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.

 

If Trump collusion is proven, should "conservative" media be prosecuted?

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.




posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.


The 1st amendment gives people the right to create their own press. With that press, they can do whatever they wish. With that right there are some consequences, such as slander, libel, etc.

They get to shape the news however they like and how people perceive that is up to the individual.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.


So what consequences do you propose for all those fake news sites that slandered Hillary Clinton?

Example. Some members still re-post "news" from this site.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.


The 1st amendment gives people the right to create their own press. With that press, they can do whatever they wish. With that right there are some consequences, such as slander, libel, etc.

They get to shape the news however they like and how people perceive that is up to the individual.


Some people seem unaware that the earliest newspapers were completely partisan, It took William Hearst to figure out that if the news were reported objectively, the circulation would double!



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
CNN Fudges The Numbers To Cast Fox News In A Poor Light [VIDEO]


John Berman strayed into questionable territory Sunday while discussing a recent Harvard study on the media’s coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office.

“Is the White House besieged by crisis, or is President Trump besieged by the media attempting a sort of coup?” Berman posed to his CNN audience. “It really all depends on where you turn your dial to get your news. This is according to a new study from the Harvard Shorenstein Center on Media Politics that analyzed news coverage of the President’s first 100 days and found that the coverage quote ‘set a new standard for unfavorable coverage of a President, with Fox News being the only outlet where the majority of the coverage was positive.”

CNN then displayed the following graphic, captioned, “FOX NEWS ONLY OUTLET WITH OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE COVERAGE.”


click link for article...

case in point...



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Our slander and libel laws disagrees with your conclusion on the 1st amendment. That does not include the FCC rules.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.


So what consequences do you propose for all those fake news sites that slandered Hillary Clinton?

Example. Some members still re-post "news" from this site.


The same punishment for all the fake news sites that are slandering Trump.

With that said there is no evidence of collusion with trump and Russia. There is evidence Clinton committed a crime as Director Comey laid out in his press briefing. Intent is NOT a requirement of 18 usc 793 F.

Another example where the media perpetuated a lie in order to protect Clinton.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

The 1st amendment does not give the media the right to lie in order to shape the news, or elections.


So what consequences do you propose for all those fake news sites that slandered Hillary Clinton?

Example. Some members still re-post "news" from this site.


Ah yes, more unnamed sources...

Its up there with the fake media reports about Trump.

also I will point out that for someone who states he wants to discuss the media you are doing just as much partisan reporting and invoking Clinton more than those you took to task for not following the op.
edit on 21-5-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Our slander and libel laws disagrees with your conclusion on the 1st amendment. That does not include the FCC rules.


That's what I said. There are slander/libel laws in place. There are consequences to using our freedoms to harm others. That goes for any right.

But going after the press because of their opinions or perceived biases is crossing the line.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

We need some press reforms, but I don't see why we should hold the press in any circumstances to our ideal rules, rather than the rules on paper.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Two more relevant questions:
1) what crime will they have committed. Look up the standards for treason before you jump on that grenade. (I posted them below)
2) should the leftist media be held accountable when it comes out that there was no collusion between the trump campaign and 'muh russia'.

Let me explain a couple things for you folks. The idea of anyone in the administration being prosecuted for treason is laughable. Being a lobbyist w/out declaring is not treason. Not even close.
For a treason conviction you need:
1) an obligation of allegiance, yay for the left the trump admin/campaign would likely meet this standerd
2) wrongful intent. This is intent to harm the US, not to help russia. Sorry lefties, this doesn't exist in the trump russia hysteria.
3) an overt act. They need to take direct action AGAINST the USA. Sorry, electing someone to office that the left despises doesn't count.

So even if russia influenced the election to help trump and trump (or staffers) were aware and on board with this, and even colluded with the russians on how best to win, that wouldn't constitute treason.

As for FARA, look at the prosecutions and the sentencing for these. They're nearly always against organizations but even when they are against individuals, they're cases where the person succeeded in direct influence while getting massive payouts from a foreign government, while undeclared as an agent. Even flynn doesn't meet this standard.

You've all barked up a tree with no game. Searching for something that was never there.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Well lets start with CNN with 90% negative news and go from there. Might as well start at the top of offenders.



posted on May, 21 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

So what consequences do you propose for all those fake news sites that slandered Hillary Clinton?


I don't think you can slander if you are reporting the truth...also last time I looked she wasn't the President to get slandered... I know many of you think she is, but you will come around sooner or later.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero


I don't think you can slander if you are reporting the truth.


The article I linked to is pure fiction, hence, slander. What should be done to the Macedonians who cooked it up to drive web traffic?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Another person who cannot wrap their head around the concept of "hypothetical." What if Breitbart knows of the existence of a document written in Flynn's blood swearing fealty to Vladimir Putin and the SVR? Proof positive of treason, okay? Is it okay for them to claim it does not exist to protect the administration? If not, what would be appropriate punishment? Then ask yourself the same question, but substitute CNN and Clinton. If the answers differ, you are wearing partisan goggles. Both situations should elicit the same response. What response do you feel appropriate?
edit on 22-5-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra


The same punishment for all the fake news sites that are slandering Trump.


Which is...?



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

ah - so this is just mental mastrubation - i am out



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: DJW001

ah - so this is just mental mastrubation - i am out


No, this is an attempt to smash the walls of the echo chamber. I guess some folks like it in there.



posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

i preffer echo beach to the echo chamber - enjoy :




posted on May, 22 2017 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Then by all means, get out of the echo chamber and engage your brain. The role of the press in liberal democracy is vital. It has been subverted dramatically in recent years. Should it be managed by the State? If so, how? If not, how can we, as a society, compensate?

Donald Trump has called the media, who, in a democratic republic, functions as the people's tribune, "the enemy of the people." Should the people's tribune be controlled by the State for the good of the people?



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join