The Orlando tragedy, while horrible and abhorrent, has also provided some much needed clarity regarding how both the politicians of the ruling class and the media members in the courtesan class feel about those they view as subservient.
The short answer is that they honestly believe, in their more honest moments, that the ruled have no rights unless they are conveyed upon them at the whims of those in charge. America has devolved from "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator" to "flexible rights endowed by your intellectual betters". It's been a short ride to the bottom of the freedom index but we appear to be at a position where there is little political blow-back to be felt by those with authoritarian impulses.
In fact, if you're of the correct political disposition (read: Statist/PC Authoritarian) then you are encouraged to strip the public of rights on a whim, or as you feel the political winds blow in your favor.
Not only encouraged, but openly praised for doing so and provided a non-sequitous moral justification for calling for the stripping away of fundamental rights.
But this is what the media does today. It's a bias that's not beholden to any party, but to an idea that the rights of the plebes are fungible and they only exist to serve the mechanisms of the State. Of course, those on the left withdraw with the shrieking horrors if confronted with this, offering up a milieu of news articles that attack Democratic political figures as 'proof' the media has no bias and is actually biased toward the right. This is, of course, yet another non-sequitur and should be dismissed out of hand.
For as long as there has been a free and active media in America it has been biased. The difference from today's media is that the old publications wore their bias proudly, like a badge of honor. Early newspapers were typically small operations ran by ideologues who were either pro-independence, or pro-Britain. They made no attempts to hide this and made no apologies for slanting their news thusly.
Even William Randolph Hearst was biased. He was pro-war during WWII and virulently opposed to FDR's New Deal. In fact, most media outlets as recently at the 1950s openly admitted their reporting had an agenda.
Something changed in the 1960s however, especially when CBS News (under the watchful, socialist eye of Walter Cronkite) realized that the news could become a profit center instead of a cost sink. Suddenly the idea of 'press nobility' started to take hold and Americans were sold the narrative of a 'neutral press' reporting issues 'down the center' with no agenda whatsoever. So-called "firewalls" between news reporting and editorial functions were mock-erected to prove to the public that a media outlet (especially newspapers) could advocate for an issue on one page while dispassionately reporting it on another. The public, never one to pay all that much attention to news, bought the lie and the dumbing of the populace deepened.
Of course, the media will be struck with the vapors if this is mentioned with their standard response being "I've never heard anyone in the newsroom express an agenda" and they'll constantly inform you that they have 'no idea' which way a political reporter votes. (Which is silly if you pay attention to both their writing and (today) their social media accounts where their content and unfiltered asides give them away.)
There are two important things to know about all media.
First, they all are writing toward a political true North. This is true for both Conservative-leaning media outlets (Fox News, Breitbart, Wall St. Journal) and Liberal-leaning ones (New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN etc.). They have never stopped doing it they have just been very successful in marketing the unbiased reporter mythos and it has taken hold.
Second, the left is far more disciplined than is the right. Part of this is due to the fact that most of the education for journalists slants very left. Because of this reporters for conservative sites are either a.) not degreed journalists or b) journalists dismissed from so-called "mainstream" media outlets with an axe to grind. in many cases conservative 'journalists' are in all actuality entertainers.
This is why the leftist media (minus some op-ed writers who happen to be Socialists) stayed relatively true to the Anointed One despite the Sanders uprising while the media of the right fell full sway to the Bronzed Ego. It's also why you never see affordable housing referred to as what it really is: taxpayer subsidized housing.
All of that leads us to this. A place where the discussion of rights is framed entirely from the perspective of one political party. A party that has worked tirelessly to strip citizens of those rights I might add. In very recent times the Statists (usually on the left but sometimes on the right), cheered on by the media, have worked to usurp the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth and the Tenth Amendments. In fact, the only Amendment the current crop of Statists appear to be in favor of is the Ninth, which allows them to bestow "rights" to certain political groups as they see fit.
Thus you have the newly-created right to marry, the right to food, the right to wealth and prosperity, a right to a living wage, a right to healthcare, a right to own a home, a universal right to vote etc.
It's important to note that all of these are not rights, but privileges, which can (and are) lost if you fail to follow the rules of polite society.
But polite society has little to do with modern day politics. Nor does it have anything to do with most of the reporting in modern day media. Both have morphed into a lecture circuit where the ruled are constantly reminded that they cannot properly function without guidance from the ruling.
In other words, you don't want what you want, you really want what they say you can have.
Oh beautiful for spacious skies and all of that.
