to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
No President has ever attacked the news media as an institution until Trump.
John Adams was so concerned about foreign influence (the French) on our press, he signed into law the 1798 Sedition Act, which made publishing anything critical of the government illegal.
Great point LRG! Thanks.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
He's done nothing that Obama didn't do. The fact is that free speech works for all, yes, even the president. People can then criticize him or applaud as they see fit.
The press are free to say what they like too and likewise, people can agree or disagree.
Still waiting to see some actual evidence of any 1st amendment attack happening.
It couldn't be that, OMG, the attach on the press and the 1st amendment itself is an example of fake news could it?
No, that isn't fake news. And no one has acted like this prior to Trump. To parrot Bohm "But whattabout..." is about where we are at as far as a defense of his behavior.
Re. the comparison to Obama: A thing I have noticed is that critique of Trump is nearly never addressed, but rather it is deflected by saying: but whatabout...
Why is that? Have we given up on finding a solid moral grounding on which to evaluate our views on? Interestingly, this tactic is the bread-and-butter of the Russian TV propaganda.
Couldn't agree more. Get rid of real facts. Call everything that disagrees with you into question. You leave no room for anyone other than those that agree with you and encourage an atmosphere or paranoia and fear. Just like a good "leader" should.
Somehow, this is still the fault of media bias. *sigh*
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
To play orange devils advocate, Obama and other presidents have done the same, in much less theatrical manner of course
Red Herring. With respect, no they haven't. No President has ever attacked the news media as an institution until Trump.
Argue about facts, be political, etc? Of course. But never ever has an institution protected by the first amendment been attacked by a President until Trump.
Wait, I am wrong. Nixon. Forgot about him..... He did it too. Turns out, he was the liar.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Just to put this out there....
It's one thing for Fox News to disagree with any liberal politician as they make no bones about their being right leaning. And guess what, that's constitutionally protected. However, CNN and the major news outlets make no such claims. It's Fox and (if you will recall) news talk radio that started this. They INSISTED that the media was lefty. Simply because their political points of view weren't a majority in government. (Remember Limbaugh's "America Held Hostage" during the Clinton years? Those were such tough times for America.....)
Framing news will always happen when you report it. However, the bias started, and has always been with Fox News and the fringe right.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Has Trump actually tried to shut down the press or do anything unconstitutional?
By calling them "fake news" yes he has. If we were to wait until he actually did shut down the press, it would be too late wouldn't it...
He could end this by moving on with his agenda and start working with the levers of government our founders created and has worked pretty well overall. He still clearly is in campaign mode. He needs to get to work. I am pretty sure he is out of executive orders soon.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
To Simon:
First of all, I want to apologize. I made a general statement about mainstream media versus what I see as a "whiter" version of the news. I think that merits it's own discussion thread. However, I see I made it seem like I believe you to be racist, and I don't. I apologize for my sloppy point.
We both agree that bias exists in the media. I think that the question needs to be redirected to matters of fact.
You seem to have a comprehension problem. I was answering your question on whether having no free press would be better than a biased one.
I see an attack on something that is by definition of the First Amendment, a Democratic institution, our free (and biased) press. What is considered "better" or not is irrelevant. It is free. What alternative is there to free? To McCain's point that I quoted above, an adversarial press is something all Presidents should expect as a check. This issue has come up in the light of Trump's recent comments about the news media pushing "fake news." Let's not forget the context. That is 100% wrong where he stands. He deserves censure for that, and more of it in my opinion.
So not a convenient sidestepping, just a basic fact, one that the press again mis-portrays as a crime. That doesn't mean that his tax returns wouldn't show some crime, but not producing them isn't one.
A total accident of history, frankly.... Good thing we have a free press to investigate this. I am sure they will find some evidence (facts!) that he will try to ignore and side step. Why do you think he is working so hard right now to discredit the free press. Because of what he is doing now, or what will eventually be found out about him in the future? Where there is smoke, there is fire.
No, I think the questions asked are why his administration gave the finger to Israel on every chance it could while giving funding and kind words to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. When Obama says that his role is to promote the idea that Islam is a religion of peace, I think it's fair to question his aims and loyalties.And Trump's ideas are to promote Russia as a friendly 2nd cousin to the United States? What's good for the goose is good for the gander here my friend.
I think you over-simplify the incredibly complex situation that is the occupied territories around Israel. Because Israel is our ally (as they should be) doesn't mean that everything they do is right, moral and just. However, we seem incapable of having a nuanced discussion on this 3,000 year old knot over there. But that goes beyond the scope of this discussion. Needless to say, I think Obama's loyalties are first and foremost to the protection and growth of the United States. As were all other Presidents prior to Trump. Trump is the first president I question that, and it has nothing to do with him being a "Republican".
I am left of center socially, fiscally conservative, and prefer the company of laid back Libertarians. I also believe that everyone on this thread is in it together. We have to stop fighting and figure this out. But we won't be able to do that with two separate sets of facts.
The news media isn't the enemy. Some politicians fanning nationalistic flames very much are. That is a shame.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Freemindride, please forgive my attempts at humor. I am sure you don't get your news from Breitbart.
The whole point of this thread is that the "news media" is biased. Clearly, traditional news media is under attack from the right. The more I think about this thread and the comments made, the more I think we are talking about the wrong thing. Thus, my recent comments above....
Freemindride, leftist protests are also constitutionally protected. As is the news media. For now. Imagine if it was somehow...outlawed. Because it irritated people. You know, no need for the whiners to let it be known that they don't like it when a President who won the electoral college but not the popular vote suddenly says "That can't be right!" and then repeatedly disagrees with anything resembling truth and a fact. Should we not expect such STUPID behavior to be called and cause upset? I protest it. Trump is wrong where he stands. To defend it is utter stupidity. Let's call it what it is. And let's not get mad at the news media for doing the same thing.
Apologies if I missed your point in Trump being volatile versus those who choose to protest.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Last post for a bit... Here is McCain's quote... (Got it from CNN instead of Breitbart. Sorry to whomever that offends)
On Sunday's "Meet the Press," McCain joked that he hates the press, and host Chuck Todd "especially," but defended the role of journalists in society when asked about Trump's tweet Friday that the "fake news media ... is the enemy of the American people" and similar remarks he made at a rally the following evening in Florida."If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and, many times, adversarial press," McCain said. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started.""They get started by suppressing free press," McCain continued. "In other words, a consolidation of power. When you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press. And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history."
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Freemindfade, modern leftists such as whom?
And I directly disagree with you. He is volatile.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
And speaking of bias, Obama, with class and dignity, lived through years of his citizenship and religion being questioned. There was never a basis for that, it was done simply to deligtimize someone who narrow minds were scared of. (Read: A Black President)
Are we truly interested in the truth of matters? Or just what we feel comfortable with? You know, as long as it's "Truthy".
To this day, Obama is considered a Muslim by a sect of biased media. But of course, that inconvenient fact might not want to be acknowledged here today. Are we truly interested in discussing media bias, or is this conversation really about silencing opposing points of view that disagree with our world views? Or disagree with the powers that be? In that case, you probably don't like "mainstream" media. You might enjoy a more white view of the world, which is the last thing from reality.
