Media Shrug at Privacy Violations of Fox Hosts Hannity, Ingraham, Kilmeade

What are you waiting for?

The other day in a new episode of the January 6 Committee sham, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s handpicked Republican ally, Wyoming Congresswoman Liz Cheney, took it upon herself to violate the privacy of Fox hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Brian Kilmeade by reading aloud their private texts to Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows from January 6.

Safe to say – and unsurprisingly – all three were recommending President Trump speak out against the increasing evidence that the gathering of protestors at the Capitol was turning into a riot.

What seems not to occur to Cheney is that she is a member of the US government – and the idea of a government official targeting members of the press by reading their private communications is the stuff of Orwell.

It is strange that there are precincts for The New York Times (Frank Bruni) Cheney’s attack on media privacy and the free press rights of Hannity, Ingraham and Kilmeade simply doesn’t matter.

Here’s what Bruni had to say on the subject of media privacy: Nothing. Zero. Crickets.

Surprisingly, however, the judge of Westchester County in New York was able to restrain him The Times from publishing internal documents from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas the paper’s leader was livid. The judge ordered The Times to “immediately sequester, protect, and refrain from further disseminating or publishing any of Plaintiff Project Veritas’ privileged materials.”

Replied Dean Baquet Times’s executive editor:

The court’s decision is unconstitutional, and it sets dangerous precedents. A court that silences journalism is a failure of its citizens, and it undermines the right of them to be informed. The landmark decision in the Pentagon Papers case by the Supreme Court against any prior restriction on the publication of newsworthy journalistic journalism was clear. This principle is clearly applicable here. We seek an urgent review of the decision.

Or, in other words: In other words: Freedom of speech and privacy TimesFox News hosts, however, are exempted from this requirement.

The bait and switch that Bruni apparently hopes no one notices is that instead of focusing on the privacy of Hannity, Ingraham and Kilmeade he focuses on the so-called “Big Lie” that centers around the results of the 2020 election. His headline was:

The Line From Fox News to Trump’s Big Lie Is Short and Direct

It is clear that there is a problem. The 2020 election results are irrelevant when you consider that Fox hosts enjoy a constitutional right of free speech. These rights are not affected by the topic under discussion. It could be the events of January 6th or Hunter Biden’s latest craziness or American policy towards China or who will win the Super Bowl or any of a limitless number of topics. The principle that there is a free press, with members of the media having the right to privacy in their communications with anyone – newsmaker or not – is  inviolate.

Do not make any mistake. These three media hosts saw their journalistic privacy rights tossed aside because Donald Trump is the true target.

However, there are reasons for principle. No matter the current topic, or political need, journalistic privacy is applicable. You are not a Fox host.

Question? Question? The tables may be turned if this is the case. The January 6 Committee directed subpoenas to Republican House members, ex Trump staffers, and their allies. They can be easily turned around and directed towards Speaker Pelosi, as well her staff, and other Democratic House leaders. To find out how Pelosi failed protect Capitol’s security.

And if, by the by, the massive record of Pelosi’s communications – texts, phone records, e-mails – turns up messages from some liberal journalist, and that is released to the public by some Republican member of Congress?

Hell is not for those lefty journalists who have double standards.