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

[Cope]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because trust in the media has fallen, doesn't mean Trump is justified in criticizing unfavourable coverage of him, or using the sort of dangerous language mentioned earlier. The media is facing certain issues, but it's not as though Trump is addressing them

The First Amendment protects the the right of the President to criticize the press in the same way as it protects the right of the press to criticize the President. As others have noted, this isn't the first time that there has been a difficult relationship between elements of the press and a head of state. Notwithstanding, the language used on both sides has often been inappropriate, counterproductive and/or hyperbolic. The institutionalized press and the President have a democratic responsibility not to behave this way. In my view a central problem is that both the President and certain quarters of the press are deliberately inciting political polarization for their own benefit.

I asked this earlier, but I'll ask you too. Do you have some proof that the media has been deliberately lying for years? I haven't found anything to indicate that myself. The public's falling trust in the media doesn't automatically mean the media has been untruthful, it's just that it's been perceived to, by some. I probably don't have to tell you that perception and reality don't always match up.

That depends what you mean by "deliberately lying". The established press rarely promote demonstrably untrue statements but certain elements of the media do attempt to mislead people to further their own interests, be they financial, political or both.

[Thanatos]

A distrust of the media by the populace is nothing new. Do you think this is something Trump created? Trump is a wake-up call to the media to stop lying like they have for years.

Since 1970-2015, media trust has dropped really quite dramatically.

I'm going to need to you to actually quantify this as well as define, very narrowly, what "lying" is.

Secondly, the fact that media trust has dropped is not in and of itself proof that media has been lying, or that media lies (assuming they exist) are responsible for the drop in trust by the populace.

[Aexodus]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Just because trust in the media has fallen, doesn't mean Trump is justified in criticizing unfavourable coverage of him, or using the sort of dangerous language mentioned earlier. The media is facing certain issues, but it's not as though Trump is addressing them :

He’s exercising his first amendment right, and so is the media.

I asked this earlier, but I'll ask you too. Do you have some proof that the media has been deliberately lying for years? I haven't found anything to indicate that myself. The public's falling trust in the media doesn't automatically mean the media has been untruthful, it's just that it's been perceived to, by some. I probably don't have to tell you that perception and reality don't always match up.

Well what’s causing it then. Is there not a significant bias and skew towards most media? Do they not outright lies from time to time? That’s what I observe.

I'm going to need to you to actually quantify this as well as define, very narrowly, what "lying" is.

Knowingly making incorrect statements and pushing agendas. Let’s take CNN, one of the worst offenders.





CNN in particular has cut off guests when they say the wrong thing.

Secondly, the fact that media trust has dropped is not in and of itself proof that media has been lying, or that media lies (assuming they exist) are responsible for the drop in trust by the populace.

You’re not wrong, but it’s definitely one factor all the same. As well as fake news, and clear bias/agenda.

How about that time one their own colluded with the Clinton campaign?
Or when they told a focus group what to say
Lying about the sister of a murdered black man

My main point was that Trump was elected by a populace distrusting of the media, to be distrusting of the media. And content like above, belonging to CNN, Fox, MSN, Sky have all contributed to an overall public hostility toward the media.

[Katsumoto]

The First Amendment protects the the right of the President to criticize the press in the same way as it protects the right of the press to criticize the President. As others have noted, this isn't the first time that there has been a difficult relationship between elements of the press and a head of state. Notwithstanding, the language used on both sides has often been inappropriate, counterproductive and/or hyperbolic. The institutionalized press and the President have a democratic responsibility not to behave this way. In my view a central problem is that both the President and certain quarters of the press are deliberately inciting political polarization for their own benefit.

Indeed, but I'm not sure it's fair to equate the two in terms of the standards they should adhere to, nor to discuss this in terms of who has what rights. The job of the press is to report and criticise, and obviously they do get carried away at times. But the job of the President is to lead, govern and unite - not to make distrust of the media a core aspect of his leadership, as Aexodus suggested above. In any case, Trump goes beyond any fair criticism or disagreement. He's using language associated with tyrants to attack coverage he doesn't like, damaging the integrity of the institutions that safeguard the functioning of democracy. That's not something a leader of any democracy should be doing in my view.

That depends what you mean by "deliberately lying". The established press rarely promote demonstrably untrue statements but certain elements of the media do attempt to mislead people to further their own interests, be they financial, political or both.

Agreed, but from my understanding people seem to be arguing that Trump is justified in his language precisely because the media has been demonstrably lying on a regular basis. Which doesn't really seem to ring true based on the evidence.

Well what’s causing it then. Is there not a significant bias and skew towards most media? Do they not outright lies from time to time? That’s what I observe.

I quoted a study that provided multiple reasons. Why do you keep bringing up bias? I'm not arguing there's no bias. I'm arguing the press has not been deliberately lying for years, and that the President should not be declaring the press 'the enemy of the people' nor declaring anything he doesn't like as fake news.

Knowingly making incorrect statements and pushing agendas. Let’s take CNN, one of the worst offenders.

