Enemies of the People? Trump's Assault on the Press

[Katsumoto]

Donald Trump ramped up his attack on the media on Thursday night, criticizing the press as “fake, fake, disgusting news” and describing journalists in attendance as “horrible, horrendous people”, despite UN experts warning earlier in the day that his actions were putting journalists at risk.

Nominally appearing in Wilkes-Barre, in Pennsylvania, to support a Republican candidate for the US Senate, Trump instead spent more than 15 minutes listing a series of grievances with the press, inducing angry chanting from the crowd towards the assembled media.

The president angrily attacked the media’s coverage of a range of topics including his 2016 election victory, his meeting with Kim Jong-un of North Korea, his meeting with Vladimir Putin, his meeting with Nato, and finally his meeting with the Queen in July.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...vilifies-media

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has refused to back away from US president Donald Trump’s assertions that the media is the “enemy” of the American people.

In a heated exchange with reporters during a White House briefing, Sanders said Trump “has made his position known”. She repeatedly declined to give her own opinion on the subject, despite being pressed by reporters to state categ

Instead, Sanders recited a litany of complaints against the press and blamed the media for inflaming tensions in the country.

“As far as I know, I’m the first press secretary in the history of the United States that’s required secret service protection,” she said, accusing the media of continuing “to ratchet up the verbal assault against the president and everyone in this administration.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ta-media-enemy

Trump has ramped up his rhetoric towards the 'fake news', having previously suggested members of the press are the 'enemies of the people', a suggestion that contrasts starkly with the opinion of Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson:

"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that man may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open to him all the avenues to truth. The most effectual hitherto found, is the freedom of the press. It is, therefore, the first shut up by those who fear the investigation of their actions. "

What do you think? Is Trump right or wrong to label them so? Is his rhetoric dangerous or justified?

[95thrifleman]

Suppression of the media is the first step to tyrany.

What next, a state media channel?

[Winston Smith]

Suppression of the media is the first step to tyrany.

What next, a state media channel?

Fox is half way there already.

[Big War Bird]

Fox is half way there already.

Perhaps the Clinton New Network?

The last president tried to exclude Fox News from the press pool andwas even so petty as have identifying name plates at the White House say "FOX" instead of "Fox News."

The honor of state media organ is a fickle prize.

[Derpy Hooves]

He isn’t suppressing it anymore than Obama did
Both sides are in the wrong. Trump is wrong for the rhetoric he uses in describing the media, and the media is wrong for resurrecting yellow journalism. Let’s not forget that journalism helped bring about the Spanish American War

[dogukan]

He isn’t suppressing it anymore than Obama did
Both sides are in the wrong. Trump is wrong for the rhetoric he uses in describing the media, and the media is wrong for resurrecting yellow journalism. Let’s not forget that journalism helped bring about the Spanish American War

How did Obama supress the media?
The problem here is the antagonizing language Trump is using. Media BS its way all the time. But when a president of a country starts talking like that, it is very very VERY dangerous.
I live in a country which is a more extreme example of this situation. Look at our fellow Turkish friend posts:

If some people in the media publish fake news knowingly, with the aim of turning the country's population against the government, then yes, they are the enemy of the people. Being a journalist does not give you the right to say lies, working for secret services or terrorist organizations. Press freedom does not give the journalists the right to be above the laws.

This is how things are in Turkey. I have friends in media. Trust me, when this is legitimized at the leadership level, it might look like its no big deal...but at the bottom of the chain, you have people who's lifes become under threat. This in turn decreases the content people are trying to create. The bravery in media decreases over time and quality goes down.
Eventually, journalists get arrested for exposing government's lies and whole lynch mobs are on the streets to kill these journalists....

What Trump is doing is, frankly, for a western country, unbelievable from where I stand. He is acting like a 3rd world leader.

[Katsumoto]

He isn’t suppressing it anymore than Obama did

Not only is this comparison ridicilous, it's also lazy whataboutism.

Both sides are in the wrong. Trump is wrong for the rhetoric he uses in describing the media, and the media is wrong for resurrecting yellow journalism. Let’s not forget that journalism helped bring about the Spanish American War

Most of the media targeted by Trump isn't guilty of yellow journalism, it's just guilty of reporting news Trump doesn't like. CNN can get a bit sensational but the vast majority of media attacked by Trump isn't making stuff up, it's not 'fake news'.

