloadable browser extension that will alert readers to the “truthfulness” of stories on these 600 websites. It is also building a bot for Facebook to identify the stories. The full list has not been made public yet.

Other important sites are doing the same thing. Google decided in the fourth quarter of last year to ban fake news sites from its Google Adsense network. Adsense allows publishers to receive royalties from ads and the company said putting out misleading information violates the program’s terms of usage. The ban targeted sites which impersonate real news organizations through shortened top-level domains, such as by using .co instead of .com. Google did not issue a list of the 200 sites it banned, but at least one of them is a conservative news site.

The left-wing site Media Matters, which aggressively targets conservatives, regularly reports conservative news sites to Google as fake news sites. Media Matters identified 24 of these websites in December. They are mostly familiar conservative websites, including some fairly prominent sites like Right Wing News, Gateway Pundit and Western Journalism (disclaimer: I am a regular contributor to Right Wing News).

Last October, the left-leaning site Buzzfeed identified 30 articles on Right Wing News as fake news. John Hawkins, the owner of Right Wing News, analyzed all of the articles and concluded that 23 of the articles were accurate — but Buzzfeed would only retract three of the false labels.

Media Matters triumphantly announced on January 26 that this list had been whittled down to just over a dozen sites, but most of the sites removed from the list still appear to be a part of the Adsense network. The only site I could determine that was successfully kicked out of the network is USA Politics Today, a fairly popular conservative site. The owner of the site said Google told them the site was banned because two titles of articles on the site were misleading. One of the articles, “BREAKING: Jill Stein Just ENDORSED Donald Trump! Watch Her Obliterate Hillary!” was removed from the site, but Google would not renege. According to the left-leaning, myth-debunking site Snopes, that article was the only fake news on the entire website.

A few of the websites belonging to two notorious creators of fake news—leftists posting false stories designed to fool conservatives—were probably included in this list. Jestin Coler ran Conservative Frontline, National Report and The Denver Guardian last year. All three sites are no longer operating and are devoid of content. Paul Horner was the lead writer for National Report, and went on to start his own fake news sites, including newsexaminer.net and abcnews.com.co. Those two sites are still operating, but do not have any ads from Google Adsense.

A Dangerous Trend

The increase in organizations targeting fake news will harm conservative news sites, since they are being included. The definition of fake news has been expanded from meaning sites that purposely churn out false stories to encompass conservative news the left dislikes. The left is trying to hijack the definition of fake news. The organizations choosing to identify fake news are questionable. Since Le Monde is a news organization itself, should it really be the authority on what news is accurate? It is akin to policing itself and making the rules for the industry.

Melissa Zimdars, a media professor at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, compiled a list of fake news websites last year. A couple of the sites included are fairly popular right-leaning sites, such as Infowars and Conservative Tribune. Even more troubling, she singled out Fox News, one of the most prominent and reputable sites for conservatives, as potentially making the list. “Some sources not yet included in this list (although their practices at times may qualify them for addition), such as The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, and Fox News, vacillate between providing important, legitimate, problematic, and/or hyperbolic news coverage, requiring readers and viewers to verify and contextualize information with other sources,” she wrote.

It is long overdue for a source on the right to compile a list of fake news sites that doesn’t include conservative news. (For more from the author of “Le Monde Labels Breitbart Fake News as Google Bans 200 Sites from Ad Network” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Fake News Is Not New

Is anyone besides me tired of hearing about “fake news”? You would think it was a new discovery on the level with fire. It isn’t It’s been going on for a long time.

The serpent wove a pretty fantastic story in the Garden of Eden. After all, fake news is simply a false narrative constructed to incite people to follow a specific agenda. The recent political campaign had more than its share of such. The current headlines do too.

The media has been exposed as less objective than we thought or hoped. Who could believe the accounts presented about Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton or President Obama? If the story fit your bias, it was tempting to certify it as true, and even pass it on as legitimate news.

Competing Narratives

During my early high school days, before I had a driver’s license, I had to catch a ride for the ten miles home after football practice. My uncle who lived just a mile away was a good prospect. He was the clerk of the district court and left for home at 5:00 p.m. most days. Sometimes when court was in session, he would be forced to stay later, and I would sit in the courtroom and watch the proceedings.

I was always amazed at how an attorney could take the presented evidence and create a narrative to account for it in such a way to benefit his desired conclusion. The jury had to decide between competing narratives. This has been going on a long time.

Back to the Garden. The serpent reinterpreted the circumstances and wove a story about how much better it would be if the original pair would distrust God and believe his version of reality instead. Later in history, Jesus said that the devil was a liar from the beginning, and “the father of lies.” All alternative narratives come from him, through the minds and mouths of those who, like the serpent, reject God’s word as final truth.

Sadly, many don’t even admit that such a dynamic is going on. They ignore the reality of spiritual deception and walk headlong into issues they have no ability to discern.

On Christmas night, the shepherds heard real news and it was good. A new day had come! A new King had arrived. Blessings would come from His reign. Sin would be forever defeated. Life as designed would be possible for those who submitted to Him. They would be given His name as authority and His Spirit as power to live.

Fake News, Real News

You might have heard some fake news. For instance, the accuser, Satan, likes to broadcast that God is angry with you and that you should probably avoid Him. After all, look at the circumstances around you. Why are you having all these problems? Surely this is incontrovertible evidence that God doesn’t want to bless you.

The good news that Jesus brings is that He took upon Himself the wrath of God for your sins. If you trust in Him, you are now viewed by God as righteous as Jesus. You are blessed in Christ. Your circumstances are opportunities to discover His grace and sufficiency.

Or, you might have heard that evil is so pervasive that it will ultimately win. Again, if you look at the circumstances, with all the bad things going on, it’s easy to wonder, if God is ruling, why so much evil?

But try looking at the good things going on. God is using His people to address issues of injustice and hostility, and will ultimately vindicate His own. Give thanks for the blessings and your eyes will open to more.

Finally, you might have heard that life is just unfair and random and you are one of the victims. Look at how the wicked are blessed and the righteous are ignored.

Far from being a victim, you are God’s delegated representative on earth. As one who trusts in Him, you carry His approval and His name. He is using you to address the issues that you see with the truth of the good news that is real.

There is real news and it is good. You can trust it if it aligns with the word of God. He can be trusted and so can His word. When you know the truth you can be free. (For more from the author of “Fake News Is Not New” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Conversion and Martyrdom: Two of Most Unreported Stories of 2016

Two seismic events occurred in 2016 that the secular media largely missed.

The press’s failure to report them is caused by many things. Spiritual blindness. Disinterest. Ignorance of religious matters. Obstinate disregard for the reality that faith, not just economics or political power, animates human behavior, good and bad.

Here are the two stories that should arrest the attention of all Christians who are concerned with God’s work in the world:

Around the world, people are coming to know Jesus Christ through the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit.

Around the world, people who know Jesus Christ are being put to death for their love for him. Others are being tortured, imprisoned, driven from their homes, denied jobs, and otherwise treated cruelly.

The Spread of Faith

As to the first, in every region of the globe, the number of Christians is swelling. For example, in the Middle East, thousands of Muslims are coming to Christ. As reported by the respected anti-persecution ministry Open Doors,

The Islamic State has been filling the headlines for a long time and filling the hearts of many people in the Middle East with fear. But in the midst of all this, the church in the Middle East is showing the love of Christ to those who fled their homes. Muslims in the Middle East are turning to Jesus in unprecedented numbers.

In Iran,

Thousands of Christians are secretly worshiping in Iran as part of a house church movement in the country. The Iranian government considers Christianity a threat to Islam. However, Open Doors USA estimates that as many as 450,000 Christians are in Iran. Others estimate there are more than 1 million practicing Christians in the country.

In 2011, Pew Research published “Global Christianity — A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Christian Population.” A careful evaluation of the data led Pew to conclude that there are roughly 70 million Christians in China (around 60 million Protestants and the remainder Catholics). Some observers believe this number is significantly low.

However, according to Purdue University sociologist Fenggang Yang, “the number of Protestant Christians in China could reach 171 million by 2021 and 255 million by 2025 … it is possible that China could become the largest Protestant country by 2021 and the largest Christian country by 2025.”

The growth of the Christian faith is seen in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region broadly. Another of the Pew report’s findings speaks to this:

Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today — unlike a century ago — is truly a global faith.

