President Trump has made 1,950 false or misleading claims over 347 days

a reply to: SirHardHarry

You're press argument starts with the obviously false assumption that the US had a free press (or at least the target of POTUS' criticism was representative of a free press) to begin with. You can't be a "free press" and be as ridiculously monopolistic and politically incestuous as the CNNs, MSNBCs, FOX News, and WaPo are. Calling them a "free press" is only accurate if you're using Orwelian Doublespeak.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: SirHardHarry

Attack on Free Press? How? By saying they are fake? Those same MSM outlets run lies and anti-government propoganda 23.5/7. The press is attacking the government and not the other way around with false stories about the leader of our country.

Name ONE News Outlet or Reporter who the POTUS has said cannot write stories or lock up? Name 1?

War on Science? What Science? Global Warming. They should be spending that money on curing cancer. Real Science not psuedo-made up anomalies.

Free Press: By undermining them. Attempting to (or at least rhetoric) criminalize what they have the freedom to do. The press has the freedom to attack the government. That is the point.

War on science: Yup. Undermined by cuts to research and programs, the EPA, and willfully ignoring the scientific community.

Maybe spend half what is spent to kill on cancer research.

MSM and the government have the right to attack each other. 1st amendment. Free speech. However, if the MSM takes money from Russia to attack the US government, then that is treason and punishable by life imprisonment.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: SirHardHarry

You're press argument starts with the obviously false assumption that the US had a free press (or at least the target of POTUS' criticism was representative of a free press) to begin with. You can't be a "free press" and be as ridiculously monopolistic and politically incestuous as the CNNs, MSNBCs, FOX News, and WaPo are. Calling them a "free press" is only accurate if you're using Orwelian Doublespeak.

Calling them a "free press" is only accurate if you're using Orwelian Doublespeak.

I think the term "free press" was before Orwell. Bill of rights. Speaking against the government via the press: that's the point in a free press.

You can't be a "free press" and be as ridiculously monopolistic and politically incestuous as the CNNs, MSNBCs, FOX News, and WaPo are.

Incest. Haha

You can. Welcome to America. The 'job' of the press is to call out those in power.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
The 'job' of the press is to call those in power.

Which doesn't happen when those in power are also the owners of the press. You're missing my point. How can, for example WaPo, be considered free press when they are owned by the richest man in America who is a major liberal political donor and has an open hate-fest with the current POTUS stemming from a likely future antitrust law case against his conglomerate? How can CNN claim to have any prior record of "calling those in power" when they just spent 8 years with their lips implanted on the former president's ass cheeks? How can anyone in mainstream media claim to be part of a "free" press when 6 megacorporations own and control 90% of America's mainstream media?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
collusion isn't illegal.

It specifically is.
How that could relate to Trump crying, NO COLLUSION", is a matter way beyond his known fetish for lying "
As for, "something he didn't do"...two Red Herrings being thrown out does not impress, since you don't know anyway.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which doesn't happen when those in power are also the owners of the press.

The press is owned, but not state controlled; therefore, it is a free press, to print in good faith with no fear or repercussions by the state.

I may not like consolidation of corporate media, but the press remains free for a very good reason, which benefits us all.

It's democracy in action, whether some like it or not.

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
collusion isn't illegal.

It specifically is.
How that could relate to Trump crying, NO COLLUSION", is a matter way beyond his known fetish for lying "
As for, "something he didn't do"...two Red Herrings being thrown out does not impress, since you don't know anyway.

It specifically is NOT.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

How is calling someone out undermining? The press sucks. On a daily and nightly basis Trump is called things unheard of before now and for some reason since he is "Trump" it is ok? Screw that.

He is doing exactly what he should. Holding the press accountable for false reporting by showing the world how biased they are.

a reply to: SirHardHarry

I wholeheartedly disagree with your take on this. I think it is extremely dangerous to have a press owned by a handful of corporations, most of whom have next to no public oversight or public accountability beyond their bottom lines and shareholders' portfolios. You are furthering your Orwelian tendencies by calling that Democracy while assailing actual democracy in it's purest form... government leaders are elected to office by We the People, corporate leaders are not. If a politician strangles a news story, it generally gets out and there are severe consequences, even if those manifest themselves primarily at the voting booth. If a corporation strangles a news story, crickets chirp and not much else happens... in fact, if a politician moves to penalize a corporation for strangling a story, that politician generally sees themself roasted and attacked by your so-called "free" press at the command of their corporate check signers.

If "freedom of religion" has been bastardized into "freedom from religion" and "separation of church and state," then does it not also make sense that "freedom of the press" should also be considered to mean "separation of the press and politics" in so much as we should separate the press from heavily invested politically pandering corporate suits who control the narrative? We've seen a full year now of what happens when a politician pisses on the false narrative... a whole year of manufactured BS and never ending assaults against that politician. (it has to send a little thrill down Jeff Bezos' leg to know that whole year of full on assaults equaled seeing the man he hates most elected and then seeing him not change one iota while succeeding through to the end of his first year as POTUS. I'm pretty sure Bezos smile has been stolen and not even Amazon Prime can ship it back to him.)

originally posted by: SirHardHarry

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Simple butt hurt doesn't lead to the erosion of democracy, the dehumanization of fellow countrymen, and the threat of genocidal revolution. Fake news does.

No, but the attack on the free press, and the attempt to undermine it, while marginalizing others, erodes democracy.

So does the war on science.

The only ones attacking the free press is the free press. They’ve eschewed journalistic ethics, some by their own admission, ultimately undermining themselves.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Who are the victims ?

Both sides are engaged in battle , the left are actively looking to make any dirt stick they can and the right are hurling back insults and calling everyone triggered.

Neither side is interested in the middle ground, neither side is trying to heal the wounds so I don't see either side able to claim victimhood.

It’s about justice and injustice, not mean words and rhetoric.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Which doesn't happen when those in power are also the owners of the press.

The press is owned, but not state controlled; therefore, it is a free press, to print in good faith with no fear or repercussions by the state.

I may not like consolidation of corporate media, but the press remains free for a very good reason, which benefits us all.

It's democracy in action, whether some like it or not.

I'd hesitate to say the press is free. Plenty of ties to multiple political parties through marriage in the MSM. Sure they are free to report what they want, but when press becomes politically biased because of either money or marriage then they lose credibility on every level.

A very simple Google search will show you these connections.

When they are us3d to push a political agenda they lose.

The reason Trump uses twitter....simple....it is direct.

MSM is a dying breed....it is obvious to anyone with a discerning eye. The journalists are all biased. They went to school for journalism and sold out to the highest bidder and then have to report on what the owner says.

Twitter is used because it is the widest reaching, cross generational platform available. And it is being used brilliantly by Trump.

a reply to: matafuchs

On a daily and nightly basis Trump is called things unheard of before

Yes, he talks a lot of #.

Holding the press accountable for false reporting by showing the world how biased they are

They don't intentionally false report. They report in good faith, and when they get it wrong they issue a correction. They don't lie. Unlike the President.

Holding the press accountable for false reporting by showing the world how biased they are.

He too can call them out, but he can't stop (or attempt to stop) them from doing what they have a Constitutional right to do.
Point.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Judge the many by the few, much?

They’ve eschewed journalistic ethics, some by their own admission,

Some have, those with the biggest platform. But most journalists report in good faith.

The only ones attacking the free press is the free press.

They are free to report in good faith.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Judge the many by the few, much?

They’ve eschewed journalistic ethics, some by their own admission,

Some have, those with the biggest platform. But most journalists report in good faith.

The only ones attacking the free press is the free press.

They are free to report in good faith.

They are also free to abide by the ethical guidelines of their institutions, lest they discredit it.

Sure, I suppose sh##t-posting about the media could be considered an “attack” on the free press, but clearly when those tasked with informing us keep us misinformed, it has further-reaching implications.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Judge the many by the few, much?

They’ve eschewed journalistic ethics, some by their own admission,

Some have, those with the biggest platform. But most journalists report in good faith.

The only ones attacking the free press is the free press.

They are free to report in good faith.

Ummm...no...they aren't....they write stories and their editors decide. The editors have bosses that decide. There is no freedom for the journalists to report as they feel the need.

You think they just type something up and hit publish?

That's funny.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Even if that is a correct number has bs details and variables. However the number they came up with is low in comparison to most or some we know.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Judge the many by the few, much?

They’ve eschewed journalistic ethics, some by their own admission,

Some have, those with the biggest platform. But most journalists report in good faith.

The only ones attacking the free press is the free press.

They are free to report in good faith.

They are also free to abide by the ethical guidelines of their institutions, lest they discredit it.

Sure, I suppose sh##t-posting about the media could be considered an “attack” on the free press, but clearly when those tasked with informing us keep us misinformed, it has further-reaching implications.

Most do abide by the ethical guidelines. Again, you can't discredit the many by the actions of the few.

And the press is still free.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

This... hahaha leftists are so butthurt that he is better than them at their own game.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

LOL Obama is even worse than Trump. Obama literally ran as a conservative in 2008 and said everything Trump said, but never delivered on any of them, then turns out he implemented Marxists globalists SJW policies. lol