I am not understand the liberal media mindset

[Boomboom521]

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.

Guess so. A "peaceful coup d'etat" from the media has been asserted by many on this board through the campaign, hasn't it? That the media's coverage is biased, unfair and attempts to undermine Trump's legitimacy and propel Clinton into the White House?

My opinion is that Trump can't destroy the free press (only the press can do that to themselves) BUT he can undermine their credibility to an extent that his followers will seek only Trump approved sources that only cover him favorably.

I am also of the opinion that he is conducting very dangerous speech as a President. He needs to focus on his job, all else will fall where it falls. Have Spicer condemn reports that are biased. Obama had the same bias coming at him....when he called out Fox....people on the right thought it was wrong to do so.

Either way: you can't concede that a President saying "the media is the enemy of the people" is a dangerous statement?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

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.

I agree with all of that. Maybe you can start a grass roots effort to calm all of those funded and organized opponents protesting without a basis in fact the hell down.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

That the media's coverage is biased, unfair and attempts to undermine Trump's legitimacy and propel Clinton into the White House?

I think this is a half truth. The assertion that the media is biased and it attempts in collusion with leadership on the left to delegitimize his Presidency is real. Your reasoning why is where I have an issue. It's not to propel Clinton into the White House, that's absurd and frankly impossible. No one would support that, she's not popular enough to lead that kind of insurgent takeover, the military wouldn't follow her, they can't stand her. It's to undermine the platform which Trump ran on and is executing. Simple as that. If they can undermine and minimize his support, they can attack his platform more effectively.

I am also of the opinion that he is conducting very dangerous speech as a President.

I don't agree.

Either way: you can't concede that a President saying "the media is the enemy of the people" is a dangerous statement?

This is one thing he said that I disagree with, however, I think it was also taken out of context though. What he was trying to say is that by not covering things honestly and in an unbiased manner is a danger to the American people. Not having truthful and unbiased reporting is failing the American people. By extension, this is in fact an enemy to the people.

 

[atlkvb]

Guess so. A "peaceful coup d'etat" from the media has been asserted by many on this board through the campaign, hasn't it? That the media's coverage is biased, unfair and attempts to undermine Trump's legitimacy and propel Clinton into the White House?

My opinion is that Trump can't destroy the free press (only the press can do that to themselves) BUT he can undermine their credibility to an extent that his followers will seek only Trump approved sources that only cover him favorably.

I am also of the opinion that he is conducting very dangerous speech as a President. He needs to focus on his job, all else will fall where it falls. Have Spicer condemn reports that are biased. Obama had the same bias coming at him....when he called out Fox....people on the right thought it was wrong to do so.

Either way: you can't concede that a President saying "the media is the enemy of the people" is a dangerous statement?

I don't think it's a "dangerous" statement boom because earlier in your post you said Trump can't destroy the free press. You were also correct by saying only they can do that to themselves.

I agree with you 100% on this. They are in fact doing this. They are undermining their own credibility with their biased, incomplete, inaccurate reporting. Trump's only calling them out on it. The American people are deciding for themselves how poorly the media performs. Trump's election proved their incompetence.

They are free and are quite willing to continue digging their own graves with their incessant anti-Trump hysteria, and the power of the information marketplace will seal and is sealing their doom because the American people not only see it but are sick of it.

You are absolutely correct boom, the Media is their own worst enemy despite Trump's claims otherwise of them being our enemies.

 

[Boomboom521]

I think this is a half truth. The assertion that the media is biased and it attempts in collusion with leadership on the left to delegitimize his Presidency is real. Your reasoning why is where I have an issue. It's not to propel Clinton into the White House, that's absurd and frankly impossible. No one would support that, she's not popular enough to lead that kind of insurgent takeover, the military wouldn't follow her, they can't stand her. It's to undermine the platform which Trump ran on and is executing. Simple as that. If they can undermine and minimize his support, they can attack his platform more effectively.


I don't agree.


This is one thing he said that I disagree with, however, I think it was also taken out of context though. What he was trying to say is that by not covering things honestly and in an unbiased manner is a danger to the American people. Not having truthful and unbiased reporting is failing the American people. By extension, this is in fact an enemy to the people.

