• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Elect sticks it to the press.

Manc Skipper said:
Who cares about the first amendment, right?
Click to expand...

Tell me where he is stopping them from writing news stories.
You evidently do not know what the first amendment says.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The propagator of hate, bigotry, fraud and deceit was the person you supported for president.
Click to expand...

I don't think any one candidate can lay claim to being the sole propagator. HRC said some pretty vile and hateful stuff too. Many of her supporters are now displaying that mentality across the country in protests.
 
Casper said:
He is going to find out that kicking the press too much will do nothing but make them go at him even more. Oh and we can look forward to more whining that the evil press is actually reporting what he said and pointing out the wrong in so much he says.
Click to expand...

How much more can the press go at him? It didn't work for the election. It will only validate what people already know about the press. Fox News will appreciate it.
 
digsbe said:
I don't think any one candidate can lay claim to being the sole propagator.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes you can.

HRC said some pretty vile and hateful stuff too.
Click to expand...

No, no digsbe, if you're going to use "Basket of Deplorables" as youre only example, I'm afraid that doesn't really hold a candle to the many number of things Trump said throughout his campaign, it's called "False Equivocation".

Many of her supporters are now displaying that mentality across the country in protests.
Click to expand...

No they're not Digsbe, the vast majority of Protest has been peaceful and without incident.

Anti-Trump Protesters Destroy America : snopes.com
 
Jetboogieman said:
No, Trump is scum.

He deserved all the negative press he got because he's a buffoon who tapped into the darkest parts of American populism to get elected.

Trump and the Trumpettes righteous indignation is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a shame he is your new president elect
 
Jetboogieman said:
No they're not Digsbe, the vast majority of Protest has been peaceful and without incident.
Click to expand...
That is kind of an idiotic statement. They aren't rioting except for the ones that are is pretty much what that means. How many riots were there when Obama won both times?

Then you go and dig up an article about a non applicable picture that NOBODY referred to and insert it into your post for some reason. My only guess is to offer some dishonest proof that anti Trump riots are non existent.
Anti-Trump Protesters Destroy America : snopes.com
Click to expand...

Sorry but there are ass clowns that belong to the left that are rioting regardless of your insistence to wear blinders.
Anti-Trump protests: Portland police call it 'riot' - CNN.com
 
NonoBadDog said:
How much more can the press go at him? It didn't work for the election. It will only validate what people already know about the press. Fox News will appreciate it.
Click to expand...
They can add more commentary, they can point out every little thing he does, mainly the bad, which there should be plenty of. They can make his life a living hell, no matter who you are you do not want the press to actually go after you. FOX, the Other Fair and Balanced "news" source?
 
ludin said:
Tell me where he is stopping them from writing news stories.
You evidently do not know what the first amendment says.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope first only the press who haven't offended him in some way get access, and so it goes.
 
Terrible move by Trump. All it does it make him look petty and vindictive. In the long run, it will backfire severely. I hope this doesn't continue with his political foes as well. Trump needs to grow up when it comes to the free press in our country.
 
ocean515 said:
Awww. The propagators of hate, bigotry, fraud and deceit are upset?

I guess it's time to crawl back into the woodwork.

Voter saw these propagators for what they were, and voted accordingly.

It must suck for them to have to come to terms with the outright rejection of their despicable efforts.
Click to expand...

That's a very interesting take on... nothing related to the thread topic. Just more partisan nonsense and deflection.

How do you feel about Trump's War on the Press?
Do you want to know how he's preparing to lead you, or would you rather not think about it?


(Hint: If I need to explain my question in simpler words for you, I am happy to do so! We'll just get that out the way without having to exchange multiple posts.)
 
reinoe said:
Since the MSM have abdicated their responsibility to actually inform the public I don't care how they get treated. Just like if doctors refused to do their jobs I wouldn't give them any credibility as doctors or if cops refused to do their jobs I'd refuse to offer them the same benefit of the doubt.

As for your ridiculous hyperbole about sewing crescent moons etc, I can tell you're not gonna be a valuable member of these forums and won't be contributing any insight.
Click to expand...

Yet you'll be sure to sneak a look at each and every one of my posts!:2razz:
 
Casper said:
They can add more commentary, they can point out every little thing he does, mainly the bad, which there should be plenty of. They can make his life a living hell, no matter who you are you do not want the press to actually go after you. FOX, the Other Fair and Balanced "news" source?
Click to expand...

