I am not understand the liberal media mindset

[WVPATX]

They are going ballistic claiming that America needs a free press. I agree. But what has Trump done to diminish our free press? Has he jailed them? Shot them? Suppressed their first amendment rights? Caused them to all write glowing stories about him? What are they so afraid of?

Trump hates most of the media and they hate him. It's adversarial. Isn't it supposed to be adversarial? It is true that Trump is helping to destroy their credibility, but as John Dickerson said, Trump is not to blame, the media is to blame for that lost credibility.

Did anyone watch O'Reilly last evening. He had two guests on, one liberal and one conservative. The liberal natural claimed the MSM is not liberal. Bill asked her 5 simple questions. Name a conservative on air personality at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC. She, I believed named Jonathan Karl and a guy by the name of Acosta (don't know where he works). What a telling exchange. She could not name a certain conservative. She thought Karl and Acosta were fair, not necessarily conservative.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

They are going ballistic claiming that America needs a free press. I agree. But what has Trump done to diminish our free press? Has he jailed them? Shot them? Suppressed their first amendment rights? Caused them to all write glowing stories about him? What are they so afraid of?

Trump hates most of the media and they hate him. It's adversarial. Isn't it supposed to be adversarial? It is true that Trump is helping to destroy their credibility, but as John Dickerson said, Trump is not to blame, the media is to blame for that lost credibility.

Did anyone watch O'Reilly last evening. He had two guests on, one liberal and one conservative. The liberal natural claimed the MSM is not liberal. Bill asked her 5 simple questions. Name a conservative on air personality at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC. She, I believed named Jonathan Karl and a guy by the name of Acosta (don't know where he works). What a telling exchange. She could not name a certain conservative. She thought Karl and Acosta were fair, not necessarily conservative.

She tried to back up the position of the WSJ, Fox, and Rush all being #1 in their respective media categories and being conservatives. In my opinion, that only serves to obfuscate the overall point.

Realistically, it's hard to have sympathy for the media. They kid gloved Obama in 07/08 but blistered Hillary. In 12, again, they kid gloved Obama and went after Mitt. The reality is, Obama had no more business in the Whitehouse in 08 than Trump does now. He was woefully unqualified for the job and they still refuse to adequately report on the state he left the country. Perhaps they gave him a pass because of what he inherited but again, no such pass is being given to Trump considering the state of the Middle East he is inheriting.

We know they were in the tank for Hillary in this last election. The on-air behavior election night basically legitimizes every claim Trump makes about them. With that said, Trump has made it pretty damn easy for them to focus on the ******** and not cover what it is he really is doing policy wise. Policy wise, aside from the rollout of the EO, I think he is doing fairly well and at least following through on items I wanted to see.

As a whole, the media lost objectivity in 08. It was highlighted this election cycle. They really have no one to blame but themselves. Trump is doing something they aren't used to and that's pushing back on them. They aren't taking it well and throwing around the 1st amendment inaccurately applying to their woes. Anyone watching can easily see Trump isn't trying to shut them down. He's merely pushing back appropriately for the biased reporting style. They keep pressing and it only emboldens the base and takes people in the middle and pushes them away from the craziness the left hardliners are displaying.

They are fighting the last war and not realizing technology and tactics have changed and it's costing the press dearly. I'd like to see them return to being objective, but they need to realize their part and make the corrections. I don't think they will and he'll end up re-elected because of it, assuming the economy improves.

 

[WVPATX]

She tried to back up the position of the WSJ, Fox, and Rush all being #1 in their respective media categories and being conservatives. In my opinion, that only serves to obfuscate the overall point.

Realistically, it's hard to have sympathy for the media. They kid gloved Obama in 07/08 but blistered Hillary. In 12, again, they kid gloved Obama and went after Mitt. The reality is, Obama had no more business in the Whitehouse in 08 than Trump does now. He was woefully unqualified for the job and they still refuse to adequately report on the state he left the country. Perhaps they gave him a pass because of what he inherited but again, no such pass is being given to Trump considering the state of the Middle East he is inheriting.

We know they were in the tank for Hillary in this last election. The on-air behavior election night basically legitimizes every claim Trump makes about them. With that said, Trump has made it pretty damn easy for them to focus on the ******** and not cover what it is he really is doing policy wise. Policy wise, aside from the rollout of the EO, I think he is doing fairly well and at least following through on items I wanted to see.