I meant during the campaign...the media was asserting their efforts in a conspiracy to propel Clinton. Now it's just to delegitmize Trump's Presidency.

And Trump needs to get to the point where he realizes that a President's words matter a great deal.....even in tweets, where context is very difficult to determine.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

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?

I do think that media is biased in some ways, and I think Trump brings much of this on himself. Just as I have expressed opinions on this board the MSM expresses opinions as well. Should we ban that? That would be a definite violation of the 1st Amendment.

I think that most reporting on Trump starts out with the factual information gathered by the writer to convey the story. I do believe that bias and opinion enters into these reports and attempts to sway the reader in a particular fashion. I do not agree with this type of reporting, leave the opinion and commentary out of the story and put it on the opinion pages where it belongs.

On your first point of unsupported/accurate reporting Of Trump I'd grade MSM as a C+/B-, but I'd grade Trump at a C- because of the way he is attempting to undermine the media with his speech.

The second point factually reporting on Trump I'd grade as a B, because the facts are in the articles if you look for them, but the commentary, opinion and some of the other "facts" that are interjected into the reporting definitely show a bias that should not be there. And I would say that it is irresponsible to allow these types of commentary into a news story. If I were writing the story it would be based entirely on the facts and I would let the facts determine how the reader perceived the event.

I'm old school that way, but I attended J-school at a different time and times have changed, not sure for the better.

I'm interested in seeing the 1st Amendment upheld and respected in regards to a free press. I believe that Trump has threatened the press and manipulates the media. I believe that the media manipulates their writing in some ways, to the detriment of the 4th Estate. But to me the First Amendment is paramount and is to be protected to ensure that we have a Republic where the people have a right to know what takes place in their government, good, bad or ugly!

 

[WVPATX]

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.

This is wishful thinking on the part of radical liberals. There is nothing dangerous about trumps speech. The Supreme Court wouldn't touch this with a 10 foot pole. If this were even a remote possibility, the ACLU supporting some other media organization or some media outlet would've already started proceedings in court. They haven't because this in no way intrudes on the First Amendment.

 

[WVPATX]

Guess so. A "peaceful coup d'etat" from the media has been asserted by many on this board through the campaign, hasn't it? That the media's coverage is biased, unfair and attempts to undermine Trump's legitimacy and propel Clinton into the White House?

My opinion is that Trump can't destroy the free press (only the press can do that to themselves) BUT he can undermine their credibility to an extent that his followers will seek only Trump approved sources that only cover him favorably.

I am also of the opinion that he is conducting very dangerous speech as a President. He needs to focus on his job, all else will fall where it falls. Have Spicer condemn reports that are biased. Obama had the same bias coming at him....when he called out Fox....people on the right thought it was wrong to do so.

Either way: you can't concede that a President saying "the media is the enemy of the people" is a dangerous statement?

Not even close to being dangerous. I prefer the term accurate. Because when the media engages in the practice of slanting stories, covering stories to deliver the message they want, causing people to believe what the media wants them to believe, all of that is very dangerous to the American people.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

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.

And this is what I want to focus on, atlkvb. It is a fact that Trump tweeted that the media was an enemy of the people. Not that the media was biased, or dishonest, or inaccurate, or his favorite FAKE NEWS; he called the media (a free press) the enemy of the people.

I agree that Trump has every right to call out inaccurate or deceptive reporting or commentary interjected into a pure news story that shows a bias; good for him, he should do it.

But to make a blanket statement that the media (a free press) is the enemy of the people takes the rhetoric to another level and borders on dangerous speech. That's the only point I want to make, some of Trump's speech against a free press is borderline.

 

[WVPATX]

And this is what I want to focus on, atlkvb. It is a fact that Trump tweeted that the media was an enemy of the people. Not that the media was biased, or dishonest, or inaccurate, or his favorite FAKE NEWS; he called the media (a free press) the enemy of the people.

I agree that Trump has every right to call out inaccurate or deceptive reporting or commentary interjected into a pure news story that shows a bias; good for him, he should do it.

But to make a blanket statement that the media (a free press) is the enemy of the people takes the rhetoric to another level and borders on dangerous speech. That's the only point I want to make, some of Trump's speech against a free press is borderline.

Clearly not unconstitutional however. I think it is far more dangerous when a president blatantly lies to the American people about their health care plan, their ability to keep their doctor, their ability to keep their hospital, they're building to keep their insurance plan, saving $2500 per year per family, off for the sake of selling his program. All lies and deception. Clearly it is not unconstitutional but these lies are much worse than anything Trump has been accused of.

 

[atlkvb]

And this is what I want to focus on, atlkvb. It is a fact that Trump tweeted that the media was an enemy of the people. Not that the media was biased, or dishonest, or inaccurate, or his favorite FAKE NEWS; he called the media (a free press) the enemy of the people.

I agree that Trump has every right to call out inaccurate or deceptive reporting or commentary interjected into a pure news story that shows a bias; good for him, he should do it.

But to make a blanket statement that the media (a free press) is the enemy of the people takes the rhetoric to another level and borders on dangerous speech. That's the only point I want to make, some of Trump's speech against a free press is borderline.

Agreed WVex-pat in GA. Trump doesn't need to call them our enemy, we can pretty much figure out if they are.

 

[WVPATX]

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?

The point is, Trump has called out all of this fake news purveyed by the media outlets he cited. If those outlets are indeed issuing fake news, which we know they are. Then that is being an enemy of the people because they are not giving the American people the facts they deserve. They want them to believe what the media tells them is right. Fraud would be a good term for their actions.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Agreed WVex-pat in GA. Trump doesn't need to call them our enemy, we can pretty much figure out if they are.

Yes, I see that the trend is heading that way. But if an individual sees it that way, fine. If someone doesn't see it that way, fine too. But the POTUS doesn't need to be in that mix.

 

[Boomboom521]

Trump has already successfully merged the term fake news with media bias. Two very different things, that are now joined in the generic assault against all liberal press.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Clearly not unconstitutional however. I think it is far more dangerous when a president blatantly lies to the American people about their health care plan, their ability to keep their doctor, their ability to keep their hospital, they're building to keep their insurance plan, saving $2500 per year per family, off for the sake of selling his program. All lies and deception. Clearly it is not unconstitutional but these lies are much worse than anything Trump has been accused of.

And I'll just disagree with your position based on Trump's own words that show intent to undermine the media and subvert the First Amendment. Others have pointed this out, not just me. But I realize you would discount any validation I would bring to the table because your mind is made up and not open to looking at any "alternative facts". Have a nice day!

 

[atlkvb]

The point is, Trump has called out all of this fake news purveyed by the media outlets he cited. If those outlets are indeed issuing fake news, which day we know they are. Then that is being an enemy of the people because they are not giving the American people the fax they deserve. They want them to believe what the media tells them it is right. Fraud would be a good term for their actions.

I honestly don't need them anymore Pax to find out what I need to know. So I'm sort of ambivalent about the "enemy" charge from Trump. I do agree with him they are way over the top fanatically opposed to him, but who cares? I know he does, but I don't. I don't watch them because I can't trust what they report.

Despite their best attempts to convince Trump voters otherwise, we still elected him, which proves to me a vast majority of folks have already dismissed most of what they have to say. It just gets tiring listening to their "alarmist" stories about him, when most of his supporters and those who voted for the policies he's pursuing are quite satisfied with what he is doing.

Why are those folks ignored by the Media? Do they not exist? Are their voices irrelevant to the debate? Why are they ignored in favor of all of the protesters by the Media, who are always promoted as the "only" voices being raised in reaction to Trump's policies?

Bias.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I meant during the campaign...the media was asserting their efforts in a conspiracy to propel Clinton. Now it's just to delegitmize Trump's Presidency.

I don't think it was a conspiracy. I think it was and is a fact both in the campaign and now that he's in office.

 

[Keyser76]

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?

reporting on his stupidity regarding things he says and does, what have they recently said that is flat out inaccurate? Remember when everybody knew he was an incompetent buffoon? Why is the media in our foreign allies countries treating him the same? maybe he should grow a pair and try and govern us all instead of doing policy as payback to the fearful f*cks he got to vote him in.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Trump has already successfully merged the term fake news with media bias. Two very different things, that are now joined in the generic assault against all liberal press.

Trump didn't start that, but he certainly jumped on board.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

And I'll just disagree with your position based on Trump's own words that show intent to undermine the media and subvert the First Amendment. Others have pointed this out, not just me. But I realize you would discount any validation I would bring to the table because your mind is made up and not open to looking at any "alternative facts". Have a nice day!

The media up until Trump has been able to operate with impunity. Trump is the first President who has openly and aggressively pushed back. I applaud him for it.

 

[TarHeelEer]

reporting on his stupidity regarding things he says and does, what have they recently said that is flat out inaccurate? Remember when everybody knew he was an incompetent buffoon? Why is the media in our foreign allies countries treating him the same? maybe he should grow a pair and try and govern us all instead of doing policy as payback to the fearful f*cks he got to vote him in.

A politician executing exactly what he promised in a campaign? Shocking!

 

[atlkvb]

I do think that media is biased in some ways, and I think Trump brings much of this on himself. Just as I have expressed opinions on this board the MSM expresses opinions as well. Should we ban that? That would be a definite violation of the 1st Amendment.

I think that most reporting on Trump starts out with the factual information gathered by the writer to convey the story. I do believe that bias and opinion enters into these reports and attempts to sway the reader in a particular fashion. I do not agree with this type of reporting, leave the opinion and commentary out of the story and put it on the opinion pages where it belongs.

On your first point of unsupported/accurate reporting Of Trump I'd grade MSM as a C+/B-, but I'd grade Trump at a C- because of the way he is attempting to undermine the media with his speech.

The second point factually reporting on Trump I'd grade as a B, because the facts are in the articles if you look for them, but the commentary, opinion and some of the other "facts" that are interjected into the reporting definitely show a bias that should not be there. And I would say that it is irresponsible to allow these types of commentary into a news story. If I were writing the story it would be based entirely on the facts and I would let the facts determine how the reader perceived the event.

I'm old school that way, but I attended J-school at a different time and times have changed, not sure for the better.

I'm interested in seeing the 1st Amendment upheld and respected in regards to a free press. I believe that Trump has threatened the press and manipulates the media. I believe that the media manipulates their writing in some ways, to the detriment of the 4th Estate. But to me the First Amendment is paramount and is to be protected to ensure that we have a Republic where the people have a right to know what takes place in their government, good, bad or ugly!

I agree with with you here ex-pat on how they should be reporting, but I respectfully disagree with how they actually go about this. For instance, why do you suppose they are not reporting that the vast majority of the illegal immigrant arrests are of those folks who are known criminals? Or why are they burying the story that something like 80% of Americans support enforcement of our Immigration Laws? Do you honestly hear them promoting that story?

Know what the Media shows? Families being ripped apart. Are the ones being arrested criminals? We don't know, they don't tell us. Or why do you suppose we never hear what "sanctuary cities" are? Why do we have them? What do they do? Why are they needed? Silence from the main Media.

They do show us all the rallies and protests against our enforcing illegal immigration. They portray those who support enforcement of our Immigration Laws as "racists" who hate Latinos. Or how about Trump's Executive orders? Where is the fair, objective reporting over what his intentions are, or the effects of the orders? Instead it's all negative.

The only choice people like you and I have is alternative sources of information. I posted on here for you the other day where I go...some of it is slanted right, but most of it is just straight factual reporting. I can decide the difference.

I agree with you WVex-pat in GA, we need a free press. Trump should not be calling them our enemies. However if you are fair (and I believe you are) you have to agree they for the most part have abandoned all objectivity and decided instead to be partisan in both their reporting and opinions of Trump.

That's fine, they have that right, but we as consumers of their information also have the right to decide that they are irrelevant.

I have.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

reporting on his stupidity regarding things he says and does, what have they recently said that is flat out inaccurate? Remember when everybody knew he was an incompetent buffoon? Why is the media in our foreign allies countries treating him the same? maybe he should grow a pair and try and govern us all instead of doing policy as payback to the fearful f*cks he got to vote him in.

I don't have enough time to list the inaccurate and biased reporting on his initiatives, the actual policy piece. I think this is where there is a disconnect. When we are having these discussions, people like you think we are talking about the press reporting on Trumps gaffes. We aren't. Those stand on their own. We are talking about their coverage, extremely slanted as it is, on his policy decisions.

Christ, you want a quick example? How bout the coverage by the MSM on all the reports of companies pouring infrastructure and jobs projects into the US. The left and and the MSM did everything they could to downplay that stuff.

That's the kind of stuff the MSM is losing the people's confidence over. It's not the Ivanka and Nordstrom's ********. I realize those kinds of things are sacred to the left, we on the right just don't care. Our sacred cows are jobs, defense, economy. The rest is noise.

 

[atlkvb]

reporting on his stupidity regarding things he says and does, what have they recently said that is flat out inaccurate? Remember when everybody knew he was an incompetent buffoon? Why is the media in our foreign allies countries treating him the same? maybe he should grow a pair and try and govern us all instead of doing policy as payback to the fearful f*cks he got to vote him in.

They regularly report on or promote people who say he's mentally unfit to hold Office. OK, so where is the factual evidence backing up those who make those charges, and why doesn't the Media insist they produce their evidence?

No, instead they just allow those folks to put that scurrilous charge out there, then they sit around and debate it as if it were true.

You probably enjoy the speculation, or at least agree with it?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The media up until Trump has been able to operate with impunity. Trump is the first President who has openly and aggressively pushed back. I applaud him for it.

DvlDog, don't disagree one bit with your statement. Trump is a different cat and approaches things from a different viewpoint; sometimes good and sometimes not so good.

But my opinion is that he has or is close to crossing a very dangerous line in his assertion that the media is the enemy of the people. He is saying that your right to a free press, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, is tainted to the point that you shouldn't believe them and only listen to one viewpoint, his viewpoint. Again, my opinion is that this type of speech is borderline "dangerous speech" as defined by the SCOTUS in their Schenck decision.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The only choice people like you and I have is alternative sources of information. I posted on here for you the other day where I go...some of it is slanted right, but most of it is just straight factual reporting. I can decide the difference.

I agree with you WVex-pat in GA, we need a free press. Trump should not be calling them our enemies. However if you are fair (and I believe you are) you have to agree they for the most part have abandoned all objectivity and decided instead to be partisan in both their reporting and opinions of Trump.

That's fine, they have that right, but we as consumers of their information also have the right to decide that they are irrelevant.

Agree with all these points and I agree that the media right now is a circus with no ringmaster. My only contention and my fear is that Trump wants to subvert in some way the media and infringe on the First Amendment. It may be an irrational fear but it is real to me.

Also thank you for pointing me to RealClearPolitics.com in particular. I find it to be a helpful tool in seeing all sides of an issue by providing multiple resources. Everyone should take a look at it.

 

[atlkvb]

Trump has already successfully merged the term fake news with media bias. Two very different things, that are now joined in the generic assault against all liberal press.

Yes, he has. However we can decide as voters if his charges against them are legitimate. They can't force us to believe them about him, and he is not forcing us to disbelieve him about them.

Trust the people (voters) to decide who's correct and who's incorrect. We are able to figure out who is bogus or who is legit in this dispute. That's why we vote.

 

[atlkvb]

Agree with all these points and I agree that the media right now is a circus with no ringmaster. My only contention and my fear is that Trump wants to subvert in some way the media and infringe on the First Amendment. It may be an irrational fear but it is real to me.

Also thank you for pointing me to RealClearPolitics.com in particular. I find it to be a helpful tool in seeing all sides of an issue by providing multiple resources. Everyone should take a look at it.

I agree with you we should fear anyone's attempt to limit or restrict our 1st Amendment. I don't think that's what Trump is up to, but if he is, I'd join you in opposing him. However I will say with that Constitutional protection for our Media comes responsibility from them to guard their Freedom.

It's OK to have bias, and opinions even. Just be up front about it, then let us decide if we agree with it or not. However vast majority of the Media tries to present itself as unbiased and objective, when you and I both can see for ourselves that they are not (at least not in their so called 'straight News' reporting)

That to me is just as dangerous as restricting their right to report. We have a 1st Amendment to protect us from Government tyranny, but not to help them promote it. In my opinion that is exactly what a vast majority of them do, and I oppose that as much as restricting their right to report.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

DvlDog, don't disagree one bit with your statement. Trump is a different cat and approaches things from a different viewpoint; sometimes good and sometimes not so good.

But my opinion is that he has or is close to crossing a very dangerous line in his assertion that the media is the enemy of the people. He is saying that your right to a free press, guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution, is tainted to the point that you shouldn't believe them and only listen to one viewpoint, his viewpoint. Again, my opinion is that this type of speech is borderline "dangerous speech" as defined by the SCOTUS in their Schenck decision.

Actually, you are projecting a false narrative to fit your argument. He never once said that he is the only source to be believed. He actually said in the presser last week that he desperately wants a fair accounting of the press. He also says he understands there are times when he SHOULD get negative press and understands that. What he is pushing back on is when he SHOULD get positive press, he isn't. That in my opinion is equally as dangerous as the press is abusing their 1st amendment right. Their abuse of the 1st amendment and the abuse of any amendment is a danger to the very fabric of our nation.

I understand your position, you've very clearly and effectively communicated it. He should be very careful in what he says and I loathe the twitter attacks, however, he's not exactly wrong in his intent behind the statement. He's defended it and expounded on it to provide more clarification but that is somehow not discussed in this debate. I'm not sure why.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

He never once said that he is the only source to be believed.

We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live, or what to believe. We are free and independent people and we will make our own choices.
We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hear your demands, I hear your voices and I promise you I will deliver. I promise that. --Donald Trump, Melbourne, FL - 2/17/17.

Hmmm... not exactly saying he is the only source, but once again affirming that the media is not trustworthy and he is, even though he has provided much misinformation himself.

So, DvlDog-- I thank you for an open discussion on this topic. I see your point and you see and I think understand where I'm coming from. I'm not a big fan of the media, and they have proven to have a bias. But I am a defender of the First Amendment -- I believe in its principles, and every citizen should demand that it be defended.

 

[atlkvb]

I am a defender of the First Amendment -- I believe in its principles, and every citizen should demand that it be defended.

No disagreement with this.

 

[atlkvb]

We are free and independent people and we will make our own choices.
We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hear your demands, I hear your voices and I promise you I will deliver.

We can decide that for ourselves about him WVex-pat in GA. We don't need the Media constantly berating him or trying to convince us he's all wet.

We've decided they're more wet describing him than him describing himself. The bottom line here is the Media is not fair, they are not trustworthy, so they're not believable or even credible.

I think I've figured them out & why, and I'm not alone in my evaluation of them.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live, or what to believe. We are free and independent people and we will make our own choices.
We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I hear your demands, I hear your voices and I promise you I will deliver. I promise that. --Donald Trump, Melbourne, FL - 2/17/17.

Hmmm... not exactly saying he is the only source, but once again affirming that the media is not trustworthy and he is, even though he has provided much misinformation himself.

So, DvlDog-- I thank you for an open discussion on this topic. I see your point and you see and I think understand where I'm coming from. I'm not a big fan of the media, and they have proven to have a bias. But I am a defender of the First Amendment -- I believe in its principles, and every citizen should demand that it be defended.

I agree with this post.

 

[bornaneer]

Is saying the media is not trustworthy infringing on their 1st amendment rights? I also believe that every citizen, even the POTUS, has that right.

 

[WVPATX]

Is saying the media is not trustworthy infringing on their 1st amendment rights? I also believe that every citizen, even the POTUS, has that right.

When the president takes away their right to publish, or speak or puts them in jail or shoots them then they have a case. Otherwise they have none.

Hillary Clinton amongst many Democrats have called Republicans enemies of the American people. If she infringing on their First Amendment free-speech rights? No.


https://www.google.com/amp/www.brei...and-republicans-as-enemies/amp/?client=safari