It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: gmoneystunt
The cognitive dissonance is appalling. You claim that we "need some new honest independent" media and you call for the White House to bring about this change by what? Waging a war with the media and selectively promoting or punishing media outlets based on how favorable the coverage of the administration is?
Clearly you do NOT want independent media — the government approving the press is the antithesis of independent — you want authoritarian control over the media.
originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: gmoneystunt
The cognitive dissonance is appalling. You claim that we "need some new honest independent" media and you call for the White House to bring about this change by what? Waging a war with the media and selectively promoting or punishing media outlets based on how favorable the coverage of the administration is?
Clearly you do NOT want independent media — the government approving the press is the antithesis of independent — you want authoritarian control over the media.
originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth
And if your username is correct I take if you are from the UK?
See, our founding fathers waged war against your country for the RIGHT to criticize the government, true or false. The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment they wrote. Before guns. Before anything else, freedom of speech and freedom of the press came first.
That is the legacy our founding fathers gave us here, in America. It may seem foreign to you, as you live in a different culture under a different paradigm.
Americans value diversity of thought (or used to) -- and we value the ability of the people to pick and choose what they feel is true or false for themselves.
Our government wasn't founded with the intention of having a hand in deciding what news is "allowed" or "banned". That is not the job of the government.
Conservatives, please explain to me how you want smaller government with less intrusion into your lives -- yet are A-OK with big brother stepping in and telling you what is "approved" news?
How is that not authoritarian?
How is that not unlike North Korea, the former USSR, or even the current Russian Federation? How is censoring the news and banning outlets from reporting not unlike Nazi Germany?
originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth
This sounds like Communist Russia.
Who gets to determine what's "fake" or "real"? Who makes that judgement call? You? Trump himself?
Ignore what you think is fake, but intentionally cutting off types of reporting you don't like only will come back to bite you in the arse later.
What's good for your team now can just as easily be used to silence you at a later time.
What if the news you think is "true" gets called 'fake news" someday?
You wouldn't want your precious news sources called fake and banned, would you?
originally posted by: Kettu
Everyone realizes that the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment, right?
OK, just checking.
It doesn't matter if YOU think it's "fake news". Your opinion doesn't matter. Let the people decide for themselves.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Imagine if talk radio and bloggers had access to the whitehouse press, it would spell the slow death of old media. More press and more transparency is a brilliant move, and the greatest way to balance the media scale.
originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth
I don't care if a private company wants to self-censor its private product that people voluntarily consume.
And in any case, there is only so much room at the WH, that is why not every single news outlet that wants in can reserve a spot.
originally posted by: carewemust
I hope trump opens a feedback website. he should be able to allow good press to stay.
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: Ceeker63
I see no real reason to have a news corp at the White House. If the POTUS has something to say. There are other ways to get the information out to the public. For instance YouTube.
Trump favors Twitter. Like most teenage girls.
originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth
But just imagine if Obama banned all journalists except ones that would only ask him soft-ball (easy) questions? I certainly wouldn't like that. I don't hate Obama but I would be first in line to oppose him doing something like that.
It's like changing the rules for yourself to make the game easier to play. Sure, at first it might seem like a good idea -- as "fake news" journalists with an agenda just waste time, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. It very quickly can create an echo chamber of "yes men" -- which i something Trump has done all his life.
On a totally unrelated, totally off-topic and random matter -- since your from the UK is mincemeat pie any good? I made one last night from a jar of mincemeat. It smelled OK, but I haven't worked up the courage to eat it. It has apples, raisins and stuff in it. It was on sale now that Christmas was over, so I dumped it into a pie crust and made it.
originally posted by: burgerbuddy
originally posted by: olaru12
originally posted by: Ceeker63
I see no real reason to have a news corp at the White House. If the POTUS has something to say. There are other ways to get the information out to the public. For instance YouTube.
Trump favors Twitter. Like most teenage girls.
Time to catch up with the times eh, "grandpa?".
Video killed the radio star, don't forget.
Why do you hate technology?