As a whole, the media lost objectivity in 08. It was highlighted this election cycle. They really have no one to blame but themselves. Trump is doing something they aren't used to and that's pushing back on them. They aren't taking it well and throwing around the 1st amendment inaccurately applying to their woes. Anyone watching can easily see Trump isn't trying to shut them down. He's merely pushing back appropriately for the biased reporting style. They keep pressing and it only emboldens the base and takes people in the middle and pushes them away from the craziness the left hardliners are displaying.

They are fighting the last war and not realizing technology and tactics have changed and it's costing the press dearly. I'd like to see them return to being objective, but they need to realize their part and make the corrections. I don't think they will and he'll end up re-elected because of it, assuming the economy improves.

Personally, I think they are incapable of change. They all go to the same schools. They all live in the same areas (NYC/DC corridor). No ideological diversity at all. They are humans and as a result are biased with their own thoughts, ideas and ideology.

For real change to occur, they would have to ideologically diversity. Editors and reporters. They would have to hire overt conservative anchors to demonstrate their commitment to honesty and integrity. They would have to hire pro life women. Pro gun enthusiasts. Religious people. Small government people. Pro military people. But I think those changes will never be forthcoming unless their parent companies force these actions.

 

[atlkvb]

The best thing for me that is happening to them is that folks no longer believe anything they report, or at least balance their reporting out with other sources who regularly expose their bias.

Thankfully that is ongoing. The market more than anything else is deciding their fate. Which is as it should be.

 

[Boomboom521]

Personally, I think they are incapable of change. They all go to the same schools. They all live in the same areas (NYC/DC corridor). No ideological diversity at all. They are humans and as a result are biased with their own thoughts, ideas and ideology.

For real change to occur, they would have to ideologically diversity. Editors and reporters. They would have to hire overt conservative anchors to demonstrate their commitment to honesty and integrity. They would have to hire pro life women. Pro gun enthusiasts. Religious people. Small government people. Pro military people. But I think those changes will never be forthcoming unless their parent companies force these actions.

Are you saying that the people you listed above are NOT biased? You think a mixture of different ideologies would produce balance?....or just more biases? Objectivity, is the elimination of bias, not the balancing of it.

 

[atlkvb]

Objectivity, is the elimination of bias, not the balancing of it.

I think this is partially true. True objectivity means being open to all possibilities, not balancing competing philosophies. Or at least not taking a position and allowing others to decide for themselves what is Truthful based on a factual presentation that includes all sides.

That is not what the Media does, although that should be their "MO".

 

[WVPATX]

Are you saying that the people you listed above are NOT biased? You think a mixture of different ideologies would produce balance?....or just more biases? Objectivity, is the elimination of bias, not the balancing of it.

I am OK with the balancing of it. At least that would give you both sides of an issue. Right now, predominately we are only getting one point of view. Diversity is important, right? Why not ideological diversity?

 

[Boomboom521]

I am OK with the balancing of it. At least that would give you both sides of an issue. Right now, predominately we are only getting one point of view. Diversity is important, right? Why not ideological diversity?

Journalism is objective. A good journalist should seek to have their readers/viewers not know what side they lean to. Balancing of opinion pieces?.....sure, but reporting on facts (esp about government) should be aggressive, skeptical, and objective.

 

[WVPATX]

Journalism is objective. A good journalist should seek to have their readers/viewers not know what side they lean to. Balancing of opinion pieces?.....sure, but reporting on facts (esp about government) should be aggressive, skeptical, and objective.

I could not agree more with you Boom. Unfortunately. We are nowhere close to that standard.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

They are going ballistic claiming that America needs a free press. I agree. But what has Trump done to diminish our free press? Has he jailed them? Shot them? Suppressed their first amendment rights?

The interesting part of this detailed analysis is that the Trump Administration may have played the media by letting the A/P run with a bogus story. Interesting. It simply feeds into Trump's narrative.

I know I am going to open a can of worms, but for the purposes of this specific discussion, which I hope remains civil, I'll take the chance.

