McCain: Dictators 'get started by suppressing free press'

[AUFAN78 4,148]

Just now, alexava said:

maybe.

I think likely, but we can agree to disagree. I'm cool with that.

[homersapien 12,215]

3 hours ago, AURaptor said:

Weasel shift. 

This should be deleted.  Baseless insults belong in the smack forum, not here.

[homersapien 12,215]

6 hours ago, AURaptor said:

You're lying, Homer. Trumps tweet names 5 only. 

 

 

Which, in total, comprise a "large proportion of the media".

Your accusation is way out of bounds and should be deleted.

[AURaptor 1,137]

10 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This should be deleted.  Baseless insults belong in the smack forum, not here.

Actually, it accurately describes your attempt to weasel from one topic to another, after being shown that , quite literally, Trump only named 5 news agencies. Not ALL the media.  And " large portiion "? By what standards ? Of all the media in the country ? The world ? By viewership / readership ? Subscribers ? .... you've left a lot of wiggle room.

 

 

[homersapien 12,215]

13 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Actually, it accurately describes your attempt to weasel from one topic to another, after being shown that , quite literally, Trump only named 5 news agencies. Not ALL the media.  And " large portiion "? By what standards ? Of all the media in the country ? The world ? By viewership / readership ? Subscribers ? .... you've left a lot of wiggle room.

 

 

I never claimed he specified all of the media.

The 5 news agencies he named constitute a large portion of the media.

This is a stupid, nit-picking argument against the basic thesis of Trump characterizing a large part of the media as "enemies of the people".

[AURaptor 1,137]

50 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I never claimed he specified all of the media.

The 5 news agencies he named constitute a large portion of the media.

This is a stupid, nit-picking argument against the basic thesis of Trump characterizing a large part of the media as "enemies of the people".

Lying to the public under the pretense of offering unbiased ' news ' is , as it always has been, a threat to a free people. 

[homersapien 12,215]

1 hour ago, AURaptor said:

Lying to the public under the pretense of offering unbiased ' news ' is , as it always has been, a threat to a free people. 

For example?

[AURaptor 1,137]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

For example?

 The whole fake news stuff that you believe doesn't exist. For example. 

-  Russia hacked our power grid. Russia hacked our election. ..

[GoAU 1,694]

First, I'd like to say that freedom of speech and a free press are two extremely important pillars of our society and should be safeguarded.

But, I believe the root of the issue is where the lines have blurred between "press" & "news" and political commentary and agendas.  

This happened in the Obama presidency with Fox News going out of their way to find things to criticise his administration with.  The left and liberals called it Faux News and Obama himself criticized them as well.  The same thing his happening now, it's just that Trump is more direct and open, and instead of criticizing a single network he is criticizing several, and they don't like it.  This results in them reacting and covering this issue more, and it creates a viscous circle.

The media has grown very comfortable in being able to throw daggers from being the veil of a "free press" without much accountability. I understand why they are quick to report, in an age of digital media stories can be broke in seconds if not minutes.  This doesn't give them much time to verify sources for fear of being "scooped".  In all honesty, they do it even less if they agree with the spin or angle it presents. 

I am confident, like all things political, this trend will expand, exponentially.  If you look objectively at media sources, I can't think of any that aren't biased one way or the other.  The right has Fox News, talk radio, etc.  The left has MSNBC, CNN, and pretty much the major networks.  In my opinion, all have lost true objectivity 

Unfortunately I don't see this changing, mostly due to the fact that most people don't want objective news, they want their beliefs validated.  I try to go to multiple sources to get a more well rounded story, but will admit I find myself gravitating towards what I agree with.

I do think the only real remedy to this is more journalistic objectivity, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't find issue with Trump questioning questionable reporting, I'm not sure of the wisdom in it, but I do think he has that right.  If it becomes suppression, that's a whole different story.  The Constitution is bigger than any person - president or not.

 

[Strychnine 1,808]

1 minute ago, GoAU said:

Unfortunately I don't see this changing, mostly due to the fact that most people don't want objective news, they want their beliefs validated.  I try to go to multiple sources to get a more well rounded story, but will admit I find myself gravitating towards what I agree with.

I do think the only real remedy to this is more journalistic objectivity, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't find issue with Trump questioning questionable reporting, I'm not sure of the wisdom in it, but I do think he has that right.  If it becomes suppression, that's a whole different story.  The Constitution is bigger than any person - president or not.

