• 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!

Trump suggests Senate Intel Committee should investigate U.S. news media

Dittohead not!

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,944
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump suggests Senate Intel Committee should investigate U.S. news media


President Trump urged the Senate Intelligence Committee to switch its focus from Russian meddling in the 2016 election to investigating “fake news” in the U.S.


“Why Isn’t the Senate Intel Committee looking into the Fake News Networks in OUR country to see why so much of our news is just made up-FAKE!” Trump wrote on Twitter Thursday morning. “Rex Tillerson never threatened to resign. This is Fake News put out by @NBCNews. Low news and reporting standards. No verification from me,” he added.
Click to expand...


News isn't real unless the president verifies it?


One potential barrier to Trump’s request of legislators investigating and regulating the press is the First Amendment, which explicitly states: “Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Click to expand...


One would think that's a pretty formidable barrier, being a part of the Constitution and all, but who knows?
 
trouble13 said:
How do you differentiate a lie from an honest mistake?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Sorry, misread your question if you’ve already grabbed my incorrect reply.

Sometimes it can be difficult especially since we allow the media to protect their sources. I think there ought to be a disclaimer right after the words “anonymous source” that says... “Since we don’t have to reveal our sources, this may or may not be true. We don’t have to prove it.”

Edit... Or wait! Just shorten the disclaimer to “LOL.”

I also think the internet needs to do a better job of identifying opinion pieces. Like at the start of the piece, in the first line, “This is the opinion of the author.”
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
Do you believe the 1st amendment gives the media a license to purposely lie?
Click to expand...

Do you believe the 1st amendment gives the President a license to purposely lie to us?

trouble13 said:
How do you differentiate a lie from an honest mistake?
Click to expand...

When he un-apologetically does it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
 
When the founding fathers wrote that the press was manual type set presses. They didn't know their would such things as radio, television, or the internet. Therefore they are not covered under the First. Or at least that's what the anti gun crowd would argue If they have any honesty.


I think it's a stupid position but if people wanna view the second in this fashion than apply it to the first also.
 
MaggieD said:
Sorry, misread your question if you’ve already grabbed my incorrect reply.

Sometimes it can be difficult especially since we allow the media to protect their sources. I think there ought to be a disclaimer right after the words “anonymous source” that says... “Since we don’t have to reveal our sources, this may or may not be true. We don’t have to prove it.”

Edit... Or wait! Just shorten the disclaimer to “LOL.”

I also think the internet needs to do a better job of identifying opinion pieces. Like at the start of the piece, in the first line, “This is the opinion of the author.”
Click to expand...
It's makes for a very difficult situation without a confession.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Do you believe the 1st amendment gives the President a license to purposely lie to us?



When he un-apologetically does it over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.
Click to expand...
He as much of a right as the press does

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
He as much of a right as the press does
Click to expand...
So then the President should be investigated by Congress to find out why he says so many things which are not true? Is that what you're arguing?
 
Slyfox696 said:
So then the President should be investigated by Congress to find out why he says so many things which are not true? Is that what you're arguing?
Click to expand...
No I'm not arguing anyone should or should not be investigated. I thought it was an interesting question being raised by the OP.

My opinion is that is if there is sufficent evidence to investigate a liable or slander accusation, it should be investigated. Nobody should be immune. If Tillersome claims liable he can ask the DA to press charges and the DA can determine if there is enough evidence to proceed.

The problem of course is how do you make a charge like that stick and protect anonymous sources? It would have to be done in a closed court behind sealed orders to protect the witnesses. Even if offered that protection it still might inhibit sources from coming forward to the press. There is no clear cut answer to this which is why I think it makes for an interesting discussion.

What is your opinion on it?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
No I'm not arguing anyone should or should not be investigated. I thought it was an interesting question being raised by the OP.

My opinion is that is if there is sufficent evidence to investigate a liable or slander accusation, it should be investigated. Nobody should be immune. If Tillersome claims liable he can ask the DA to press charges and the DA can determine if there is enough evidence to proceed.

The problem of course is how do you make a charge like that stick and protect anonymous sources? It would have to be done in a closed court behind sealed orders to protect the witnesses. Even if offered that protection it still might inhibit sources from coming forward to the press. There is no clear cut answer to this which is why I think it makes for an interesting discussion.

What is your opinion on it?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Defamation is already legally actionable.
Laws and mechanisms for dealingwith defamation are already in place.

Would getting Congressional committee directly involved in the various legal cases actually make things better?

When I imagine the reactions of the parties currently handling defamation cases, it's hard to imagine them being cheerful about adding a Congressional committee to their workloads.


It comforts me—as it must some of you as well—to imagine that Trump's trying to make some cogent point obliquely.
 
When almost our entire media establishment is owned by 3 or 4 different major corporations and in turn controlled by their executives, I'd say that an investigation is warranted into whether or not our press is free from collusion and manipulation -- but not for the reasons Trump is talking about.

The press is crucial to an informed democracy and we are no longer informed.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Significant chunks of what Trump has denied has turned out to actually be true.

So there's that.
Click to expand...

Exactly right, and significant chunks of what Trump has said was true has turned out to be false as well.
 
Northern Light said:
When almost our entire media establishment is owned by 3 or 4 different major corporations and in turn controlled by their executives, I'd say that an investigation is warranted into whether or not our press is free from collusion and manipulation -- but not for the reasons Trump is talking about.

The press is crucial to an informed democracy and we are no longer informed.
Click to expand...

We have more sources of information today than at any other time in history.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
You have 5 conglomerates that control almost 100% of the news. do you really believe it's not fake, sensationalized or agendad?
Click to expand...

Fake? no.
Sensationalized? Definitely. That's how airtime and ad space is sold, by getting people's attention.
Agendad? Certainly. MSNBC has a left wing agenda, Fox has a right wing agenda. The news has always been slanted one way or another.

Nowadays, though we have much more access to information than at any time in the past.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Fake? no.
Sensationalized? Definitely. That's how airtime and ad space is sold, by getting people's attention.
Agendad? Certainly. MSNBC has a left wing agenda, Fox has a right wing agenda. The news has always been slanted one way or another.

Nowadays, though we have much more access to information than at any time in the past.
Click to expand...




nah bro. fake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summer_of_the_Shark
 
Dittohead not! said:
No, they don't have a right to purposely lie. l

Your turn.
Click to expand...
I don't think that was what trump was saying but no trump is not the final word on what is and is not true.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Defamation is already legally actionable.
Laws and mechanisms for dealingwith defamation are already in place.

Would getting Congressional committee directly involved in the various legal cases actually make things better?

When I imagine the reactions of the parties currently handling defamation cases, it's hard to imagine them being cheerful about adding a Congressional committee to their workloads.


It comforts me—as it must some of you as well—to imagine that Trump's trying to make some cogent point obliquely.
Click to expand...
Even if Congress did investigate it and the report claimed they reported what their anonymous source relayed to them. What then? Unless you have a confession I'm not sure how you can convict a reporter for publishing a lie. The only recourse you really have is to attack the reporters credibility because he can't really do anything about that either

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom