New Commentary Feature Coming to NFN

Award winning journalist Seth Mendelson has been writing occasional commentary on Facebook for some time now, always closing his first-person remarks with the phrase, "Just My Angle."

Now, Seth is bringing those comments to Not Fake News, and we'll present them to you most likely every week, depending upon how prolific Seth is and what else is going on. We think you'll appreciate Seth's thoughtful comments, which generally are based on common sense rather than political dogma.

You can learn more about Seth by checking our Writers page. Meanwhile, here's his first entry. Enjoy.

Drawing a Line on Free Speech?

Two of the more conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court want to take up an issue near and dear to my heart and, frankly, I am not sure how I feel about it.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have issued statements saying that it might be time for the court to review its 1964 decision in the case of The New York Times vs. Sullivan, the landmark ruling interpreting the First Amendment to make it hard for public officials to prevail in libel suits.

In layman terms, the 57-year old ruling said that any public official must prove malice against the media if they publish untrue or otherwise incorrect statements about that person. Over the years, the ruling has made it extremely difficult for anyone in the public eye to sue the media and, for many decades, has served as a buffer that protected the media and journalists.

In journalism school, at least in my day, it was heralded as a way to guarantee the freedom of the press and protect writers and editors from those with much deeper pockets who did not like what we wrote and published.

For those reasons, I have always been a strong advocate of this ruling and what it has meant to the press over the years.

But, things have changed, as Thomas and Gorsuch point out. In 1964 and probably until about 20 years ago, the press was controlled by a small group of companies who, as a whole, tended to follow a defined set of rules. Mostly, they reported the facts and only the facts. Opinion was left to the editorial page and that usually was just one page in an otherwise large newspaper.

Unfortunately, the rise of the cable TV news and the internet has made publishing a completely different beast. Now, anybody and anyone can publish a blog or article or newscast and blurt out anything they want about anyone and hope that someone believes it.

And, they will find someone to believe anything. See the rise of the QAnon conspiracy theory and the nonsense over 9/11 being an inside job by our government as just two great examples.

As The New York Times pointed out, another wonderful example was a rogue article from several years ago that noted that Hilary Clinton ran a pedophile site out of a pizza parlor in Washington, D.C. Many people believed this article, which had ZERO substance, and one delusional man actually forced his way through the restaurant and into the basement to free all the enslaved children. He found none.

So, I am wishy washy on this. On one hand, a review of the ruling could end up giving the court, now 6-3 in favor of the conservatives, a free hand to completely toss it out. That would only hurt the legitimate press and threaten our much needed freedom of the press.

But, on the other hand, the ruling allows anyone to say anything about a public person, including politicians, athletes and entertainers, and be pretty protected against any lawsuit. Hmmmm, not sure I like that either.

Either way, this proves that the way we receive the news has changed dramatically over the last few years and something needs to be done to ensure that false news-from any corner--is blunted.

And, I am certain, that something needs to be done. But what?

Just my angle.

Editor's Note: Agree with Seth? Disagree? Have something to say about this? If you're a Not Fake News Member, you can use the comment area below to share your views. If you're not a Member, now would be a good time to sign up.