I hope you see that in some ways Trump has suppressed the First Amendment by using his position of power and influence, POTUS, to diminish the very concept of a free press by claiming that they are the enemy of the people. By calling on reporters that he knows would disagree with him and prefacing his remarks by denigrating the organization the reporter works for or the reporter him/herself only reinforces this point. The constant tweets and claims of dishonestly and FAKE NEWS when a story is unfavorable to him or his position again only helps to influence his populist view and integrate that into the belief of his followers. It is not the job of the POTUS to make that call, in my opinion.

Now, does the POTUS have free speech under the First Amendment? Of course, but just like everyone else not all his speech is protected. From the SCOTUS: The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. Now dangerous speech may be like another SCOTUS ruling on pornography; I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Trump's insistence on calling out the press, not in a specific manner but in blanket statements, might border on dangerous speech. In that it could be seen by some, and most likely the left and the media, as an attempt to squelch the First Amendment. However, the left and the media have equal protection under the First Amendment as well; quite the conundrum. If Trump would be specific about his claims of FAKE NEWS and be able to back it up the complexion of the issue would be entirely different. But he doesn't take that tact and dismisses attempts from the media to validate his statements as more of the dishonest press.

In the second statement quoted above an interesting point is broached that could also be construed as an attempt to manipulate the First Amendment; the intentional withholding of information or the intentional distribution of false information. I understand that the statement is merely a hypothesis, but it could have some grounds in reality; similar to the President Xi phone call issue where it was proven that the WH either withheld information or intentionally mislead the media.

There are grounds for an assumption that Trump wants to suppress the media, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. It would also be a violation of the oath of office for the POTUS. I think this is where some of the fear and trepidation of Trump's anti-media campaign stems from.

 

[WVPATX]

I know I am going to open a can of worms, but for the purposes of this specific discussion, which I hope remains civil, I'll take the chance.

I hope you see that in some ways Trump has suppressed the First Amendment by using his position of power and influence, POTUS, to diminish the very concept of a free press by claiming that they are the enemy of the people. By calling on reporters that he knows would disagree with him and prefacing his remarks by denigrating the organization the reporter works for or the reporter him/herself only reinforces this point. The constant tweets and claims of dishonestly and FAKE NEWS when a story is unfavorable to him or his position again only helps to influence his populist view and integrate that into the belief of his followers. It is not the job of the POTUS to make that call, in my opinion.

Now, does the POTUS have free speech under the First Amendment? Of course, but just like everyone else not all his speech is protected. From the SCOTUS: The idea of falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater arose from the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in the case Schenck v. United States. The Court ruled unanimously that the First Amendment, though it protects freedom of expression, does not protect dangerous speech. Now dangerous speech may be like another SCOTUS ruling on pornography; I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

Trump's insistence on calling out the press, not in a specific manner but in blanket statements, might border on dangerous speech. In that it could be seen by some, and most likely the left and the media, as an attempt to squelch the First Amendment. However, the left and the media have equal protection under the First Amendment as well; quite the conundrum. If Trump would be specific about his claims of FAKE NEWS and be able to back it up the complexion of the issue would be entirely different. But he doesn't take that tact and dismisses attempts from the media to validate his statements as more of the dishonest press.

In the second statement quoted above an interesting point is broached that could also be construed as an attempt to manipulate the First Amendment; the intentional withholding of information or the intentional distribution of false information. I understand that the statement is merely a hypothesis, but it could have some grounds in reality; similar to the President Xi phone call issue where it was proven that the WH either withheld information or intentionally mislead the media.

There are grounds for an assumption that Trump wants to suppress the media, which would be a violation of the First Amendment. It would also be a violation of the oath of office for the POTUS. I think this is where some of the fear and trepidation of Trump's anti-media campaign stems from.

Not trying to be dismissive, but your argument holds no water. Many presidents have criticized the press including Lincoln, Jefferson and Jackson. Supreme Court has ruled on specific instances when the first amendment does not apply and this falls under none of those categories. The media has ample opportunity to defend itself. Trump is not calling for the killing of media members. He is not shutting down media organizations. It's not threatening individual reporters or editors. He is simply telling the people that the media for the most part cannot be trusted.

This has been done before, Trump may be taking it to a new level, but this does not offend the First Amendment.

