I take 45s comments Press personally OP/ED

[ReptilianPeon]

Here in England we have two things that the USA doesn't have:

1. TV news that has to, by law, be impartial (and by extension factual).

2. A well funded state broadcaster that does proper fact checking. Not to say that other news outlets don't do fact checking - they do.

3. Over here it's the newspapers who are the partisan hacks instead because they aren't subject to the same impartially laws. Still, society still doesn't feel anywhere near as polarised as the USA.

The BBC isn't perfect but it's far better than any of the TV news in the USA. I believe it has a status quo bias - pehaps a slight establishment bias too - still, they generally they do a pretty good job. Noam Chomsky writes in his book - Manufacturing Consent - that cooperate media in the USA is much better at propaganda than the state run broadcasters of authoritarian governments.

Yes, I agree the media in the USA is bad at their jobs. They also appear to be completely underprepared for the era of Donald Trump. Why does the likes of CNN still report the brazen lies of Donald Trump with a straight face? Why do they have to try and make things into a "he said this" but then "she said that"?

---

Here's something that I found:

Study links U.S. polarization to TV news deregulation

https://news.wsu.edu/2015/09/24/study-li...egulation/


Who is to blame for news deregulation? The 1996 Telecommunications Act which happened under Bill Clinton's watch. So the reason why we have such rubbish news outlets is because of the Bill Clinton.

[LastPoet]

That reminds me. There was an US prez that almost got impeached because of a blowjob. Yet... crickets with this one.

Reality does have its comedy value.

[RoadRunner79]

Fox News/Fox Business does propaganda for the Republicans.
MSNBC does propaganda for the Democrats.
CNN does propaganda for both.

Other presidents have attacked the First Amendment but they are far better at hiding it than Donald Trump. For some reason, it takes a president of the party that a person doesn't like to get into the Oval Office for that individual to see the abuses of power in the halls of power. They all do it but Donald Trump is so brazen about it and he is so incompetent that's it's hard to miss.

I belive there was one statistic which said that Barack Obama jailed more whistle blowers than all previous administrations combined. Donald Trump is merely continuing the authoritarian trend. People didn't seem to care so much when it was Obama doing the attacks. Why?

I don’t think that criticizing the press is the same as limiting free speech. In fact they are very much not the same thing. Trying to equate criticism to an authoritarian regime seems as bad as Brian’s comparisons above.

[Brian37]

Here in England we have two things that the USA doesn't have:

1. TV news that has to, by law, be impartial (and by extension factual).

2. A well funded state broadcaster that does proper fact checking. Not to say that other news outlets don't do fact checking - they do.

3. Over here it's the newspapers who are the partisan hacks instead because they aren't subject to the same impartially laws. Still, society still doesn't feel anywhere near as polarised as the USA.

The BBC isn't perfect but it's far better than any of the TV news in the USA. I believe it has a status quo bias - pehaps a slight establishment bias too - still, they generally they do a pretty good job. Noam Chomsky writes in his book - Manufacturing Consent - that cooperate media in the USA is much better at propaganda than the state run broadcasters of authoritarian governments.

Yes, I agree the media in the USA is bad at their jobs. They also appear to be completely underprepared for the era of Donald Trump. Why does the likes of CNN still report the brazen lies of Donald Trump with a straight face?  Why do they have to try and make things into a "he said this" but then "she said that"?

---

Here's something that I found:

Study links U.S. polarization to TV news deregulation

https://news.wsu.edu/2015/09/24/study-li...egulation/


Who is to blame for news deregulation? The 1996 Telecommunications Act which happened under Bill Clinton's watch. So the reason why we have such rubbish news outlets is because of the Bill Clinton.

Almost 4 decades of Reagan's deregulation has hurt our middle class and working poor, and our corporate media, is part of that. I still think local mom and pop stations and newspapers are still independent enough, but not big enough.

There were attempts to employ the "fairness doctrine" in our journalism, but with a corporate leaning SCOTUS has made that impossible.

[brewer]

The "news" media's demise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[Brian37]

The "news" media's demise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

It's under threat, but our right wing here is not the majority, and we've had a long history of defending the idea of questioning politicians. This is a fringe and yes, it is getting to some very dangerous territory with President Shithole. But at the same time, I still see enough media and citizens seeing this and saying something.

When 45 vilifies the press, we need to point out the oppressive states and violent gangs like Isis whom murder reporters.

[KevinM1]

Fox News/Fox Business does propaganda for the Republicans.
MSNBC does propaganda for the Democrats.
CNN does propaganda for both.

Other presidents have attacked the First Amendment but they are far better at hiding it than Donald Trump. For some reason, it takes a president of the party that a person doesn't like to get into the Oval Office for that individual to see the abuses of power in the halls of power. They all do it but Donald Trump is so brazen about it and he is so incompetent that's it's hard to miss.

I belive there was one statistic which said that Barack Obama jailed more whistle blowers than all previous administrations combined. Donald Trump is merely continuing the authoritarian trend. People didn't seem to care so much when it was Obama doing the attacks. Why?