 

 

Confirmation bias has indeed taken over our media.  Something like Fox News could not prosper among a demographic of critical thinkers.  Something like the old format of Headline News (as unbiased as news could ever be) could not prosper among a demographic that wants the news to validate their preconceptions.  News has given way to editorial delivery mediums.  I think a majority of the American people are content with that, and that is the thought that disturbs me the most.

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

 The whole fake news stuff that you believe doesn't exist. For example. 

-  Russia hacked our power grid. Russia hacked our election. ..

Seriously?  That's it?

That's why the press is the "enemy of the people"? 

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

First, I'd like to say that freedom of speech and a free press are two extremely important pillars of our society and should be safeguarded.

But, I believe the root of the issue is where the lines have blurred between "press" & "news" and political commentary and agendas.  

This happened in the Obama presidency with Fox News going out of their way to find things to criticise his administration with.  The left and liberals called it Faux News and Obama himself criticized them as well.  The same thing his happening now, it's just that Trump is more direct and open, and instead of criticizing a single network he is criticizing several, and they don't like it.  This results in them reacting and covering this issue more, and it creates a viscous circle.

The media has grown very comfortable in being able to throw daggers from being the veil of a "free press" without much accountability. I understand why they are quick to report, in an age of digital media stories can be broke in seconds if not minutes.  This doesn't give them much time to verify sources for fear of being "scooped".  In all honesty, they do it even less if they agree with the spin or angle it presents. 

I am confident, like all things political, this trend will expand, exponentially.  If you look objectively at media sources, I can't think of any that aren't biased one way or the other.  The right has Fox News, talk radio, etc.  The left has MSNBC, CNN, and pretty much the major networks.  In my opinion, all have lost true objectivity 

Unfortunately I don't see this changing, mostly due to the fact that most people don't want objective news, they want their beliefs validated.  I try to go to multiple sources to get a more well rounded story, but will admit I find myself gravitating towards what I agree with.

I do think the only real remedy to this is more journalistic objectivity, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't find issue with Trump questioning questionable reporting, I'm not sure of the wisdom in it, but I do think he has that right.  If it becomes suppression, that's a whole different story.  The Constitution is bigger than any person - president or not.

 

Good post.

I would add that no one is shocked or surprised to see Trump criticizing the press. As you say, that comes with the job and is expected.

The difference is the degree which Trump is attacking the press with the tweets and constant mention of dishonesty and lying.  That is new.  

Also, thanks to his twitter habit, the amount of exposure to his opinion is new.

Which relates to my final point, which is the amount of opinion that is available, whether one is looking for it or not.  I remember when TV news and newspapers did editorials. Other than magazines and the Sunday "talking head" shows - that was about it.

Today opinion is 24/7 if you want it.  Furthermore, it's become blurred with actual news so the distinction between news and opinion is less apparent.  Add political bias (Fox*), combined with the human penchant for confirmational bias, and the result is a populace which is over-informed with less accurate information.

*(I know that Fox has liberal counterparts, but none are in Fox's class when it comes to power.  At least in the south.)

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

2 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

Confirmation bias has indeed taken over our media.  Something like Fox News could not prosper among a demographic of critical thinkers.  Something like the old format of Headline News (as unbiased as news could ever be) could not prosper among a demographic that wants the news to validate their preconceptions.  News has given way to editorial delivery mediums.  I think a majority of the American people are content with that, and that is the thought that disturbs me the most.

So you think a vas majority of cable news watchers are not "critical thinkers" and you are among the learned few?

[AURaptor 1,137]

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Seriously?  That's it?

That's why the press is the "enemy of the people"? 

Those are called " examples ". Two of many. 

 

But honestly, one is enough. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Re. the OP,,,,,,,,,dictators also get started by ignoring the existing laws of the land like the immigration laws ignored by recent administrations, bot DEM and GOP.

[AUcivE09 582]

3 hours ago, GoAU said:

First, I'd like to say that freedom of speech and a free press are two extremely important pillars of our society and should be safeguarded.

But, I believe the root of the issue is where the lines have blurred between "press" & "news" and political commentary and agendas.  

This happened in the Obama presidency with Fox News going out of their way to find things to criticise his administration with.  The left and liberals called it Faux News and Obama himself criticized them as well.  The same thing his happening now, it's just that Trump is more direct and open, and instead of criticizing a single network he is criticizing several, and they don't like it.  This results in them reacting and covering this issue more, and it creates a viscous circle.

The media has grown very comfortable in being able to throw daggers from being the veil of a "free press" without much accountability. I understand why they are quick to report, in an age of digital media stories can be broke in seconds if not minutes.  This doesn't give them much time to verify sources for fear of being "scooped".  In all honesty, they do it even less if they agree with the spin or angle it presents. 

I am confident, like all things political, this trend will expand, exponentially.  If you look objectively at media sources, I can't think of any that aren't biased one way or the other.  The right has Fox News, talk radio, etc.  The left has MSNBC, CNN, and pretty much the major networks.  In my opinion, all have lost true objectivity 

Unfortunately I don't see this changing, mostly due to the fact that most people don't want objective news, they want their beliefs validated.  I try to go to multiple sources to get a more well rounded story, but will admit I find myself gravitating towards what I agree with.

I do think the only real remedy to this is more journalistic objectivity, but I'm not holding my breath. I don't find issue with Trump questioning questionable reporting, I'm not sure of the wisdom in it, but I do think he has that right.  If it becomes suppression, that's a whole different story.  The Constitution is bigger than any person - president or not.

 

I saw the topic and came here to post about the exact same thoughts. We are a long way from suppression of the press. If anything, they are as free as ever. There is just a White House as vitriolic as they can be now.

[homersapien 12,215]

10 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Those are called " examples ". Two of many. 

 

But honestly, one is enough. 

Well then, how about one good one.   Those are pathetic.

[Strychnine 1,808]

37 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So you think a vas majority of cable news watchers are not "critical thinkers" and you are among the learned few?

 

I think a majority of Americans are not very interested in critical thinking, or the news, at all.

[AURaptor 1,137]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well then, how about one good one.   Those are pathetic.

Those ARE 2 good ones. They didn't happen. Thus " fake " news. 

[alexava 6,974]

Inaccurate 

19 minutes ago, AURaptor said:

Those ARE 2 good ones. They didn't happen. Thus " fake " news. 

There is some evidence they did happen. Maybe not 100% smoking gun. THat does NOT make it "FAKE". Look up the definition of 'fake".

[AURaptor 1,137]

9 minutes ago, alexava said:

Inaccurate 

There is some evidence they did happen. Maybe not 100% smoking gun. THat does NOT make it "FAKE". Look up the definition of 'fake".

None of it happened. The DNC got hacked, not the election 

[Grumps 3,706]

On ‎2‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 11:00 AM, homersapien said:

Because he tweeted the "fake" media were the enemy of the American people and then went on to list several major members of the media clearly indicating he was referring to anyone who printed negative content about him. That tweet was clearly a threat to the press.

Why is this so hard for you to understand? 

It is my opinion that Trump was clearly referred to anyone who printed intentionally misleading or false content about him. That is clearly a threat to the public.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[Grumps 3,706]

22 hours ago, alexava said:

-- "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. ... They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people," Trump said in his  ....... "    His words exactly Grumps. I'll get back with you.

As far as Flynn....... you should read up more on it i guess. He has ties to russia beyond these multiple calls that were intercepted. As does Tillerson and the trump family business. it is obvious trump is nice to russia, the only state, person, race or religion he is nice to. that brings suspicion. then his staff has had 3 people fired or resigned over russian ties. He, the president, fired Flynn, trump did. He didn't have to. Then he blames the media for mistreating Flynn and causing this. 

When the press prints that "Russia hacked the election" they are intentionally misleading the people. Yes you may be right on this. They did not hack "the election". they didn't change the vote count in the polling places. I believe there is enough evidence to convince most people they hacked the DNC and attemped to "influence" the election. THe media should be clear on this for those of us too not willing to understand the difference. 

 

When Trump tweets "the FAKE NEWS media is not my enemy but is an enemy to the people" and the press says that "Trump calls the press an enemy of the people" then they are intentionally misleading the people. ...... again he named news organizations that are not promoting fake news. they are reporting news he don't like. 

Fake news would be the assertion that 3-5 million illegals voted for Hillary. 

 

I COMPLETELY agree with you that Trump's assertion that 3-5 million illegals for Hillary constitutes fake news. Trump SUCKS as a journalist.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 minutes ago, Grumps said:

It is my opinion that Trump was clearly referred to anyone who printed intentionally misleading or false content about him. That is clearly a threat to the public.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

I would be inclined to agree with you if his pattern of behavior was different.  However, he also tweeted that any negative poll about him is not to be trusted or believed.  This leads me to assert that he views any negative story about him in the same way as those polls, even if a story is true.

[homersapien 12,215]

2 hours ago, AURaptor said:

None of it happened. The DNC got hacked, not the election