The media would be far better served to do their job rather than whining, and crying This constant woe is me attitude is turning off the American people.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Not trying to be dismissive, but your argument holds no water. Many presidents have criticized the press including Lincoln, Jefferson and Jackson. Supreme Court has ruled on specific instances when the first amendment does not apply and this falls under none of those categories. The media has ample opportunity to defend itself. Trump is not calling for the killing of media members. He is not shutting down media organizations. It's not threatening individual reporters or editors. He is simply telling the people that the media for the most part cannot be trusted.

This has been done before, Trump may be taking it to a new level, but this does not offend the First Amendment.

Well thank you Trump Media Czar for setting me straight. Why I thought we could have an open discussion on this topic I now realize is beyond you.

 

[WVPATX]

Well thank you Trump Media Czar for setting me straight. Why I thought we could have an open discussion on this topic I now realize is beyond you.

Because I completely disagreed with your hypothesis, we are not having an open discussion? Can you point out where I ridicule you, demeaned you, denigrated you?

You may not like the fact that I pointed out where I thought you were wrong but that doesn't mean the discussion wasn't open.

If by open you assumed that I would agree with you in part or in total, that is not an open discussion. That would be lying on my part.

 

[Airport]

Are you saying that the people you listed above are NOT biased? You think a mixture of different ideologies would produce balance?....or just more biases? Objectivity, is the elimination of bias, not the balancing of it.

Everybody is biased. One way or another. The problem is, most of the media is liberal and give liberal slant to everything. The people in the US are split 50/50. With probably more conservative than bleeding heart liberal like many in the news. That's the real difference.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Because I completely disagreed with your hypothesis, we are not having an open discussion? Can you point out where I ridicule you, demeaned you, denigrated you?

You may not like the fact that I pointed out where I thought you were wrong but that doesn't mean the discussion wasn't open.

If by open you assumed that I would agree with you in part or in total, that is not an open discussion. That would be lying on my part.

 

[WVPATX]

And that offends the First Amendment how? I watched the entire interview on Sunday and not once did Wallace say that this violated the First Amendment.

 

[Boomboom521]

Everybody is biased. One way or another. The problem is, most of the media is liberal and give liberal slant to everything. The people in the US are split 50/50. With probably more conservative than bleeding heart liberal like many in the news. That's the real difference.

Bias CAN be taken out of journalism. Ever listened to Julie Mason? She strives to be unbiased about Party, and stick to issue analysis.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

And that offends the First Amendment how? I watched the entire interview on Sunday and not once did Wallace say that this violated the First Amendment.

To use the position of power (POTUS) to undermine a free press could be construed as suppression of the First Amendment.

There are grounds for an assumption that Trump wants to suppress the media, which would be a violation of the First Amendment.

Please note the bold on assumption, which was placed in the original post.

However, you've already told me that my opinion is wrong so what does it matter. I've been SUPPRESSED.

 

[Boomboom521]

And that offends the First Amendment how? I watched the entire interview on Sunday and not once did Wallace say that this violated the First Amendment.

Again...your passion for defending Trump on the right (or destroying the left - I'm not sure which it is) overshadows your ability to discuss criticism and fear from Americans. By saying (without specifics) that media is the enemy and "fake", Trump is planting the seed that reports should be ignored. The violation (in mine and GA's opinion) in is the danger this creates. As he yells fire, people will endanger themselves as Americans by the panic and disorder that will follow (potentially). I'd rather hear our President point people to the exit sign, and not just yell FIRE!

 

[Airport]

Bias CAN be taken out of journalism. Ever listened to Julie Mason? She strives to be unbiased about Party, and stick to issue analysis.

I would doubt if she's totally unbiased. I doubt if anybody could be. I have not heard her, what is she on?

 

[Boomboom521]

I would doubt if she's totally unbiased. I doubt if anybody could be. I have not heard her, what is she on?

Sirius radio....POTUS "The Pressroom". She's good

 

[WVPATX]

To use the position of power (POTUS) to undermine a free press could be construed as suppression of the First Amendment.



Please note the bold on assumption, which was placed in the original post.

However, you've already told me that my opinion is wrong so what does it matter. I've been SUPPRESSED.

You've actually just made my point. I told you that your opinion was wrong. And now you made the claim that I have suppressed your speech. However after I made my claim, you posted yet again. An expression of free speech.

Can you cite even one Supreme Court case where a argument like yours has ever been used in a First Amendment claim? I don't believe you can because none exists.

