Press Control

   Verbal attacks and repeated tweets slamming "fake news" don't seem to be influencing media coverage of presidential talk and actions, so the campaign has filed a lawsuit against the New York Times claiming that an op-ed column on Russian interference in the U.S. electoral process was libelous.
   It's a waste of time, for three reasons, all of which are valid legal defenses against any libel accusation: It's true, it's provably true, and the story was printed without malice.
   First, several government agencies have documented examples of Russian interference in the election, and that also meets the second legal defense.
   As for the third defense, the column was an opinion piece, printed on the op-ed (opposite editorial) page of the newspaper, so whether there was malice or not in the piece is not relevant. It was not a news story.
   The first legal defense was established in New York during the Colonial era, when a newspaper printed a story that the governor at the time was having an affair with a woman who was not his wife. The governor sued, charging it was a "false libel." The defense argued that the report of the affair was true, many people knew it was true, and therefore, if it's true, it's not libel.
   The third defense was established in the 20th Century, also involving a New York newspaper, which carried an ad criticizing an anti-civil rights activist. The activist sued the New York Times news department for running the ad. It turned out that while the complaint was valid, the news department was not involved in what the advertising department accepted for printing. Separation of the two departments is common among newspapers, so neither the news department nor the editorial/opinion department was liable for what an advertiser chooses to submit.
   If there was any malice, it was on the part of the group that took out the ad, not the newspaper or any of its departments. Realistically, the main reason the complainant sued the New York Times was likely because the corporation had more money than the activist group that bought the ad. And yes, that is an opinion.
   It would seem, then, that the Trumpians are trying to control what American newspapers print about the current president. This is just the latest example of that strategy. But this time it means overthrowing the First Amendment to the Constitution.
   Or as we say in New Jersey, it ain't gonna happen.
   Also today, the president held a press conference in the White House briefing room at 6:30 p.m., the same time that TV networks broadcast their nightly news programs. The major cable news operations did carry the press conference, but the network programs did not.
   It has been months since the administration formally met the press in the White House briefing room, and only the second time that the president himself has appeared there, so if this was an attempt to control the media, it didn't work.