A handful of edited YouTube videos (and O'Keefe's shenanigans) don't prove the majority of the media have been 'knowingly making incorrect statements and pushing agendas'. In general, YouTube videos are a poor source.

CNN in particular has cut off guests when they say the wrong thing.

Really, cutting off guests?

My main point was that Trump was elected by a populace distrusting of the media, to be distrusting of the media. And content like above, belonging to CNN, Fox, MSN, Sky have all contributed to an overall public hostility toward the media.

Imagine if the public began distrusting the Supreme Court, bearing in mind it's been established already that public distrust and actual misdeeds don't necessarily mean the former is caused by the latter. Would a President be justified in declaring the Supreme Court 'the enemy of the people' on this basis?

As I said before, this isn't Trump voicing legitimate concerns about the press. It's him attacking news he doesn't like. Even as we've been posting here he's been doing so:

"Too bad a large portion of the Media refuses to report the lies and corruption having to do with the Rigged Witch Hunt - but that is why we call them FAKE NEWS!"

"The Fake News hates me saying that they are the Enemy of the People only because they know it’s TRUE. I am providing a great service by explaining this to the American People. They purposely cause great division & distrust. They can also cause War! They are very dangerous & sick!"

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

[Thanatos]

My main point was that Trump was elected by a populace distrusting of the media, to be distrusting of the media. And content like above, belonging to CNN, Fox, MSN, Sky have all contributed to an overall public hostility toward the media.

Even if we were to run with this premise as true, I want to know where you stand on doling out proportions of blame. For example, it's not exactly an unknown fact that right-wing aligned talk radio stations in the US have fomented nothing but concentrated hatred/distrust for "mainstream" media. Hannity and Limbaugh in particular come to mind, although I could just as easily rattle off a few other local radio station hosts who do pretty much the same thing, albeit to a lesser degree.

You really don't see this occurring from the other side by even remotely the same amount, to the point it's frankly a waste of time to even debate otherwise.

[Athos187]

Fox news has had to declare legally that they are an entertainment channel and not a legitimate journalistic source. As part of this they arent allowed to host presidential debates

Wouldnt recommend watching any other news channels either tho, the television format of news reporting is designed to be sensationalist. Much better to read

[Infidel144]

Fox news has had to declare legally that they are an entertainment channel and not a legitimate journalistic source. As part of this they arent allowed to host presidential debates

Are you referring to the Huffington Post article?
If so, you might have noted the date on it, April 1st. And then the update:
"Editor's note: Happy (belated) April Fool's Day. This story was originally published in 2017."
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0..._15727044.html

[tentaku]

Are you referring to the Huffington Post article?
If so, you might have noted the date on it, April 1st. And then the update:
"Editor's note: Happy (belated) April Fool's Day. This story was originally published in 2017."
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/0..._15727044.html

Haha I didn't know it was an April Fools Joke, I guess the joke is on all these happy liberals who thought they finally got the best of Fox.

[Pontifex Maximus]

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



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?

Always hilarious to see the leftist outrage and pearl clutching when someone actually fires back at them. The left only cares about civil liberties when Rachel Maddow is threatened with being upstaged by anyone with a shred of common sense that deigns to debate her. It's always ironic when the rights of the anti-Trump media are promoted at the expense of the President, acting not within his official capacity, when he fires back at the press. Unlike Obama who used executive power to attack opponents. Is there any evidence of Trump using his powers as President to suppress the press? No? Oh dear. Looks like there's no argument here. By the way, how many press conferences has the Trump administration held over the Obama administration in the same period of time?

We live in the unique and tragic time where the government cares more about civil liberties than the media does, and they hide behind their shield of freedom of press to undermine nearly every other right held by citizens in this country.

[Katsumoto]

Hundreds of news outlets have run a joint series of editorials in response to the President's assault against them.

In 2018, some of the most damaging attacks are coming from government officials. Criticizing the news media — for underplaying or overplaying stories, for getting something wrong — is entirely right. News reporters and editors are human, and make mistakes. Correcting them is core to our job. But insisting that truths you don’t like are “fake news” is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists the “enemy of the people” is dangerous, period.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ald-trump.html

The freedom of the press is an individual liberty, not the peculiar privilege of a profession or an industry. It is your right as an American to read what you will, to write what you think, and to publish what you believe. The press is neither the enemy of the people nor its ally, but rather its possession. That is why attacks on the press, one of the great bulwarks of liberty, seek to abridge or deprive the people of their rights, as Madison would have put it to his colleagues.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-yours/567655/

[Pontifex Maximus]

Hundreds of news outlets have run a joint series of editorials in response to the President's assault against them.



https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ald-trump.html



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-yours/567655/

Sorry, but no. This fails to distinguish between officials commenting on the abysmal status of reporting in this nation and official government action designed to repress freedom of the press. Obama engaged in the latter, which is why I care. Government officials commenting about the low, piss poor quality of reporting does not operate to suppress freedom of press no matter how much you try to make it seem like this is so. The fact CNN and MSNBC is permitted to report in such a ridiculous way reiterates freedom of the press. The press is not immune from being called out on it's idiotic/biased reporting.

[Aexodus]

Yawn. Where were they when Obama seized Ali Watkins, Times reporter’s phone and email records, subpoenaed telephone records of the Associated Press, went after James Rosen of Fox News calling him a ‘co-conspirator’ in a leak about NK’s nuclear program using security badge records to track his comings and goings to the state department and tracing the timing of his calls with security advisors, and ramping up efforts to get James Risen of NYT to reveal his confidential source about the Jeffrey Sterling investigation. As well as using a century old law, the espionage act, a presidential record 9 times during his tenure.

What has Trump done? Said some mean things?

[Cyclops]

Weak whataboutism aside, Trump has been attacked unfairly from almost all sides. His performance has been poor but most media outlets have fallen over themselves to smear him almost as badly as FOX did Obama.

I'll put my conspiracy hat on for a minute, isn't weird that he's been so poorly performed but his worst errors have been drowned in teacup storms? Its like someone has put a turd in the Whitehouse to make the Whitehouse stink. I mean Mueller is mulling over Trump Jr's clear collusion with Russia, he should shoot his bolt and be done with it. Instead its left hanging so the odour permeates Trump's entire regime. The Clinton faction obviously are involved, but they've been smashed too.

Trump's made a mixture of farcical and sensible cabinet choices. His generals have been mostly good (blundering Flynn, sacked for a technicality aside) and others have been positive trolling, like Pruitt at the EPA.

I mean if you wanted to prepare the ground for coup or a deliberate constitutional crisis you'd put an ass like Trump in, make sure some basic elements of government kept running, and either leave the rest of the posts vacant or troll the Republic by putting clowns in a few choice positions.

Of course you'd need a trustworthy,popular person on the wings, a cleanskin with a massive profile but no obvious political connections. Someone with access to the technology needed to create Trump and to spoil the evil political skills of the Clintons. Oh and billions upon billions of dollars. Gates is too old, Jobs is dead, Musk is a foreigner and can't run. Its not the old guard, Soros is Clinton-linked, the Kochs' stable is full of Bushes.

On an unrelated note I wonder why Congress spent so much time and effort shaming Zuckerberg?

Posts about the right of free speech in Facebook and Twitter moved there. ~Abdülmecid I

[Katsumoto]

A man has been arrested and charged with threatening to kill employees of the Boston Globe newspaper, in messages repeating Donald Trump’s claims that journalists are the “enemy of the people” and “fake news”.

Robert Chain called the Globe’s newsroom and claimed he would shoot staff members in the head, according to the FBI, which said Chain later specified that he was retaliating against the newspaper’s criticism of Trump’s attacks on the news media.
_
Chain allegedly called the Globe from a blocked number on 16 August and said: “You’re the enemy of the people, and we’re going to kill every ing one of you.” After suggesting that staff call special counsel Robert Mueller for help, Chain allegedly said: “I’m going to shoot you in the ing head later today, at four o’clock.” Telephone records traced the call back to Chain’s home landline, the FBI said.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...i-robert-chain

Fortunately this nut job didn't carry out his threats, but it serves as a reminder that Trump declaring the press 'the enemy of the people' does have serious consequences.

[Heathen Hammer]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...i-robert-chain

Fortunately this nut job didn't carry out his threats, but it serves as a reminder that Trump declaring the press 'the enemy of the people' does have serious consequences.

That includes leftists targeting right-wingers with violence as well, since its a two-way street. Ultimately, only those that turn words into violent actions should be held responsible otherwise we face a slippery slope and loss of democracy, which is what we can see happening in UK.

[Love Mountain]

That includes leftists targeting right-wingers with violence as well, since its a two-way street. Ultimately, only those that turn words into violent actions should be held responsible otherwise we face a slippery slope and loss of democracy, which is what we can see happening in UK.

No. It's entirely possible to damage people in non-violent ways.

[Heathen Hammer]

No. It's entirely possible to damage people in non-violent ways.

People who see/read something that is offensive or in any other way unpleasant to them have the right to ignore it.

[Gaidin]

I lack a better thread, but defemation case against Alex Jones in Texas is allowed to go forward re: Sandy Hook parents.

[TheDarkKnight]

I lack a better thread, but defemation case against Alex Jones in Texas is allowed to go forward re: Sandy Hook parents.

Good. That stain deserves to be sued out of existence.

[Kyriakos]

Good. That stain deserves to be sued out of existence.

I think that the problem is that most media are of either so low a level journalism-wise, or are so clearly tied to specific interests (political parties or other) that you are bound to have someone like Alex Jones gain a considerable following. If the state of the media wasn't so low then this wouldn't have happened.
To put it otherwise: consider that even Alex Jones has at times better points than the mainstream media; that speaks volumes as to how messed up the situation is, and how just banning/sueing Jones won't improve anything imo.

Also, it is interesting that - at least nominally/rhetoric wise- Alex is less pro-war than the mainstream media. Which, again, is frightening.
Other countries' "indy" media (most indy only in name) tend to be pro-war (eg Britain has gotten a load of new and stupid radio stations, all being right-wing).