 

[WVPATX]

Again...your passion for defending Trump on the right (or destroying the left - I'm not sure which it is) overshadows your ability to discuss criticism and fear from Americans. By saying (without specifics) that media is the enemy and "fake", Trump is planting the seed that reports should be ignored. The violation (in mine and GA's opinion) in is the danger this creates. As he yells fire, people will endanger themselves as Americans by the panic and disorder that will follow (potentially). I'd rather hear our President point people to the exit sign, and not just yell FIRE!

Trump has called out some in the media as providing fake news. That is nowhere near the suppression of free speech. They have every right to rebut the president and they have done so repeatedly. How have their free-speech rights been abridged? Their credibility called into question, for sure. Free speech suppression, no way.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Can you cite even one Supreme Court case where a argument like yours has ever been used in a First Amendment claim? I don't believe you can because none exists.

It was cited in my first post, you can Google it too.

 

[WVPATX]

It was cited in my first post, you can Google it too.

This is an absurd argument. That is not dangerous speech by anyone's standards. Do you know of a single legitimate reporter citing first amendment issues as the reason for silencing trumps criticism of the media? If Criticizing the media is considered dangerous, then God help our free speech rights as they are gone.

Crying fire in a crowded theater is dangerous because it can cause bodily injury. How can criticizing the media cause bodily injury? Trump Would have to be calling for his supporters to intentionally harm individual reporters for this type of First Amendment case to apply.

As you can read, you have to go pretty damn far to violate the First Amendment.

http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-01/43-threats-of-violence.html

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.[6]
The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.

The opinion, if you would actually take the time to read it, is about whether the first amendment protects speech that may be considered dangerous. The case surrounding the conviction of a man, Schenck, who spoke out against the draft during the first World War.

"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," was one of the phrases that got him convicted and was deemed dangerous because men of draft age might actually take heed of these remarks and resist the draft.

So for the POTUS to say that the media is an enemy of the people, an enemy of the state, is not much different that telling men to resist the draft because it is their right to do so.

Of course I don't expect you to see an analogy.

 

[WVPATX]

The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.[6]
The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.

The opinion, if you would actually take the time to read it, is about whether the first amendment protects speech that may be considered dangerous. The case surrounding the conviction of a man, Schenck, who spoke out against the draft during the first World War.

"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," was one of the phrases that got him convicted and was deemed dangerous because men of draft age might actually take heed of these remarks and resist the draft.

So for the POTUS to say that the media is an enemy of the people, an enemy of the state, is not much different that telling men to resist the draft because it is their right to do so.

Of course I don't expect you to see an analogy.

This has zero relevance to what you're talking about. Trump is using his free-speech rights to express an opinion regarding fake news. The Supreme Court would laugh this one out but of court if I t would ever get that far. Not even the Ninth Circuit would be stupid enough to make that ruling. Your argument was about Trump suppressing the free speech rights of the media. And, zero relevance. And by the way, the media is doing what they do every single day and no one is stopping them in the least.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The opinion's most famous and most often quoted passage was this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.[6]
The phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since become a popular metaphor for dangers or limitations of free speech.

The opinion, if you would actually take the time to read it, is about whether the first amendment protects speech that may be considered dangerous. The case surrounding the conviction of a man, Schenck, who spoke out against the draft during the first World War.

"If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," was one of the phrases that got him convicted and was deemed dangerous because men of draft age might actually take heed of these remarks and resist the draft.

So for the POTUS to say that the media is an enemy of the people, an enemy of the state, is not much different that telling men to resist the draft because it is their right to do so.

Of course I don't expect you to see an analogy.

Keep trying, at this rate you'll stumble onto a correlation.

Trump isn't attacking the Free Press concept. He's attacking a liberal bias in the Free Press. To provide an example, I'm watching CNN's morning news segment eating my oatmeal. This segment is dedicated to trying to show a loose affiliation between Trump and anti-Semitism. It completely discounts the extreme reversal of policy we have taken under Trump with regard to Israel. No mention of Nikki Haley's speech at the UN, no mention of Trump's daughter being Jewish. No mention of his outreach towards the Jewish people. I honestly came away questioning whether Trump was anti-Semitic. That is, I would have, had I not already taken the time to look for the truth.

Trump is right to push back on this kind nonsense. Moreover, since you like ridiculous assertions with little basis in reality, I've got one for you.

