McCain: Dictators 'get started by suppressing free press'

[RunInRed 18,280]

Any one agree with McCain and Co.?  Find the direction we're heading in bothersome as it relates to the press?

Quote

Sen. John McCain slammed President Donald Trump's attacks on the media this week by noting dictators "get started by suppressing free press."

It was a startling observation from a sitting member of Congress against the President of the United States, especially considering McCain is a member of Trump's party.

 

"I hate the press," the Arizona Republican sarcastically told NBC News' Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press." "I hate you especially. But the fact is we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital."
 

But he continued, "If you want to preserve -- I'm very serious now -- if you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press," McCain said in the interview. "And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/18/politics/john-mccain-donald-trump-dictators/index.html

 

 

[RunInRed 18,280]

Quote

President Donald Trump's statement that the media are the "enemy of the people" is "something that you hear tin-pot dictators say when they want to control all of the information," Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said.

Schiff, who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the comment Trump made about the media in a tweet this week was "the most devastating and the most alarming" yet, in an interview with ABC's Jonathan Karl for "This Week" to be broadcast Sunday.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/trump-media-adam-schiff-235180

 

[AURaptor 1,137]

You mean like Obama did, with FOX ?  

 

After months of taking incoming fire from the prime-time stars of Fox News, the Obama White House is firing back, charging that FOX News is different from all other news.

"FOX News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican party," said Anita Dunn, White House communications director.

"If media is operating basically as a talk radio format, then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another," Mr. Obama said.

And the White House has gone beyond words, reports CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield. Last Sept. 20, the president went on every Sunday news show - except Chris Wallace's show on FOX. And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

"All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid.

[RunInRed 18,280]

Trump has a personal jihad against any one in the press who doesn't gush all over him ... even when he doesn't have his facts straight (often).  The comparison you're trying to make is not even in the same stratosphere.  

[AURaptor 1,137]

13 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

Trump has a personal jihad against any one in the press who doesn't gush all over him ... even when he doesn't have his facts straight (often).  The comparison you're trying to make is not even in the same stratosphere.  

It's not just the press. But as for the comparison, it's very apt. Obama has every bit as thin skin as Trump, but he's just more passive aggressive in how he responds. 

[TexasTiger 14,227]

38 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

It's not just the press. But as for the comparison, it's very apt. Obama has every bit as thin skin as Trump, but he's just more passive aggressive in how he responds. 

This thread isn't about thin skin. 

[PUB78 1,407]

McCain is just trying to be relevant again, which he is not.

[TexasTiger 14,227]

12 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

McCain is just trying to be relevant again, which he is not.

He will be extremely relevant.

[SaltyTiger 8,562]

 

2 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Trump has a personal jihad against any one in the press who doesn't gush all over him ... even when he doesn't have his facts straight (often).  The comparison you're trying to make is not even in the same stratosphere.  

JHAD?  are you seroius? This is not "Smack Talk" forum

[AUloggerhead 2,514]

3 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Any one agree with McCain and Co.?  Find the direction we're heading in bothersome as it relates to the press?

 

 

 

Newsflash:  Trump has engaged in hyperbole, both now and in the past.  It's kind of his thing.  But Trump's mocking, ridiculing and/or criticizing the media is not the same thing as a dictator "suppressing" it as Sen McCain's own bit of hyperbole has implied.  McCain may have a point if Trump ever starts prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting their stories or, God forbid, jails anybody for it.  If all Trump ever does is call out the press or simply criticize them for being biased against him ... ... so what?  It's not illegal and it's no different than Obama or any other president complaining about media bias. 

 

[TexasTiger 14,227]

3 minutes ago, AUloggerhead said:

 

Newsflash:  Trump has engaged in hyperbole, both now and in the past.  It's kind of his thing.  But Trump's mocking, ridiculing and/or criticizing the media is not the same thing as a dictator "suppressing" it as Sen McCain's own bit of hyperbole has implied.  McCain may have a point if Trump ever starts prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting their stories or, God forbid, jails anybody for it.  If all Trump ever does is call out the press or simply criticize them for being biased against him ... ... so what?  It's not illegal and it's no different than Obama or any other president complaining about media bias. 

 

You start with discrediting it. Once the public buys that, it justifies suppressing it. First, once it's discredited, the public doesn't blame you for shutting them out. It goes from there. McCain has studied such things and knows exactly what he's talking about.

[homersapien 12,215]

I often disagree with John McCain, but he's a ******* Mensch.

 

[creed 1,786]

Now what's that amendment that protects free speech......for everyone? 

[RunInRed 18,280]

12 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

Newsflash:  Trump has engaged in hyperbole, both now and in the past.  It's kind of his thing.  But Trump's mocking, ridiculing and/or criticizing the media is not the same thing as a dictator "suppressing" it as Sen McCain's own bit of hyperbole has implied.  McCain may have a point if Trump ever starts prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting their stories or, God forbid, jails anybody for it.  If all Trump ever does is call out the press or simply criticize them for being biased against him ... ... so what?  It's not illegal and it's no different than Obama or any other president complaining about media bias. 

So when Trump only calls on conservative media outlets during his pressers you cool with that?

Quote

Trump's selection of conservative media over mainstream news outlets is in line with the favoritism he has shown at previous press conferences, but a departure from past presidents. Typically, the wire service the Associated Press was called on first, followed by major news organizations.

While Press Secretary Sean Spicer has called on some mainstream news outlets — including USA TODAY, Reuters and ABC News — the New York Times and others have noted that he has also called much more frequently on right-leaning media, such as Breitbart, the Washington Times and The Daily Mail (which Wikipedia recently banned as a source).

Journalists have noted that such cherry-picking has allowed Trump and Spicer to avoid questions about difficult topics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/15/trump-spicer-questions-conservative-media/97950144/

 

[homersapien 12,215]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

 

JHAD?  are you seroius? This is not "Smack Talk" forum

What's your point?  (And you misspelled Jihad)

[homersapien 12,215]

6 hours ago, creed said:

Now what's that amendment that protects free speech......for everyone? 

How does the 1st amendment impact the argument?

[AUloggerhead 2,514]

14 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You start with discrediting it. Once the public buys that, it justifies suppressing it. First, once it's discredited, the public doesn't blame you for shutting them out. It goes from there. McCain has studied such things and knows exactly what he's talking about.

The thinking regarding politicians dealing with the media in the past has always been: "never criticize people who buy ink by the gallon."  That made tremendous sense when printed media was prominent and also in light of Mark Twain's famous observation of "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."  Trump's combative personality combined with his use of Twitter to get in the first shot is fascinating to watch because it's turned that conventional wisdom on its head -- the media is now reacting to him instead of the other way around.  Each and every inaccurate article or broadcast the media now puts out -- even if only slightly misleading or inaccurate -- is now fodder for being labeled 'fake news" and plays right into Trump's hands.  Chess players would recognize this development as the media "losing the initiative."  They are no longer dictating what happens in the game.  In military strategy terms:  the media has been flanked.   

I promise to pick up a pitchfork if & when Trump ever begins to "suppress" the media. 

[homersapien 12,215]

15 hours ago, AUloggerhead said:

 

Newsflash:  Trump has engaged in hyperbole, both now and in the past.  It's kind of his thing.  But Trump's mocking, ridiculing and/or criticizing the media is not the same thing as a dictator "suppressing" it as Sen McCain's own bit of hyperbole has implied.  McCain may have a point if Trump ever starts prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting their stories or, God forbid, jails anybody for it.  If all Trump ever does is call out the press or simply criticize them for being biased against him ... ... so what?  It's not illegal and it's no different than Obama or any other president complaining about media bias. 

 

In other words, "Trump is the new normal".

I have news for you.  There are a lot of Americans - likely a majority - who will not stand for that.

Trump wanted to be President, so he should start trying to act like one instead of the narcissistic self-promoter he actually is.

He thinks he can run the country just like he ran his business.  Not gonna happen.

[homersapien 12,215]

3 minutes ago, AUloggerhead said:

The thinking regarding politicians dealing with the media in the past has always been: "never criticize people who buy ink by the gallon."  That made tremendous sense when printed media was prominent and also in light of Mark Twain's famous observation of "a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."  Trump's combative personality combined with his use of Twitter to get in the first shot is fascinating to watch because it's turned that conventional wisdom on its head -- the media is now reacting to him instead of the other way around.  Each and every inaccurate article or broadcast the media now puts out -- even if only slightly misleading or inaccurate -- is now fodder for being labeled 'fake news" and plays right into Trump's hands.  Chess players would recognize this development as the media "losing the initiative."  They are no longer dictating what happens in the game.  In military strategy terms:  the media has been flanked.   