This would be different from what they have been doing? Why would he believe that they would stop doing what they have been doing for months and all of a sudden be fair?
How they covered Hillary:
WikiLeaks and the Oily Washington Press - POLITICO Magazine
Those snared in Podesta’s flypaper are currently suffering an abundance of embarrassment for their shameless buttering-up and apparent cozinesss with their inside sources in Clintonworld. Reading the emails, we witness CNBC/New York Times contributor John Harwood slathering Podesta with flattery, giving him campaign advice and praising Hillary Clinton. In another email, the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin offers Podesta a “heads up” about a story she’s about to publish, providing a brief pre-publication synopsis. CNBC’s Becky Quick promises to “defend“ Obama appointee Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

New York Times Magazine writer Mark Leibovich (who wrote a famous book lambasting permanent Washington’s courtship rituals) asks Clinton’s press secretary, Jennifer Palmieri for permission to use portions of an off-the-record interview with the candidate. Palmieri withholds only a couple of comments and concludes her email to Leibovich, “Pleasure doing business!,” giving it a creepy, transactional vibe. POLITICO reporter Glenn Thrush sends Podesta a chunk of his story-in-progress “to make sure I’m not ****ing anything up.” Beyond WikiLeaks, a January 2015 Clinton strategy document obtained by the Intercept describes reporter Maggie Haberman—then at POLITICO and now at the New York Times—as someone the campaign “has a very good relationship with,” and who had been called upon to “tee up stories for us before” and had never disappointed.
Click to expand...
Hillary Clinton campaign, Univision teamed up to trash Donald Trump, WikiLeaks emails reveal - Washington Times
At Univision, news anchor Jorge Ramos became a chief antagonist of Mr. Trump, challenging his illegal immigration policies as un-American at press conferences and from the anchor desk.
Beyond blurring the lines between news and advocacy, Mr. Saban’s prominent role inside the Clinton campaign demonstrated how wealthy donors can buy a seat at the table.
Indeed, Mr. Saban in May 2015 hosted a dinner in the private wine gallery of the posh kosher steakhouse Reserve Cut in New York City for a who’s who of the Clinton universe.
The guest list included Mr. Podesta, Ms. Palmieri, campaign vice chair Huma Abedin, campaign manager Robby Mook, campaign finance director Dennis Cheng, fundraiser Laura Hartigan, deputy national political director Brynne Craig and rapid response director Adrienne Elrod.
Click to expand...
How they covered Trump:
The question didn’t come from a campaign surrogate or an opinion host — it came from the chief Washington correspondent at CNBC, John Harwood. And just to make sure he hit Bush where the Clinton campaign — which still viewed the former Florida governor as its most likely opponent for 2016 — wanted him to most, Harwood went to Clinton’s campaign chief to do all the thinking for him.
It should be noted that the title “chief Washington correspondent” means Harwood is not an opinion host or a partisan pundit — he’s one who represents the network as objective and nonpartisan. It also means he cannot consult with opposition campaigns for advice — nor can he provide advice back to a campaign, which Harwood has on several occasions via recent WikiLeaks dumps.
Click to expand...
On that night, when CNBC registered its highest audience ever, it’s not known if Harwood also got approval from the Clinton campaign to ask Donald Trump: “Is this a comic-book version of a presidential campaign?”

Harwood was criticized harshly after that debate — and rightly so. The Republican National Committee even went so far to punish NBC as a whole, stripping it of what would have been a highly rated primary debate later in the cycle. It was a black eye for CNBC by all accounts.
Click to expand...
Campaign collusion: Is CNBC’s John Harwood too close to the Clinton operation? | TheHill
 
devildavid said:
Terrible move by Trump. All it does it make him look petty and vindictive. In the long run, it will backfire severely. I hope this doesn't continue with his political foes as well. Trump needs to grow up when it comes to the free press in our country.
Click to expand...

He is just doing the same thing that Obama and Clinton have done. It frustrates the press and people don't feel sorry for the press. Actually telling the press to piss off is a statement that the majority of people appreciate.
 
NonoBadDog said:
He is just doing the same thing that Obama and Clinton have done. It frustrates the press and people don't feel sorry for the press. Actually telling the press to piss off is a statement that the majority of people appreciate.
Click to expand...