If some people in the media publish fake news knowingly, with the aim of turning the country's population against the government, then yes, they are the enemy of the people. Being a journalist does not give you the right to say lies, working for secret services or terrorist organizations. Press freedom does not give the journalists the right to be above the laws.

And which of Trump's targets are publishing fake news knowingly?

[Derpy Hooves]

Not only is this comparison ridicilous, it's also lazy whataboutism.



Most of the media targeted by Trump isn't guilty of yellow journalism, it's just guilty of reporting news Trump doesn't like. CNN can get a bit sensational but the vast majority of media attacked by Trump isn't making stuff up, it's not 'fake news'.



And which of Trump's targets are publishing fake news knowingly?

Last time I checked, prosecuting journalists is actually suppression while saying mean things is just speech.

CNN, Washington Post, AP, NYT, MSNBC
Its not that they’re knowingly publishing fake news (I doubt they are), it’s that their journalists hate Trump so much they’re are too focused on finding a “gotcha” that they either overembellish or print something they didn’t realize was false so then they have to retract it later because they didn’t do the research. Also their hatred for Trump means unrelated stories go unnoticed (either intentionally to control the narrative or unintentionally), important facts get buried in articles to focus on Trump, etc.

If Hillary was president instead, do you really think she would receive this animosity from the press? She’d be treated the same as Obama if not better.
I don’t want the press to treat Trump like Obama. I want them to ease up a little on Trump. I want them to treat every president the same

[Cyclops]

He isn’t suppressing it anymore than Obama did
Both sides are in the wrong. Trump is wrong for the rhetoric he uses in describing the media, and the media is wrong for resurrecting yellow journalism. Let’s not forget that journalism helped bring about the Spanish American War

Quoted for truth.

Journalists are generally lowlife scum who can't lie straight in bed. There are exceptions but this is my general experience. My own family's experience with media in Australia is that they can't even report honestly when they want too: their skills are poor, ethical standards low and pressure from editors, advertisers and vested interests high. The journalist's instinct is to "make a story" rather than report facts.

US media seems be worse in many ways than Australia's (and we produced Rupert Murdoch!) very politically attached to one cause or another, and there's very little impartial reporting. I watch a spread of media reports from various countries and you see local bias across french, German, Chinese and Australian news, but the US stuff is surreal at times. PBS is a stab at old fashioned impartial reporting but FOX and the rest are more like cheerleaders for their teams than news services.

I think Trump is a disgrace, and dislike him a lot, but its definitely true the US media have not treated him well. Some sections were rabid about Obama, but almost all sections have been unreasonable in their criticism of Trump, falling over themselves (and often embarrassing themselves) to have a crack.

I fear that we are jumping to conclusions. Has anyone examined whether Trump just is a dedicated reader of Ibsen and his plays? (An enemy of the People)

"People are saying, and its so sad, so sad, that Hedda Gabler, I mean she shot herself, and people are asking if only she had a gun to defend herself, maybe she wouldn't have been shot"

[Odenat]

If some people in the media publish fake news knowingly, with the aim of turning the country's population against the government, then yes, they are the enemy of the people. Being a journalist does not give you the right to say lies, working for secret services or terrorist organizations. Press freedom does not give the journalists the right to be above the laws.

[Papay]

But but only fox says real news. All other news are fake. This is what Trump says...

[Big War Bird]

The mass communication ability created by the internet enables a person to cross check and verify media reports, You can pick virtually any topic of interest from today's headlines and one can instantly find fantastically more pertinent information than is presented in any given article or report. In doing so the shallowness of many reports leaps out at you. Remember a journalist isn't really an expert in field other than journalism. Straight up professional journalism isn't producing much value anymore since so much information is so available anyway. We can see this in the slow decline of newspapers and shrinking budgets of news organizations.

What has gained traction is opinion journalism - opinion disguised as journalism, something Fox News really made successful forcing CNN and MSNBC to follow suit. This is something the press has become experts at - the blending news and opinion to create a political narrative. Unfortunately, I think, a lot of these opinion journalists believe they are straight up journalists. CNN's White House Jim Acosta I think is the prime example. One would be hard press to identify a member of the press corps, in real life or in fiction, more wrapped up in his own self righteous image.