I promise to pick up a pitchfork if & when Trump ever begins to "suppress" the media. 

It's not difficult for a POTUS to get the media "reacting" to him by acting crazy. 

You are over-analysing the situation.  Trump has turned the presidency into a reality show.  

[creed 1,786]

36 minutes ago, homersapien said:

How does the 1st amendment impact the argument?

First. Trump can attack the press till the cows come home. It's his right to do so. He can state the most crazy crap there is, "fake news"...if he believes it. In return the media can attack Trump...here it comes, till the cows come home. They can state even the most crazy crap there is out there "Trump is a @3!%&"...if they believe it. So who is losing out in all of this? The people who depend on others to decipher reality. 

Second. Trump can't suppress the free press unless they choose to be suppressed.

 

[AUloggerhead 2,514]

3 hours ago, RunInRed said:

So when Trump only calls on conservative media outlets during his pressers you cool with that?

 

Yep, totally.  The televised press conference started with JFK and have evolved into what they are today.  So, anyone complaining about 'tradition' being trampled upon is just a bit ridiculous, IMHO.  Here's a pretty good article about presidential press conferences:  Do Press Conferences Still Matter? 
 

Quote

 

... Over the decades, as relations between presidents and the press grew increasingly adversarial, they came increasingly to be seen as something between an obligation and a necessary evil. The press frames the news conference as a sacred presidential duty; political operatives, in both parties, have long seen it as a chore.

“Presidents do it, we have to do it,” says Ari Fleischer, who was George W Bush’s press secretary for the first two and a half years of his presidency. “Because Bush was accessible to the press corps three to four times a week, we didn’t have to do them on a regular basis. And Bush was never a fan. [He’d say:] ‘Everybody’s gonna be peacocking, telling their mom, ‘I’m gonna be on TV’ … We felt it was much more about reporters and much less about straightforward Q&A exchanges.”

“We saw press conferences as more of an obligation than as the best opportunity to communicate a message,” says David Axelrod, senior adviser in the first Obama White House. “Questions could often take the story in an unintended direction. They were important at times of crisis or controversy, when people needed to hear from the president and to hear him parry tough questions. But, by and large, we felt we had a responsibility to do them from time to time.”

Presidents have for decades looked for ways to reach around the White House press corps. Kennedy cultivated pet columnists. Richard Nixon reached out to local broadcasters. Obama has done Reddit chats and faux interviews on FunnyorDie.com. Bill Clinton was the king of the late-night talk show. During the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton even launched her own (boring) podcast.  ...

 

 

[homersapien 12,215]

1 hour ago, creed said:

First. Trump can attack the press till the cows come home. It's his right to do so. He can state the most crazy crap there is, "fake news"...if he believes it. In return the media can attack Trump...here it comes, till the cows come home. They can state even the most crazy crap there is out there "Trump is a @3!%&"...if they believe it. So who is losing out in all of this? The people who depend on others to decipher reality. 

Second. Trump can't suppress the free press unless they choose to be suppressed.

 

First no one has suggested he be stopped from saying whatever he wants to, but that doesn't mean he avoids responsibility for saying it.

He can suppress the press to some degree by simply refusing access. He's already suppressing the involvement of some media companies by refusing to take their questions.   

There would be a political price to pay, but it's a couple of years until the next election.

 

 

[Grumps 3,706]

I agree with the McCain quote, but when did Trump suppress the free press?

[Grumps 3,706]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

First no one has suggested he be stopped from saying whatever he wants to, but that doesn't mean he avoids responsibility for saying it.

He can suppress the press to some degree by simply refusing access. He's already suppressing the involvement of some media companies by refusing to take their questions.   

There would be a political price to pay, but it's a couple of years until the next election.

 

 

Are you implying that Trump should be forced to talk to the media so as not to suppress them? HAHAHAHAHA! U.S. citizens don't have the right not to talk to the press because it limits the press' freedom. The Constitution is apparently a much sillier document than I realized!

[homersapien 12,215]

17 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Are you implying that Trump should be forced to talk to the media so as not to suppress them? HAHAHAHAHA! U.S. citizens don't have the right not to talk to the press because it limits the press' freedom. The Constitution is apparently a much sillier document than I realized!

No.  I am saying that refusing to engage with the media suppresses their ability to function as they are supposed to.

And you are making up stuff about constitutional rights I have neither said nor implied.