My suggestions on Trump communication strategy

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
1. Avoid the MSM as much as possible. You can't win. They are corrupt and will make you look bad regardless of circumstances, even lie when necessary.
2. Hold as many public rallies as possible. Explain your policies. Cite the difficulties and those opposing those policies. Go directly to the American people.
3. Use twitter much more selectively. No more personal attacks. Stick to policy.
4. Limit or even eliminate Administration officials on all MSM appearances until you are convinced they will play the news straight. Give no interviews to liberal newspapers or magazines. Provide only comments when asked to rebut negative stories.
5. Use social media to get your message out.
6. In press conferences, limit MSM questions. They will be gotcha questions designed to provide a false narrative. Focus instead on local outlets, alternative media that will play it straight and the like.

The MSM has essentially declared war. Arm yourself.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
1. Avoid the MSM as much as possible. You can't win. They are corrupt and will make you look bad regardless of circumstances, even lie when necessary.
2. Hold as many public rallies as possible. Explain your policies. Cite the difficulties and those opposing those policies. Go directly to the American people.
3. Use twitter much more selectively. No more personal attacks. Stick to policy.
4. Limit or even eliminate Administration officials on all MSM appearances until you are convinced they will play the news straight. Give no interviews to liberal newspapers or magazines. Provide only comments when asked to rebut negative stories.
5. Use social media to get your message out.
6. In press conferences, limit MSM questions. They will be gotcha questions designed to provide a false narrative. Focus instead on local outlets, alternative media that will play it straight and the like.

The MSM has essentially declared war. Arm yourself.
 

WVMade

Redshirt
Aug 23, 2016
1,221
0
0
.
2. Hold as many public rallies as possible. Explain your policies. Cite the difficulties and those opposing those policies. Go directly to the American people.
The MSM has essentially declared war. Arm yourself.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I already am. The groundwork for Civil War II is making progress. The great Charlie Daniels wrote a great piece about this a couple days ago. It's a good read. Simply google it if interested.

Love Charlie. I'll google it, thanks. I have never seen the country so divided, so angry. Even worse than the Viet Nam war. We are very quickly separating into two very different countries.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
I already am. The groundwork for Civil War II is making progress. The great Charlie Daniels wrote a great piece about this a couple days ago. It's a good read. Simply google it if interested.

Love Charlie. I'll google it, thanks. I have never seen the country so divided, so angry. Even worse than the Viet Nam war. We are very quickly separating into two very different countries.
This is pure gold. Kudos to both of ya.
 
Dec 7, 2010
20,602
120
0
1. Avoid the MSM as much as possible. You can't win. They are corrupt and will make you look bad regardless of circumstances, even lie when necessary.
2. Hold as many public rallies as possible. Explain your policies. Cite the difficulties and those opposing those policies. Go directly to the American people.
3. Use twitter much more selectively. No more personal attacks. Stick to policy.
4. Limit or even eliminate Administration officials on all MSM appearances until you are convinced they will play the news straight. Give no interviews to liberal newspapers or magazines. Provide only comments when asked to rebut negative stories.
5. Use social media to get your message out.
6. In press conferences, limit MSM questions. They will be gotcha questions designed to provide a false narrative. Focus instead on local outlets, alternative media that will play it straight and the like.

The MSM has essentially declared war. Arm yourself.
His self-declared feud with traditional American media is plain stupid on his part. Mark Twain once said something to the effect of never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. He will never win this fight. Obama even went on Fox news to be interviewed several times and frequently took their questions in pressers. The press will keep digging and digging and doing what they've always done-keep pols honest to the best degree than anyone can. Trumplethinskin can withdraw from reality and think that throwing a hissy fit will piss off the media and send some sort of message. And admittedly, his supporters will love it. But the rest of the country not so much. It looks juvenile and petty. Which is exactly what Trump is.
 

WVUCOOPER

Redshirt
Dec 10, 2002
55,555
40
31
Like I pointed out, don't debate, denigrate. But I do admit it does take a base amount of intelligence to actually engage.
Oh man what a sick burn. You have internet shamed me. Go catch up on Charlie Daniels musings.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
This is pure gold. Kudos to both of ya.