The Persecution of the Faithful

Yet with this ongoing and profoundly significant change in religious allegiance throughout the world, there is also a great deal of pain for followers of Jesus. Here are a few headlines that speak to this grim reality:

“Violent Persecution Set to Rise in 2017” — December 29, 2016

“Anti-Christian persecution: 90,000 killed in 2016” — December 26, 2016

“Chinese Communist Party readies crackdown on Christianity” — October 7, 2016

“ISIS Orders Its Franchises to Kill Christians” — August 14, 2016

“New Boko Haram leader vows to kill all Christians” — August 4, 2016

The list could go on and on.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has called President Obama’s record on protecting the persecuted “abysmal.” It is hard not to agree. After leaving the State Department’s key religious liberty post vacant for nearly two years, Mr. Obama appointed a motivational speaker with virtually no knowledge of international persecution issues to the role.

Although her successor, Rabbi David Saperstein, is widely hailed as an effective advocate for the persecuted, the fact remains that President Obama has shown a distinct disinterest in including religious liberty and anti-persecution efforts among his foreign policy priorities.

As his administration draws to a close, the President did recently sign “an update of the 1998 bill that established a religious freedom office in the State Department and an independent watchdog panel, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF).” Named the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act in honor of its original author and leading champion for religious liberty around the world, former Congressman Frank Wolf, Christianity Today reports that the measure is designed to improve the federal government’s effectiveness in promoting religious liberty by:

“Requiring the ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom to report directly to the secretary of State;

“Establishing an ‘entities of particular concern’ category — a companion to the ‘countries of particular concern’ classification used for nearly 20 years by the State Department — for non-government actors, such as the Islamic State (IS) and the Nigerian terrorist organization Boko Haram.

“Instituting a ‘designated persons list’ for individuals who violate religious freedom and authorizing the president to issue sanctions against those who participate in persecution.”

The bill also “creates a list of overseas religious prisoners; mandates religious liberty training for all foreign service officers; (and) establishes a minimum number of full-time staff members in the State Department’s international religious freedom office.”

This is welcome news not only for the persecuted worldwide but also for our own foreign policy interests: By standing with the persecuted, America not only remains true to her own founding principles of religious liberty and human dignity but also lets the suffering know that they have a friend in the United States. This seed, once planted, will bear good fruit for American diplomacy in the future.

What the enemies of the Gospel don’t understand is that in another of God’s marvelous ironies, persecution only leads to an increase in people coming to Christ. As church father Tertullian said, “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” May many of those enemies, in 2017, themselves become like Paul — once persecutors, now believers in the Risen Son. May we pray to that end, and never forget to pray and advocate for some of the very least of our — and Jesus’s — brethren. (For more from the author of “Conversion and Martyrdom: Two of Most Unreported Stories of 2016” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

10 Absolutely Reprehensible Salon Pieces From 2016 That Will Make Your Blood Boil

You know Salon – the raging liberal online magazine that represents everything that is wrong with Leftist media. Salon is notorious for its sensational, controversial, and downright bizarre headlines. The outlet is best known for normalizing pedophilia, glorifying abortion, entertaining whiners, and most of all … hating on conservatives.

Though there are many (everyone has their favorite), here are 10 of the most atrocious Salon pieces of 2016.

1. “I’m not a monster”: A pedophile on attraction, love and a life of loneliness

A logical follow-up to the sympathetic 2012 piece, “Meet pedophiles who mean well.” We’d rather not.

2. TV’s 10 best abortion moments of 2016

This one earned the hearty approval of abortion giant Planned Parenthood:

#upsideof2016 People talking about abortion on prime time tv and helping reduce stigma. https://t.co/qKkcnPgt9w

— Planned Parenthood (@PPIAction) December 19, 2016

3. Born of slavery, the Electoral College could stand against racism in 2016 — and stop Donald Trump

Did the Electoral College take a stand against racism? If by “stand against racism” you mean “stand against flyover country,” then no, no they did not.

4. GOP’s next battle against gay rights: Proposed First Amendment Defense Act will use “religious freedom” to legalize discrimination

Translation: “Liberty-loving conservatives will use the ‘Constitution’ to inform legislation.”

5. Lena Dunham will destroy Donald Trump: Millennials are now the largest generation, and their power is enormous

How’s that millennial thing working for you, Dunham? Maybe that “enormous” power will serve you and your fellow snowflakes better in Canada.

6. Women divorce better than men: They’re happier, more confident and less likely to self-destruct

Women have progressed past feeling human emotions. Yay, feminism.

7. Hate crimes against Muslims have risen, even as hate crimes against everyone else have declined

Do you mean to tell us that hate crimes against police have declined as well? The Left has a pretty interesting understanding of “hate.” And reality.

8. MLK was a disruptor: How Black Lives Matter carries on Martin Luther King’s legacy of effective activism

That time Salon compared MLK to BLM and we lol’ed.

9. Hillary Clinton, don’t even think of dumping Huma Abedin

Clinton supporters reached a new low with the hagiography of Huma. The strange irony of supposedly pro-women, pro-tolerance liberals supporting an individual with ties to anti-women, pro-Sharia law organizations and values.

10. Hideous, disgusting racists: Let’s call Donald Trump and his supporters exactly what they are

Let’s call the Left exactly what they are: Hypocrites. Fear-mongers. And sore losers. Sticks and stones… (For more from the author of “10 Absolutely Reprehensible Salon Pieces From 2016 That Will Make Your Blood Boil” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Founders Anticipated ‘Fake News.’ Here’s What They Did About It.

Following the presidential election, numerous stories surfaced about how “fake news” influenced the results. This prompted a reaction from the media and a concerted effort by the social media giant Facebook to crack down on the phenomenon—announcing that it would in part by using liberal fact-checkers to distinguish the “real” from the “fake” news.

The truth is that while the American media landscape has been in a constant state of change over two centuries, the spread of hyperpartisan, scurrilous, and even phony news stories has been more common than uncommon throughout the history of the republic.

Ultimately, despite the increasingly Wild West state of journalism, Americans have been better at finding the truth than less free societies.

The media response frames the fake news issue as nearly the single greatest threat to democracy in our time. But despite the worries that surround an uptick in fraudulent news, the phenomenon is nothing new, nor does it particularly portend dark times in America’s future.

The overreaction in response, potentially damaging both the right to free speech and a culture that supports it, may be more dangerous to a free society.

‘Dupes of Pretended Patriots’

The idea that the press could try to deceive rather than enlighten readers was not lost on the Founders. In the years before and after the American Revolution there was an explosion of printing presses throughout the Western world as improved printing technology was becoming widely available.

Journalists and pamphleteers were certainly vital to spreading the ideas of American rebellion against the English—names like Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams were nearly synonymous with the American Revolution, and they certainly weren’t alone. Though propaganda and distortion of the news were common as well.

After America gained independence, there were still huge numbers of scribblers writing about news and politics with varying levels of credibility and accuracy.

When the framers of the Constitution met to discuss the construction of the new government at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, freedom of the press and what it would mean for the future of the country was certainly on their minds.

Many Founders fretted about what the proliferation of false or destructive notions would mean for the idea of democracy and a society of mass political participation.

Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry lamented how the people in his home state were being led astray by false stories from malcontents and manipulators.

“The people do not want [lack] virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots,” Gerry said. “In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience, that they are daily misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false reports circulated by designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute.”

So what did the Founders do to stop this problem? They created a system of government that would allow room for democracy, yet checked its vices: through institutions like Congress, the constitutional amendment process, and division of power between branches of government as well as the states and federal government. Not to mention the Electoral College, which the modern left now decries as unfair and undemocratic.

Unfortunately, some of these checks have been eroded over time and continue to be undermined. For instance, the 17th Amendment forced states to elect senators through a popular vote rather than have the state legislature choose a representative, which has reduced the power of the states in the American system.

And in some states, like California, the requirement to pass a constitutional amendment is simply 50 percent of the vote plus one, yet again increasing the chance that a temporary excitement of the populace can lead to rapid, negative changes in governance.

The weakening of the structural checks on democracy has been the greater threat of fake news’ proliferation than nonsense peddlers themselves.

Tocqueville on the ‘Liberty of the Press’

It was not only the Founders who understood the trade-offs between a free press and misleading news. Alexis de Tocqueville, the famed French observer of American life, wrote about the freedom of the press in his 1835 book “Democracy in America.”

Tocqueville noted that when he arrived in the U.S., the very first newspaper article he read was an overheated piece accusing then-President Andrew Jackson of being a “heartless despot, solely occupied with the preservation of his own authority” and a “gamester” who ruled by corruption. This type of account was not unusual.

The years following the founding saw a booming and free-wheeling publishing industry, unimpeded by the licensing and restrictions common in other countries. Freedom allowed newspapers to proliferate throughout the United States in a highly decentralized way.

And in early American history, most newspapers were expressly partisan or outright controlled by individual politicians. They often aggressively attacked and made outrageous comments about political opponents.

Yet Tocqueville wrote that despite the general vehemence of the press, America was further from actual violence and political revolution than other societies that tightly controlled information.

While recognizing the occasional problems of an unimpeded fourth estate, Tocqueville wrote that “in order to enjoy the inestimable benefits that the liberty of the press ensures, it is necessary to submit to the inevitable evils that it creates.”

An attempt to submit “false” news and opinions through an official fact-checker would likely only elevate and perhaps justify a false opinion in the minds of the people, according to Tocqueville.

He continued to write that expecting to have the good of a free press without the bad has been “one of those illusions which commonly mislead nations in their times of sickness when, tired with faction and exhausted by effort, they attempt to make hostile opinions and contrary principles coexist upon the same soil.”

Americans were so used to being bombarded with opinions and information from a diverse media, Tocqueville wrote, that they were less likely to react to falsehoods and outrageous opinions.

Fake News existed in that time as well as ours, but it did little to outright convince people to change their views. This continues to be the case today.

Tocqueville concluded of a free press:

When the right of every citizen to a share in the government of society is acknowledged, everyone must be presumed to be able to choose between the various opinions of his contemporaries and to appreciate the different facts from which inferences may be drawn. The sovereignty of the people and the liberty of the press may therefore be regarded as correlative, just as the censorship of the press and universal suffrage are two things which are irreconcilably opposed and which cannot long be retained among the institutions of the same people.

The visiting Frenchman understood what Americans have almost always believed. Occasional false news stories cannot destroy a society fitted for liberty, but extreme efforts to contain them will.

The Search for Truth

The reality is, barriers to prevent modern Americans from receiving “fake news” are unlikely to succeed in a free society where a mass of information is readily available.

The internet, and a lack of trust in the legacy media, has allowed numerous new media publications to find success. It has again radically decentralized the way Americans get their information.

These legacy media organizations are attempting to reign in the chaos with new gimmicks like fact-checkers, but ultimately their influence and credibility are fading in the minds of Americans as fewer people trust or desire to read those sources.

This isn’t an anomaly in American life—it has been the norm. We must trust and maintain the mediating constitutional system the Founders created along the judgment of the American people.

The freedom of the press, enshrined in the First Amendment and tempered by institutions designed to slow governmental change and thwart temporary excitements of opinion, created a nation incredibly free, yet robust enough to withstand potential large-scale errors in judgment.

The Founders understood that the good would outweigh the bad with a free press, and no court could justly measure the rightness or wrongness of news and public opinion. They realized that without allowing the press to operate freely and leaving the people as its ultimate tribunal, America would never truly be a land of liberty.

Fake or biased news was the willingly paid price of an open society, and the winnowing process of the American system ultimately leads the country toward the truth. (For more from the author of “The Founders Anticipated ‘Fake News.’ Here’s What They Did About It.” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

FUNNY: LA Times Produces List Of “Fake New Sites” That Includes a Bunch O’ Sites More Accurate Than It Is

Kemberlee Kaye at Legal Insurrection points us to another example of hysterical media at its finest.

Having blamed James Comey, Russia, John Podesta, Julian Assange, warmal colding, and screwed up computer algorithms for the failure of a screeching, unhealthy, and unpopular harridan to achieve the presidency, the latest culprit appears to be “fake news”.

You rednecks — of all races, religions and ethnic backgrounds who voted for Donald J. Trump — are too stupid to distinguish fact from fiction, got it?

To help you out, the Melissa Zimdars, Assistant Professor of Communication at Merrimack College in Massachusetts, created a list of, “false, misleading, clickbait-y and satirical ‘news’ sources.” The LA Times published the list.

You read that right.

The Los Angeles Times, one of the most biased news sources in the U.S. — which is still withholding the controversial videotape of Barack Obama toasting PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi — claims to be the arbiter of fake news.

Among the sites that are more accurate and legitimate than the Times itself, which the nutty professor listed as “fake” include:

Bizpacreview.com
Breitbart.com
DailyWire.com
IJR.com
LibertyUnyielding.com
ProjectVeritas.com
RedState.com
TheBlaze.com
Twitchy.com
WorldNetDaily.com
ZeroHedge.com

Curiously, Zimdars failed to list CBS (home of Dan Rather), NBC (home of Brian Williams), and the innumerable other mainstream “news” sources have been outed as straight-up purveyors of Democrat propaganda. (For more from the author of “FUNNY: LA Times Produces List Of “Fake New Sites” That Includes a Bunch O’ Sites More Accurate Than It Is” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.