The framers of the Constitution designated the press as a special institution designed to report to the people on the actions of the government.

Here is what the First Continental Congress in 1774 wrote:

The last right we shall mention regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government, its ready communication of thoughts between subjects, and its consequential promotion of union among them, whereby oppressive officers are shamed or intimidated into more honorable and just modes of conducting affairs.

The founders saw the press as a medium to promote "communication of thoughts between subjects" and "union among them."  That means the press was designed to facilitate free exchange of ideas to encourage debate and hold the powers that be accountable to the people. 

Today, however, the media see their purpose completely differently.  Instead of "communication of thoughts between subjects," the media took it upon themselves to decide which thoughts they will promote and which they will ignore.  They decide which "subjects" are worthy of a platform and which should be shunned.  The media declared themselves as the moral compass for all of us:

American view-from-nowhere, "objectivity"-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment…The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.

Thus, instead of promoting unity, the media seek to promote conformity.  As for the "officers," the media don't "shame and intimidate" every one of them equally.  The government officials are held accountable not based on their performance, but based on their goals.

To achieve unity, you need different viewpoints that work together to find common ground.  The public can then decide which argument is based on science, logic, and common sense.  But the media take a different approach.  First, they pick the argument they consider "moral" and declare it the only legitimate way to think.  And if the facts and science contradict that argument, they either disregard them or twist them to fit.

If the media can hide the facts that go against their agenda, they will.  For example, they ignored the southern border invasion because it reflects negatively on the Biden administration.  They don't cover massacres on the streets of Chicago and other liberal cities because it's the black drug gangs who are responsible.  They completely ignore shoplifting and homelessness in California because they will never admit that progressive policies destroy cities. 

But when the facts are so in your face that they can't be ignored — that's when the spin starts.

After the George Floyd incident, the media declared that white cops were in business of exterminating black men.  That narrative led to violent riots costing dozens of lives and billions in damage — all justified by the media to "protest white supremacy."  When five black cops killed another black man, the "white supremacy" argument collapsed.  However, the media continue to push that narrative, preposterously suggesting that black people can also practice "white supremacy."

A year ago, the media justified COVID vaccine mandates by claiming that the vaccines stopped the spread of COVID.  For months on end, they claimed that "the unvaccinated" needed to be shunned by society, and possibly, even jailed for attempted murder.  But when pharma companies admitted that the COVID vaccine was never tested for stopping transmission, the media did not course-correct.  Far from it — they still push mass vaccinations, because "the vax being completely useless is not the reason to not get it," apparently.

Examples of twisting the facts to promote an agenda are endless (here, here, and here).  The cowardly media would never concede that they are pushing falsehoods to impose progressive vision.  But the media consumers have gotten wise: trust in American media has plummeted. 

You may think that poll would cause the media to do some introspection — but you'd be wrong.  In a stunning feat of "fitting a square peg into a round hole," the media declared that twisting facts to fit their agenda builds trust:

What we found has convinced us that truth-seeking news media must move beyond whatever 'objectivity' once meant to produce more trustworthy news.

This former New York Times editor finally admits what everyone has known for years:

Having a point of view does not mean that you don't follow the facts where they lead. It just means that you are up front about the perspective you are bringing to the story.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that statement.  That is called "opinion journalism" or "advocacy journalism."  There are numerous outlets that do that, but they don't hide their perspective.  They disclose it in big bold letters, so the consumers know what they are getting.

The problem arises when the consumers don't know they are getting "a perspective" instead of balanced news presentation.  The media outlets like the Washington Post, the New York Times, and CNN never admitted they were "advocacy journalists" — until now.  Quite to the contrary: They have always claimed that they are the most trusted, objective, and neutral "facts only" outlets. 

The NYT calls itself "The Paper of Record" — not the "The paper of a thousand corrections."

The WaPo's motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness" — not "Democracy Dies with Trump."

CNN claims to be "facts first" — not "sentence first, trial afterwards."

The American public has always viewed these outlets as the source of news — not a political party propaganda arm.  Without telling anybody, "mainstream" media changed their purpose to slant the news in favor of the progressive agenda — all the while claiming they were still covering the news fairly.  Faced with a ratings disaster, they are whining that "there was nothing wrong with having an opinion to begin with."

It is not your opinion that we object to.  It's your dishonesty.  You are abusing special protections the founders designed for you to push your worldview on the American people.  Your purpose is to report on the powerful — not to choose who they are.  Spare us your "holier than thou" attitude, and get back to doing your job.

Tanya Berlaga is a freelance writer, translator, and a publisher and is currently a contributor to Right Wire Report, The Liberty Loft, and Free Speech Movement. 

Image via Pixnio.