For you see, those without base knowledge don't have the curiosity to even read, they just denigrate. Reading is fundamental. Nothing remotely troubling about this article. Yet, you blast it even before you read it.

Charlie Daniels: It’s Only a Matter of Time Before There Is Blood on the Streets
By Charlie Daniels | February 14, 2017 | 11:21 AM EST



A tattered and torn American flag blows in the wind with dark clouds overhead. (AP Photo/Darlo Lopez Mills)
Over a century ago, the United States of America went through a divisive and bloody Civil War that separated the people of this nation bone from marrow. It split friends, families and eventually the nation itself as a line was drawn dividing the Union States of the North from the newly formed Confederacy of the Southern States.

Ostensibly, the war that followed was fought over the abolition of slavery, a devilish practice that never should have been allowed in the first place, and although it was the basic issue for the conflict – as is the case so much of the time – there were a myriad of other issues involved.

One – in my opinion – was just plain stubbornness and pride and the dogged determination that the South would not let itself be told what to do by the other half of the country, but trade, tariffs and different attitudes and beliefs about just how far a federal government could go in setting the tone and making laws to be obeyed by all the states were also involved.

The point I'm trying to make is that the feelings festered so long and ran so deep that men whose fathers had stood shoulder to shoulder in the war for independence faced off across fields of battle and killed each other.

The Civil War never should have happened, and had cooler heads prevailed on both sides, never would have. Southerners had to know that slavery was an abomination to the principles they had fought and died for in the Revolution.

No man has the right to own another man, to reap the fruits of his labor for nothing, to consider his children nothing more than commodities to be sold off or traded away on a whim, separating families and breeding human beings like livestock.

But instead of acknowledging the very obvious evil of this situation, politicians from the South, convinced that the economy of the Southern States was dependent on slavery, chose to become a separate nation and soon after over six hundred thousand Americans lost their lives in a senseless war that would set the Southern States back a half century.

Surely, had it been approached by fair, level-headed men on both sides of the issue, abolition could have been achieved without war. But the rhetoric grew ever hotter. Brash young men on both sides, who had never fired a gun in anger, viewed a war as the pinnacle of romanticism, and implacable politicians refused to give an inch.



Ad Feedback



Is this not the same attitude we see on the streets of America today?

I see young people interviewed on television who can't even articulate the reason they are protesting. Others bent on destruction who probably espouse no cause but chaos.

I've seen hysterical protestors screaming about First Amendment rights which they seem to think only protect them and those who think like them and that the opposition has no First Amendment protection and should be shouted down at all costs.

The rhetoric is becoming hotter and more nonsensical, the radical element more apparent, the violence and destruction of property more common place.

The pot is boiling and it’s only a matter of time before there will be blood on the streets.

Americans have the right to civil disobedience, a right to gather and demonstrate against some policy they feel is unfair or harmful to the country at large, but they do not have the right to interrupt commerce, break windows, burn cars or do bodily harm to those who disagree with them.

People who won't listen to reason, who ignore the law of the land and who try to stifle the opinions of others tend to forget that there is an element of violence on the other side as well, a side that, thankfully, so far has not yet come forth.

But, should these conditions continue, someday soon the violent elements of both persuasions will find themselves on the same streets, and what will ensue will not be pretty.

Learn from history, or repeat it.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops, our police and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

— Charlie Daniels
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
His self-declared feud with traditional American media is plain stupid on his part. Mark Twain once said something to the effect of never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. He will never win this fight. Obama even went on Fox news to be interviewed several times and frequently took their questions in pressers. The press will keep digging and digging and doing what they've always done-keep pols honest to the best degree than anyone can. Trumplethinskin can withdraw from reality and think that throwing a hissy fit will piss off the media and send some sort of message. And admittedly, his supporters will love it. But the rest of the country not so much. It looks juvenile and petty. Which is exactly what Trump is.

Times have changed since Twains's time. Lots and lots of outfits, including non media outlets have lots of ink. Trump has lots of ink. His rallies have lots of ink. Alternative media have lots of ink. This is not controlled by one rather small cabal anymore.

Obama called out Fox routinely. He went on a few times mainly near election season. He called Fox News illegitimate.

http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/10/03/obama-picks-fight-fox-news-latest-speech-fox-hosts-hit-back/

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/0...d-fox-news-is-a-legitimate-news-organization/

The MSM is corrupt. Until they begin to live up to their mission of balanced reporting, cut them out. Yes, we need them to hold the powerful accountable. They did not do that with Obama. A slobbering love affair best describes their performance. Too many alternative sources now to get his message out. Reagan did a bit of it, Trump has far more weapons.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
1. Avoid the MSM as much as possible. You can't win. They are corrupt and will make you look bad regardless of circumstances, even lie when necessary.
2. Hold as many public rallies as possible. Explain your policies. Cite the difficulties and those opposing those policies. Go directly to the American people.
3. Use twitter much more selectively. No more personal attacks. Stick to policy.
4. Limit or even eliminate Administration officials on all MSM appearances until you are convinced they will play the news straight. Give no interviews to liberal newspapers or magazines. Provide only comments when asked to rebut negative stories.
5. Use social media to get your message out.
6. In press conferences, limit MSM questions. They will be gotcha questions designed to provide a false narrative. Focus instead on local outlets, alternative media that will play it straight and the like.

The MSM has essentially declared war. Arm yourself.

I like it PAX. I'd also set up a "White House Office for Media Affairs" to chronicle and document all of the biased, inaccurate reporting, and use the power of the White House to expose their root corruption that passes as information.

My goal would be to degrade and ultimately destroy whatever credibility they have left with the American people. It's War...you're right...so let's take them out in terms of their ability to spread any more lies disguised as information.

If no one believes them anymore (they shouldn't) then they have no further impact. Let 'em talk to an empty audience.
 
Dec 7, 2010
20,602
120
0
I like it PAX. I'd also set up a "White House Office for Media Affairs" to chronicle and document all of the biased, inaccurate reporting, and use the power of the White House to expose their root corruption that passes as information.

My goal would be to degrade and ultimately destroy whatever credibility they have left with the American people. It's War...you're right...so let's take them out in terms of their ability to spread any more lies disguised as information.

If no one believes them anymore (they shouldn't) then they have no further impact. Let 'em talk to an empty audience.
[roll]You fit right in with the kook fringe.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
[roll]You fit right in with the kook fringe.

Well you know RPJ I consider that a compliment coming from you considering your World Class status as a Judge and founding purveyor of 'kookdom'

I am truly honored to be recognized by such an esteemed authority.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
[roll]You fit right in with the kook fringe.

Kook fringe:

Let's discuss the new left:

1. Free speech, nah. Only for speech we approve
2. How to stop free speech, do anything necessary. Violence, property destruction, riots. Injury or perhaps death?
3. Use of trigger warnings, safe spaces, and doing whatever necessary to stop speech.
4. Religious liberty, get rid of it. Sue or imprison those who offend us.
5. "Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon." What do we want? Dead cops. When do we want them? Now.
6. Threaten violence to stop speakers you don't like or want to hear. Shut it down.
7. Judging people on their racial/cultural/gender identity rather than their individual merits.
8. Require nuns to pay for abortifacients.


As Dave Rubin so clearly articulates:

"So, if you think people should be able to say what they think without being punished for it; that people should be judged by their behavior, not their skin color; and that people should be able to live the way that they want to live, without government interference, then there’s not much left on the left for you."
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
So denying the people their right to know about and have access to their government's doings is your answer? What about the First Amendment?

The MSM is still in business. They can still investigate. They may not get called upon during pressers. They may not get an Administration official to show up on their programs.

Plus, lots of investigators out there that are not part of the MSM. Who took down Dan Rather? Hint, not ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes or Wash Post. A blogger.

With access comes responsibility. Tell the truth.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
[roll]You fit right in with the kook fringe.

Even Bill Maher, of all people, recognizes this:

Bill Maher has defended his decision to invite MILO onto his show, adding that the journalists who boycott the show, such as Jeremy Scahill, are the reason “liberals will continue to lose elections.”
In a statement, Maher said that “liberals will continue to lose elections as long as they follow the example of people like Mr. Scahill whose views veer into fantasy and away from bedrock liberal principles like equality of women, respect for minorities, separation of religion and state, and free speech.”

“If Mr. Yiannopoulos is indeed the monster Scahill claims — and he might be — nothing could serve the liberal cause better than having him exposed on Friday night,” he continued.

Scahill, who is an investigative journalist and founder of The Intercept, pulled out the show Wednesday night, saying that MILO is “many bridges too far,” and there is “no value in debating him.”

He also accused MILO of “inciting violence against immigrants, transgender people, and others.”



Scahill also attacked Bill Maher’s views on the regressiveness of Islam, claiming that his views on Muslims “veer into vitriol,” something which Maher denied.

Responding to Scahill’s decision, MILO said that “if you can’t turn up and defend your ideas, you lose. It’s that simple.”

MILO will appear as the top of the show guest on this Friday’s show. In the wake of the UC Berkeley riots, he will be discussing the topic of free speech on college campuses, one-on-one with Maher.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
The MSM is still in business. They can still investigate. They may not get called upon during pressers. They may not get an Administration official to show up on their programs.

Plus, lots of investigators out there that are not part of the MSM. Who took down Dan Rather? Hint, not ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes or Wash Post. A blogger.

With access comes responsibility. Tell the truth.

My idea is to let the Marketplace and the arena of ideas decide their fate for them.

Know what?

It already is.

Evidence: Alternative media, scores of other sources to document the lies and debunk disinformation, Internet, social media, direct access podcasts, Satellite radio, talk radio.

Their only audience right now is the "kook fringe" they've already brainwashed.

People looking for facts and data without their spin don't go to the MSM as reliable sources anymore.

They've forfeited their "gatekeeper" status:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,552
387
83
The MSM is still in business. They can still investigate. They may not get called upon during pressers. They may not get an Administration official to show up on their programs.

Plus, lots of investigators out there that are not part of the MSM. Who took down Dan Rather? Hint, not ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes or Wash Post. A blogger.

With access comes responsibility. Tell the truth.
Understand, but denying access could give the appearance of thumbing your nose at the First Amendment, which was the point I was making. Could be even worse than allowing access.

If your statement about a corrupt media held water, denying access would only give that corrupt media validation. Then they could write or broadcast whatever they wanted because they would only get one viewpoint. See what I mean?

Limiting or denying access could actually backfire.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Understand, but denying access could give the appearance of thumbing your nose at the First Amendment, which was the point I was making. Could be even worse than allowing access.

If your statement about a corrupt media held water, denying access would only give that corrupt media validation. Then they could write or broadcast whatever they wanted because they would only get one viewpoint. See what I mean?

Limiting or denying access could actually backfire.

By denying access, I am referring to not going on their programs. Spicer can still have his press briefings. The press can still follow the President around. But don't go on their shows. That is not shunning the first amendment.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,005
1,927
113
Understand, but denying access could give the appearance of thumbing your nose at the First Amendment, which was the point I was making. Could be even worse than allowing access.

If your statement about a corrupt media held water, denying access would only give that corrupt media validation. Then they could write or broadcast whatever they wanted because they would only get one viewpoint. See what I mean?

Limiting or denying access could actually backfire.

I don't see him "denying" them access WVex-pat in GA. They can report on his answers to other questions from other reporters. Nothing in the Constitution that says he has to pay any attention to them.

Might be better if they just don't show up, they'll twist or lie about what happened anyway or just not report it.

What's the difference?
 
Dec 17, 2007
14,552
387
83
I don't see him "denying" them access WVex-pat in GA. They can report on his answers to other questions from other reporters. Nothing in the Constitution that says he has to pay any attention to them.

Might be better if they just don't show up, they'll twist or lie about what happened anyway or just not report it.

What's the difference?
Good points, but the original question was to the statements made by PATX in his suggestions to "avoid", "eliminate" and "limit" MSM. It is a very authoritarian position and not one that may do anything at all to improve the communication strategy and certainly not Trump's standing.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Good points, but the original question was to the statements made by PATX in his suggestions to "avoid", "eliminate" and "limit" MSM. It is a very authoritarian position and not one that may do anything at all to improve the communication strategy and certainly not Trump's standing.

Read my post again.

"The MSM is still in business. They can still investigate. They may not get called upon during pressers. They may not get an Administration official to show up on their programs."

Avoiding their shows, eliminating visits to their shows and limit your exposure to their gotcha questions is not authoritarian. It is a strategy to get your message out, unfiltered by the corrupt MSM.