The liberal press is colluding with radical leftist ideologues and actively working towards a peaceful coup d'etat.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The liberal press is colluding with radical leftist ideologues and actively working towards a peaceful coup d'etat.

 

[moe]

They are going ballistic claiming that America needs a free press. I agree. But what has Trump done to diminish our free press? Has he jailed them? Shot them? Suppressed their first amendment rights? Caused them to all write glowing stories about him? What are they so afraid of?

Trump hates most of the media and they hate him. It's adversarial. Isn't it supposed to be adversarial? It is true that Trump is helping to destroy their credibility, but as John Dickerson said, Trump is not to blame, the media is to blame for that lost credibility.

Did anyone watch O'Reilly last evening. He had two guests on, one liberal and one conservative. The liberal natural claimed the MSM is not liberal. Bill asked her 5 simple questions. Name a conservative on air personality at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC. She, I believed named Jonathan Karl and a guy by the name of Acosta (don't know where he works). What a telling exchange. She could not name a certain conservative. She thought Karl and Acosta were fair, not necessarily conservative.

Solid troll effort, B-

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The liberal press is colluding with radical leftist ideologues and actively working towards a peaceful coup d'etat.

DvlDog, I'm not disagreeing with media bias, we all know it is there. I disagree with the above statement in general, although I would agree there are a few who are way out there on some of the rhetoric; Cuomo for one.

I'm suggesting that Trump's statement of the media as the enemy of the people could possibly be classified as "dangerous speech" that presents a "clear and present danger" of actions against the media. The same as the SCOTUS ruling against Schenck; prohibiting speech for those same two reasons.

I believe, and I think you will find others at a higher level than me (see the Chris Wallace link), that Trump is himself colluding to undermine the media, discredit any media reports that are unfavorable to him or his administration and attempt to neuter a free press from covering his administration.

To me that is an attempt to subvert the First Amendment and is a violation of his Oath of Office.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

This has zero relevance to what you're talking about. Trump is using his free-speech rights to express an opinion regarding fake news. The Supreme Court would laugh this one out but of court if I t would ever get that far. Not even the Ninth Circuit would be stupid enough to make that ruling. Your argument was about Trump suppressing the free speech rights of the media. And, zero relevance. And by the way, the media is doing what they do every single day and no one is stopping them in the least.

It is very relevant, you just refuse to see a correlation between Trump's possible "dangerous speech" and the SCOTUS ruling, which by the way has stood the test of time for nearly 100 years. I cannot find anything to show a challenge to this ruling.

As the precedents stand at present, therefore, it appears that Schenck is still good law. Criminal attempts may be prosecuted even if carried out solely through expressive behavior, and a majority of the justices continue to view such prosecutions in the light of the majority opinion in Abrams: the Court will defer to legislative judgments, at least in national security matters, that some forms of political advocacy may be prosecuted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States


So just as you always claim that the POTUS has First Amendment rights as well, so must he abide by the law. It is clear that the SCOTUS has ruled that protected speech has its limits, and Trump may be at those limits with his speech concerning the media as the enemy of the people.

 

[Boomboom521]

Keep trying, at this rate you'll stumble onto a correlation.

Trump isn't attacking the Free Press concept. He's attacking a liberal bias in the Free Press. To provide an example, I'm watching CNN's morning news segment eating my oatmeal. This segment is dedicated to trying to show a loose affiliation between Trump and anti-Semitism. It completely discounts the extreme reversal of policy we have taken under Trump with regard to Israel. No mention of Nikki Haley's speech at the UN, no mention of Trump's daughter being Jewish. No mention of his outreach towards the Jewish people. I honestly came away questioning whether Trump was anti-Semitic. That is, I would have, had I not already taken the time to look for the truth.

Trump is right to push back on this kind nonsense. Moreover, since you like ridiculous assertions with little basis in reality, I've got one for you.

The liberal press is colluding with radical leftist ideologues and actively working towards a peaceful coup d'etat.

Than his secretary needs to call the report out specifically. He needs to point to the exit sign. Just railing against "media" is dangerous, not for people like you that seek multiple sources but for many people that will just end up seeking a "Trump sponsored" source for reports.

And your coup d'etat theory is extreme, and also an example of how dangerous this narrative can become. How close to being ready to take up arms are you to defend your President?

People on the right throw the words "liberal" and "leftists" around like your already in a battle over the country's soul. It's the same assumptions people on the right rail about when someone calls everyone on the right racists, homophobic, and sexists. Many people (both left and right) see issues for what they are....individual....they are not automatically tied to a party agenda. I'm pro death penalty, pro choice, and a firm believer in States rights. Making those assertions doesn't mean that I'm pro-choice with no restrictions for example, or that I don't think that the death penalty shouldn't come with an extremely high burden of proof and automatic appeal process. My point is.....we need to get back to a place where people discuss issues and solutions without opinions splitting violently left or right.

 

[atlkvb]

I'm suggesting that Trump's statement of the media as the enemy of the people could possibly be classified as "dangerous speech"

All he needs to say WVex-pat in GA is that the media is biased against him (they are), and doesn't support his Presidency so almost everything they say about him will be negative or at least an attempt to make him less well liked or effective.

That is not calling them an "enemy", that is factual based on how they cover him, that is correct, and most importantly that is exactly how they are viewed by a vast majority of the American people who support Trump.

 

[Boomboom521]

All he needs to say WVex-pat in GA is that the media is biased against him (they are), and doesn't support his Presidency so almost everything they say about him will be negative or at least an attempt to make him less well liked or effective.

That is not calling them an "enemy", that is factual based on how they cover him, that is correct, and most importantly that is exactly how they are viewed by a vast majority of the American people who support Trump.

He literally called them the enemy of the people.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

That's exactly what I picture when these loons talk about Trump trying to destroy the Free Press. That narrative has no more basis in reality than the horseshit I posted.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

DvlDog, I'm not disagreeing with media bias, we all know it is there. I disagree with the above statement in general, although I would agree there are a few who are way out there on some of the rhetoric; Cuomo for one.

I'm suggesting that Trump's statement of the media as the enemy of the people could possibly be classified as "dangerous speech" that presents a "clear and present danger" of actions against the media. The same as the SCOTUS ruling against Schenck; prohibiting speech for those same two reasons.

I believe, and I think you will find others at a higher level than me (see the Chris Wallace link), that Trump is himself colluding to undermine the media, discredit any media reports that are unfavorable to him or his administration and attempt to neuter a free press from covering his administration.

To me that is an attempt to subvert the First Amendment and is a violation of his Oath of Office.

They are doing it to themselves by their biased reporting, it drowns out the good factual stuff in the noise. He can focus on the noise and amplify it. They don't like they aren't being believed, I don't like they are saying unbelievable ****.

 

[atlkvb]

DvlDog, I'm not disagreeing with media bias, we all know it is there. I disagree with the above statement in general, although I would agree there are a few who are way out there on some of the rhetoric; Cuomo for one.

I'm suggesting that Trump's statement of the media as the enemy of the people could possibly be classified as "dangerous speech" that presents a "clear and present danger" of actions against the media. The same as the SCOTUS ruling against Schenck; prohibiting speech for those same two reasons.

I believe, and I think you will find others at a higher level than me (see the Chris Wallace link), that Trump is himself colluding to undermine the media, discredit any media reports that are unfavorable to him or his administration and attempt to neuter a free press from covering his administration.

To me that is an attempt to subvert the First Amendment and is a violation of his Oath of Office.

WVex-PAT in Ga I have two questions for you since you studied Journalism at WVU.

Do you think, or let me put it this way, why do you think the Media is generally unsupportive of Trump or at least does not fairly and accurately report on him?


Then, if you agree their responsibility as Journalists covering him is to do so factually (ie: neither critically nor supportive) do you believe they are fulfilling that role or responsibility?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

And your coup d'etat theory is extreme, and also an example of how dangerous this narrative can become. How close to being ready to take up arms are you to defend your President?

Was it lost on you all that that theory was an equally absurd of a notion as the left's claim that Trump is trying to destroy the Free Press.

 

[atlkvb]

He literally called them the enemy of the people.

And I disagree with that. We can decide that for ourselves. But what is their objective as it regards him? I'll ask you the same question I asked WV-ex pat in GA...is the media responsibly reporting on Trump?

Is their job only to be critical of him? How do the American people learn to objectively evaluate him or his policies if all of the coverage of him is either critical or flat out inaccurate?