I don’t think that criticizing the press is the same as limiting free speech. In fact they are very much not the same thing.  Trying to equate criticism to an authoritarian regime seems as bad as Brian’s comparisons above.

Trump has ever had an actual criticism.  He simply decries anything that paints him in an unfavorable light as 'fake news', and has at least on one occasion labeled mainstream media as the enemy of the people (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...3516632065).  He's also threatened to revoke media access to outlets that don't cover him favorably (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...4436596736).  During his presidential campaign, he mused about loosening libel laws so he could sue 'fake news' over unfavorable coverage (https://twitter.com/NavigatingTrump/stat...4167017477).  There's also the continued 'fake news' gas lighting campaign itself, which has too many direct links for me to post.

This isn't normal.  It's not what countries not sliding towards authoritarianism do.  And, I mean, let's not be naive here.  His alt-right stewards are even more forceful in their comments about the press, including encouraging people to start gunning down journalists on sight (https://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yianno...ists-down/ ... no, I don't buy his lame 'explanation' of simply trolling, and, regardless, in the current climate, encouraging violence is the last thing anyone should do, jokingly or not).

If none of this bothers you, then, frankly, you have willingly buried your head in the sand.  We're sliding towards fascism.  It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look.

[RoadRunner79]

I don’t think that criticizing the press is the same as limiting free speech. In fact they are very much not the same thing.  Trying to equate criticism to an authoritarian regime seems as bad as Brian’s comparisons above.

Trump has ever had an actual criticism.  He simply decries anything that paints him in an unfavorable light as 'fake news', and has at least on one occasion labeled mainstream media as the enemy of the people (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...3516632065).  He's also threatened to revoke media access to outlets that don't cover him favorably (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/stat...4436596736).  During his presidential campaign, he mused about loosening libel laws so he could sue 'fake news' over unfavorable coverage (https://twitter.com/NavigatingTrump/stat...4167017477).  There's also the continued 'fake news' gas lighting campaign itself, which has too many direct links for me to post.

This isn't normal.  It's not what countries not sliding towards authoritarianism do.  And, I mean, let's not be naive here.  His alt-right stewards are even more forceful in their comments about the press, including encouraging people to start gunning down journalists on sight (https://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yianno...ists-down/ ... no, I don't buy his lame 'explanation' of simply trolling, and, regardless, in the current climate, encouraging violence is the last thing anyone should do, jokingly or not).

If none of this bothers you, then, frankly, you have willingly buried your head in the sand.  We're sliding towards fascism.  It's obvious to anyone who bothers to look.

I had to look up Milo Yiannopoulos.   It seems that he is British, so I fail to see the connection or where he could speak in any official capacity for the Trump Administration.   I'm against that type of talk, even if not serious from either side.  I also don't think that we should encourage mobbing and bullying those who have different opinions either (such as Maxine Waters recently).  As to Trump and Fake news;  and wish that someone in his position would be a little more reserved.   His crying fake news at everything, isn't any better than those who are making fake news.   However; I think that it is a large leap from that to what you are talking about with Milo Yiannopoulos.  I can see some cases where a journalist should be able to be held liable for slander or negligence.  But this is not even close to silencing those who simply disagree with you.   And until then I can't agree.   Even when I don't like it or think that the President should be more conservative in his speech, he still has a right to freedom of speech too.

[henryp]

I don’t think that criticizing the press is the same as limiting free speech. In fact they are very much not the same thing.  Trying to equate criticism to an authoritarian regime seems as bad as Brian’s comparisons above.

This isn't normal.  It's not what countries not sliding towards authoritarianism do.  And, I mean, let's not be naive here.  His alt-right stewards are even more forceful in their comments about the press, including encouraging people to start gunning down journalists on sight (https://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yianno...ists-down/ ... no, I don't buy his lame 'explanation' of simply trolling, and, regardless, in the current climate, encouraging violence is the last thing anyone should do, jokingly or not).

Milo texts that in response to being asked for a comment on a story, presumably by people he doesn't like.  He didn't encourage anyone, as it was a text message to a single person.  That reporter of course prints the statement, and frames it as a call to violence, even though Milo had no audience until the reporter gave the statement one.

He's a despicable person, but this is a bullshit story.  And this is normal.  Where things are shifted just enough so that they are now just 'based on a true story.'

[RoadRunner79]

This isn't normal.  It's not what countries not sliding towards authoritarianism do.  And, I mean, let's not be naive here.  His alt-right stewards are even more forceful in their comments about the press, including encouraging people to start gunning down journalists on sight (https://observer.com/2018/06/milo-yianno...ists-down/ ... no, I don't buy his lame 'explanation' of simply trolling, and, regardless, in the current climate, encouraging violence is the last thing anyone should do, jokingly or not).

Milo texts that in response to being asked for a comment on a story, presumably by people he doesn't like.  He didn't encourage anyone, as it was a text message to a single person.  That reporter of course prints the statement, and frames it as a call to violence, even though Milo had no audience until the reporter gave the statement one.

He's a despicable person, but this is a bullshit story.  And this is normal.  Where things are shifted just enough so that they are now just 'based on a true story.'

Thanks for the clarification HenryP....  Kind of amusing given the context!