[Kyriakos]

I fear that we are jumping to conclusions. Has anyone examined whether Trump just is a dedicated reader of Ibsen and his plays? (An enemy of the People)

[Heathen Hammer]

Mainstream media has nobody to blame by itself, since it destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly making false claims in a desperate attempt to spread propaganda.
At the same time Interenet is killing mainstream media, and now "free press" (that is owned by a handful of corporations, making it nothing more then propaganda outlets for the elites) is just being salty, since they are left behind not just ideologically but technologically as well.

[Katsumoto]

A state media channel for someone who doesn't even hold any office anymore? What?

[Papay]

The issue is more complex. US media always supported US presidents as long as they did what the establishment wanted. Trump is more unpredicable and this is why some media have become more autonomous. But still its their right to criticize Trump.

[Prodromos]

The mainstream media declared itself the enemy of Trump, what with their 90% negative coverage, and I mean really negative. He's just acknowledging it, to be honest.

[Katsumoto]

CNN, Washington Post, AP, NYT, MSNBC
Its not that they’re knowingly publishing fake news (I doubt they are), it’s that their journalists hate Trump so much they’re are too focused on finding a “gotcha” that they either overembellish or print something they didn’t realize was false so then they have to retract it later because they didn’t do the research. Also their hatred for Trump means unrelated stories go unnoticed (either intentionally to control the narrative or unintentionally), important facts get buried in articles to focus on Trump, etc.

Even if there are instances of mistaken reporting, I'm fairly confident most of the coverage is still accurate, and doesn't warrant the sort of language Trump has used.

I don’t want the press to treat Trump like Obama. I want them to ease up a little on Trump. I want them to treat every president the same

But every president isn't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such by the press. Trump is far more unpopular than Obama, and has done far more unpopular things than Obama. The fact that the press reflects this shouldn't be a surprise.

The mainstream media declared itself the enemy of Trump, what with their 90% negative coverage, and I mean really negative. He's just acknowledging it, to be honest.

As I mentioned above, the negative press coverage stems mainly from Trump's negative actions. Balance doesn't mean providing 50/50 positive/negative coverage, it means reporting on the events as they are. Now it's fair to assume that the press favours negative coverage over positive, and that it has its own biases, but even if we account for that, it's not as though the press is simply making up negative coverage out of thin air - the coverage reflects Trump's actions.

This is also somewhat beside the point - even if the press were unreasonably against Trump, it would still be problematic for him to be calling them the enemy of the people. If he genuinely believed there was wrongdoing on the part of the press, I'm sure there are channels of dealing with it. But for a President to use this sort of language, to constantly delegitimize a vital component of the country's founding principles, should worry everyone, regardless of political party. There's really no justification for it.

[Derpy Hooves]

Even if there are instances of mistaken reporting, I'm fairly confident most of the coverage is still accurate, and doesn't warrant the sort of language Trump has used.



But every president isn't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such by the press. Trump is far more unpopular than Obama, and has done far more unpopular things than Obama. The fact that the press reflects this shouldn't be a surprise.



As I mentioned above, the negative press coverage stems mainly from Trump's negative actions. Balance doesn't mean providing 50/50 positive/negative coverage, it means reporting on the events as they are. Now it's fair to assume that the press favours negative coverage over positive, and that it has its own biases, but even if we account for that, it's not as though the press is simply making up negative coverage out of thin air - the coverage reflects Trump's actions.

This is also somewhat beside the point - even if the press were unreasonably against Trump, it would still be problematic for him to be calling them the enemy of the people. If he genuinely believed there was wrongdoing on the part of the press, I'm sure there are channels of dealing with it. But for a President to use this sort of language, to constantly delegitimize a vital component of the country's founding principles, should worry everyone, regardless of political party. There's really no justification for it.

Are you actually saying different standards for presidents is ok? That is exactly why there is so much animosity towards the media.

[Aexodus]

But every president isn't the same, and shouldn't be treated as such by the press. Trump is far more unpopular than Obama, and has done far more unpopular things than Obama. The fact that the press reflects this shouldn't be a surprise.

This is untrue. Trumps approval is currently roughly the same if not higher than Obama at the same point in his presidency.

They are more partisan however, and part of a general trend going back to Clinton. The 7% approval among democrats is probably what you’re experiencing.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: