Jump to content

The Media's Portrayal of Trump and His Presidency


Nanker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

As the Federalist’s Jesse Kelly tweets, “The last 48 hours is exactly why people on the right are so distrustful of media. They’re extremely powerful and can manufacture outrage on a national level. It’s not journalism. It’s activism that influences policy.”

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

As the Federalist’s Jesse Kelly tweets, “The last 48 hours is exactly why people on the right are so distrustful of media. They’re extremely powerful and can manufacture outrage on a national level. It’s not journalism. It’s activism that influences policy.”

 

 

 

.


EXACTLY.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

AND THAT'S OK.

 

People are allowed to disagree with you, Joe.  And they're allowed to do and say things that you disagree with on the platforms that they own.  Just as you are free to do the same.

 

If you say so.

 

We'll have to disagree on that one.

 

If what they're DOING is knowingly abetting illegality by publishing false/misleading/incorrect information, they shouldn't be protected. And this isn't a one-off.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

If you say so.

 

We'll have to disagree on that one.

 

If what they're DOING is knowingly abetting illegality by publishing false/misleading/incorrect information, they shouldn't be protected. And this isn't a one-off.

 

 

 

Your view necessitates a "government ministry of information and truth" with the power to prosecute those who deviate from it's official standard.

 

That is some absolutely Orwellian stuff, Joe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Your view necessitates a "government ministry of information and truth" with the power to prosecute those who deviate from it's official standard.

 

That is some absolutely Orwellian stuff, Joe.

 

No, it really doesn't. If I'm a reporter, and I'm publishing stories knowingly with false information provided by members of some three-letter agency with the express intent of overturning a legitimate election....that speech shouldn't be allowed. It's acting against the people who voted for the person in office. Hell, it's acting against the interests of EVERYONE in this country.

 

The remedy is to revoke that particular person's credentials.

 

You disagree with that. You think that should never happen. I get it. You're using the slippery slope argument and reductio ad absurdum to try and support your point. No one's advocating for a ministry of truth here.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

No, it really doesn't. If I'm a reporter, and I'm publishing stories knowingly with false information provided by members of some three-letter agency with the express intent of overturning a legitimate election....that speech shouldn't be allowed. It's acting against the people who voted for the person in office. Hell, it's acting against the interests of EVERYONE in this country.

 

The remedy is to revoke that particular person's credentials.

 

You disagree with that. You think that should never happen. I get it. You're using the slippery slope argument and reductio ad absurdum to try and support your point. No one's advocating for a ministry of truth here.

 

 

 

 

Who decides what’s true or not? How do you prove if a reporter or news outlet purposely reported false info? Freedom of the press Joe. Don’t like it? Don’t read or watch. Everything you think the left is doing now, the left thinks the same thing about Fox and the right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

No, it really doesn't. If I'm a reporter, and I'm publishing stories knowingly with false information provided by members of some three-letter agency with the express intent of overturning a legitimate election....that speech shouldn't be allowed. It's acting against the people who voted for the person in office. Hell, it's acting against the interests of EVERYONE in this country.

 

The remedy is to revoke that particular person's credentials.

 

You disagree with that. You think that should never happen. I get it. You're using the slippery slope argument and reductio ad absurdum to try and support your point. No one's advocating for a ministry of truth here.

 

No, Joe.  I'm not.

 

As gatorbait has pointed out, someone, in an official capacity, has to decide what is true, or not.  That person will be with the government, and based on their decision, press outlets and reporters will be punished for not complying with what the government has decided is the truth.

 

So, yes, it really does require a government ministry of truth to adjudicate.

 

You're literally making the exact same argument supporters of the ACA made about death panels.   

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Quote

 

s2zwEoao_normal.jpgNPR
On the policy of separating immigrant families, here's what we know regarding:
-What happens when families are separated?
-Where do the children go?
-Can parents who're prosecuted be reunited with their kids?
-What was the policy under President Obama?https://n.pr/2I4C1K0 

 

 
 
Ummmmm.......
 
 
 
This headline is missing the word “illegal” in front of the word “immigrant”. I’m sure it was just an oversight.
 
 
.
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The picture of Mrs. Trump is from today. The King and Queen of Spain were in town to celebrate 300 years of friendship (minus that minor misunderstanding in 1898...) She was sitting there listening to Trump and King Whosit talk about whatever when the pic was taken.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Part of me still thought it was fake even after seeing the video... :lol: 

...

 

They're investigating? I think anyone here can tell them how that incorrect information got into their system. #Resist 

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We apologize to any of our viewers who might have been offended by the slightly erroneous but substantively correct crawl under our breaking story about Der Furher. Rest assured that the people responsible will be undergoing a rigorous program of anti bias training which they don’t really need because there is no bias here at ABC. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Part of me still thought it was fake even after seeing the video... :lol: 

 

 

 

They're investigating? I think anyone here can tell them how that incorrect information got into their system. #Resist 

 

I liked the earlier reports I saw that called it a "technical glitch."

 

"Yes, our banner generator had a short that caused it to accuse Manafort of murder."

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/19/2018 at 5:16 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

No, Joe.  I'm not.

 

As gatorbait has pointed out, someone, in an official capacity, has to decide what is true, or not.  That person will be with the government, and based on their decision, press outlets and reporters will be punished for not complying with what the government has decided is the truth.

 

So, yes, it really does require a government ministry of truth to adjudicate.

 

You're literally making the exact same argument supporters of the ACA made about death panels.   

Hey there. It's me again.

 

I have a question.  Can a reporter/newsoutlet commit treason?  Can they be tried for treason?  Can they be punished for treason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Wacka said:

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. 

 

As long as you don’t say the word “it”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

:lol:

 

 

 

 

 

Surely he threw them at her face, kneed Trudeau in the nuts, and gave Macron a wedgie with his other hand, all in one fell swoop...then said "give me 2 scoops!"..but the reporter is likely trying to suppress what really happened. 

 

 

 

Edited by OJ Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 6/19/2018 at 5:23 PM, Koko78 said:

The picture of Mrs. Trump is from today. The King and Queen of Spain were in town to celebrate 300 years of friendship (minus that minor misunderstanding in 1898...) She was sitting there listening to Trump and King Whosit talk about whatever when the pic was taken.

 

You mean, the journalists who insinuated that she was gone because Trump beat her were wrong?

 

Gee. Who saw that coming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Wacka said:

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked. 

 

So there were no llamas involved after all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DgLI1ypW0AIfm3x.jpg

 

Two and half years late CNN and MSNBC.  We already knew what Fox News was.  You helped create him and now you own him.  This emotional overreaction to a border policy continues to feed the troll.  Just stop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Hey there. It's me again.

 

I have a question.  Can a reporter/newsoutlet commit treason?  Can they be tried for treason?  Can they be punished for treason?

 

I'm sure they can, though it's a very difficult legal standard to meet, and for good reason.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

I'm sure they can, though it's a very difficult legal standard to meet, and for good reason.

 

 

 

The last I know of were seven or so that were indicted in absentia during World War 2, who were in Germany before 1942, and stayed to broadcast Axis propaganda ("Axis Sally" sorts, though I don't think the actual Axis Sally was a reporter.) . Half of them had the charges dropped post-war, for lack of evidence.  I think three were convicted.  The determining factor seems to be whether or not they were actively aiding the Axis with propaganda broadcasts, versus simply reporting in a positive light (e.g. one of them was a "cultural reporter," filing reports about fashion in Berlin, which they ultimately decided wasn't really aiding and abetting the enemy.)

 

The bar for "treason" is very high, and even more so for reporters.  Nothing anyone is doing right now even comes close to treason.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The last I know of were seven or so that were indicted in absentia during World War 2, who were in Germany before 1942, and stayed to broadcast Axis propaganda ("Axis Sally" sorts, though I don't think the actual Axis Sally was a reporter.) . Half of them had the charges dropped post-war, for lack of evidence.  I think three were convicted.  The determining factor seems to be whether or not they were actively aiding the Axis with propaganda broadcasts, versus simply reporting in a positive light (e.g. one of them was a "cultural reporter," filing reports about fashion in Berlin, which they ultimately decided wasn't really aiding and abetting the enemy.)

 

The bar for "treason" is very high, and even more so for reporters.  Nothing anyone is doing right now even comes close to treason.  

 

Pretty much my point exactly.

 

People are starting to throw legal jargon around because it's politically advantageous in the short term, and because they don't understand the guiding statutes.  It's not all that much different than the dopes screaming "collusion!!!!".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Give them a break. They were involuntary manslaughters.

 

fake-news imagine involuntary manslaughters.

 

LOL

 

they are inventing new ways to lie to anyone who pays attention, every day...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, westside said:

Yep. He didn't want to do it, but he had too.

Does that mean he's working for the clintons?

 

no, that's actual murders where the media knows about it and whitewashes it for the Cs

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...