It's not about feeling sorry for or liking the press. The press has a vital adversarial role in our political system. The majority of the people also don't feel sorry for politicians who are exposed by the press. It is not a good move for any politician to pick a fight with the press.
 
devildavid said:
It's not about feeling sorry for or liking the press. The press has a vital adversarial role in our political system. The majority of the people also don't feel sorry for politicians who are exposed by the press. It is not a good move for any politician to pick a fight with the press.
Click to expand...

They should have remembered the ethics of journalism. He is pretty bullet proof right now. They will need to change their "anti Trump for the sake of being anti Trump" attitude before they start getting the access they want. Until then they have all the access they need. The only thing that they are pissed about is that he doesn't let them in on his schedule and where he is going. He is pretty much ignoring the press pool but still doing interviews.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Just forget all the journalistic ethics stuff as long as they agree with you, right?

Preamble
Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.
The Society declares these four principles as the foundation of ethical journalism and encourages their use in its practice by all people in all media.

Seek Truth and
Report It
Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Minimize Harm
Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.

Act Independently
The highest and primary obligation of ethical journalism is to serve the public.

Be Accountable and Transparent
Ethical journalism means taking responsibility for one’s work and explaining one’s decisions to the public.
SPJ Code of Ethics | Society of Professional Journalists | Improving and protecting journalism since 1909
Click to expand...

If you take the above as the standard for journalists, and then line up those points above against the 'journalists' in the mainstream media, they don't seem to be measuring up to their own standards.

Rather than seeking truth and reporting it, we get one sided biased crap.

Minimize harm, we get reports that are designed to damage some object of their derision, most likely not in alignment with the liberal / progressive ideological party line.

Instead of acting independent, you get artifacts like 'The JunoList' where they all parrot the same talking points.

Instead of accountability and transparency, we get the media getting buy offs for stories from their favored campaign and the media leaking advantageous information to their favored campaign.

No, they aren't measuring up to their own standards in the least. Are these really journalists anymore?
 
NonoBadDog said:
They should have remembered the ethics of journalism. He is pretty bullet proof right now. They will need to change their "anti Trump for the sake of being anti Trump" attitude before they start getting the access they want. Until then they have all the access they need. The only thing that they are pissed about is that he doesn't let them in on his schedule and where he is going. He is pretty much ignoring the press pool but still doing interviews.
Click to expand...

You don't think Trump maybe created his own negative press with the things he said in public? You think most Americans blamed that on biased reporting? Do you think it was biased?
 
The way the press handled this election was unacceptable. That said, I am concerned about loss of press access to the Presidency.
 
Ockham said:
The press talking heads keep asking themselves, "How did we miss it that Trump would win?"

The answer is simple: The press and their producer/editors had their heads up Hillary Clinton's ass, so they never saw it coming.
Click to expand...

Exceedingly well put. This is why I missed you posting here. Again, welcome back.
 
MaggieD said:
I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of reading your posts this election cycle.
Click to expand...

The petulance is rather pathetic.
 
Jetboogieman said:
I am equally sick of Trumpettes normalizing what is pure insanity.

Your President-Elect is a total and complete moron who deserves all the negativity surrounding him, he brought it on himself.

There was nothing unfair about the coverage he received.
Click to expand...

Manc Skipper said:
Slippery slope first only the press who haven't offended him in some way get access, and so it goes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, wouldn't be the first time a president tried that sort of thing.

Update 10/24: The picture of how Fox News came to be included in the round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg continued to get clearer Saturday. CLICK HERE FOR NEW DETAILS on how the other networks in the pool refused to participate in the interview without Fox News.

UPDATE: Politico reported this afternoon that it was primarily the Treasury Department that was in charge of arranging whether or not Fox News would attend the round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg, as opposed to the White House. And according to Mediaite, the Treasury Department has denied any attempt to exclude Fox News, saying:

There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing.



White House’s Fox News Boycott Attempt Prompts Network Revolt [UPDATED] - HuffPo
Click to expand...

I suspect that the press corp would do again what they've done before, which is to refuse to cooperate with the admin. As to their explanation, I call bull ****, which is what this administration has done a great deal of already.
 
BrewerBob said:
The way the press handled this election was unacceptable. That said, I am concerned about loss of press access to the Presidency.
Click to expand...

I am more concerned about the loss of an objective press which seems to have been replaced by a bunch of snarky Hillary Fluffers in the newsrooms of ABC/CBS/NBC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom