President Trump Says that Anti-America TV Networks Could Lose Their Broadcast License.

Leave the "news" channels alone.

Sure a lot of them spout out crap, in fact they all do.

But regulating or getting rid of any stations because of being butt hurt, is a slippery slope.

I prefer the option to change the channel or not watch them at all.

Choice is a beautiful thing, control isn't.

"Land of the free"

Burn it all down...

a reply to: carewemust

Yes, let's let the government decide was is okay for the public to see and hear. That never backfires...

Wow, Trump really is intent on going Full-North-Korea isn't he.

The guy isn't even pretending to not be a fascist ideologue anymore.

And all the Trump fans cheer him on as he tramples the Constitution you pretend to hold so dear.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And it's ok for 'news' organizations that can be literally defined as propaganda arms of both political parties get to decide that ?

News can hardly be called news, I don't get why people have put it on a pedestal to be worshiped like a god.

a reply to: neo96

Like I said. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Problem solved.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: carewemust

I can only imagine the uproar that would of occurred if Obama would of said something similar about FOX News.

See my previous post. You don't have to imagine.

I swear we all live in some new alternative universe. I've been bitching about threats to the 1st for years, largely to an audience of crickets.

Now the Don Tweets and HE is the root of all evil? Yawn.

Call me when he actually does anything closely approximating the actions of the past three administrations.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: neo96

Like I said. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Problem solved.

No.

The problem will only ever be solved when the people start holding the media accountable.

The last check to balance power.

And they have absolutely corrupted itself.

For the record.

Real news is just the who,what,where,when.

That's it.

Coulda,woulda,shoulda, WHY ?

Doesn't enter in to it, and is nothing more than opinion.

MSM

=

a reply to: intrepid

The first amandment has never allowed slander or libel. In this case, the accusation were not just false for some, they were deliberate.

Burr: Russia probe will expose erroneous reporting

Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.) stopped short of endorsing Trump's Thursday morning call for a congressional investigation of the media. But Burr did predict that the final product of his panel's bipartisan inquiry into Moscow's disruption of the 2016 election would illustrate factual errors in some media reports on the issue.

"We're not going to investigate news organizations, but we will use the findings of our report to let the American people hold every news organization accountable for what they portrayed as fact, in many cases without sources — at least, no sources that would admit to it," Burr told POLITICO.

"And I think, when we finish our report, we will find that quite a few news organizations ran stories that were not factual," he added.

Now the problem is when you mix - as the MSM does - the first amendment with the law of protection of anonymous sources. You can claim that a source told you something and then avoid any consequence yourself given that your are not the author and you can 'protect' the source. The 'source' actually doesn't even need to exist and can just be used as a fig leaf.

The is no federal law about source protection by the press, just a collection of jurisprudences according to the variable legislation in place among the different states.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

OK. And....

a reply to: intrepid

And legal actions could be considered for libel or slander given that claims of the MSM were actually that some 'crime' was taking place.

Burden of proof ...

originally posted by: theultimatebelgianjoke
a reply to: intrepid

And legal actions could be considered for libel or slander given that claims of the MSM were actually that some 'crime' was taking place.

Burden of proof ...

That's a far cry from pulling a license.

a reply to: loam

Will do.

a reply to: loam

There was in fact a public outcry over the DOJ wiretapping James Rosen and obtaining the phone records of AP journalists in their investigation into administration leaks.

As there should have been.

Investigating leaks is certainly within the authority of the government. However, as soon as that investigation turned to wiretapping a journalist or obtaining the phone records of other journalists, the administration crossed a serious line and you'll get no defense of that from me or probably from most people on the Left. I won't even waste effort arguing about the differences between unconstitutional overreach and violations of the First Amendment protections in stopping leaks versus proposing a wholesale shutdown of critical media organizations. Because that's not a good enough justification and the actions aren't defensible.

It was clearly wrong just like what Trump proposes is clearly wrong.

As for the other links, your sources actually disprove the point you're trying to make. 40 media outlets were up in arms because they felt photographers weren't getting enough access to photograph Obama at the WH? That seems like a fairly large reaction. The "exclude Fox news" thing really didn't go anywhere in particular though did it? Dunn was replaced the following month. Was Fox excluded from briefings? Did Robert Gibbs pull a Sean Spicer with anyone from Fox al a Spicer/Acosta? Did the Obama administration disallow video broadcasts of WH press briefings to punish the media? Did Obama himself attack conservative media, calling them liars and "fake news" on a daily basis?

The Obama admin deserves all the criticism it gets for the DoJ's horrendous overreach but lets not pretend that there was no outrage then or that the level of outrage you perceive is somehow a justification for ignoring what Trump proposes, which is the wholesale shutdown of media organizations critical of the administration. Objectively speaking, if that came to pass, it would an unrecoverable strike against the First Amendment. Either for the administration or the nation. We could not persist under those circumstances.

originally posted by: neo96
For the record.

Real news is just the who,what,where,when.

That's it.

Coulda,woulda,shoulda, WHY ?

Doesn't enter in to it, and is nothing more than opinion.

It's pretty easy to fact check the who, what, where, when and ignore the coulda, woulda, shoulda. When you do that, you realize that while biased one way or another... 'fake news' is not an accurate description of the MSM.

a reply to: Kali74

'fake news' is not an accurate description of the MSM.

Yeah it is.

Remember that 'news' station that was going around telling people not to read Clintons emails?

Snip like that.

Another case was running around telling everyone that 'nutcases' are legally allowed to by firearms.

Fake news is a most apt descriptor of what pass's for it.

so since the campaign trail Trump has been adamant about bolstering our nuke arsenal, and during his presidency talks about, tweets about, and in a meeting with his top brass he exclaims he wants to increase our arsenal yet again, gets called a moron by tillerson, story gets out via NBC, now he wants to pull NBCs broadcasting license and his mong cult followers call him jesus incarnate....


is that close to being right or is my acid wearing down.

a reply to: neo96

This isn't 1955 where we only have three television channels and a couple of newspapers available to the average person--we can get our news from thousands of sources dozens and dozens of countries around the world.

No, the government should not control the flow of information to the people--that shouldn't even be up for discussion.