Donald Trump threatens to 'take away media's credentials' over negative news stories about him

If anyone can't see the HUGE problem with what trump said, then you are too far gone. How can trump supporters be so blind?

Trump wants to silence his opposing party's media and meanwhile is constantly propping up his party's media (Fox News).
If CNN and MSNBC are fake news, then FOX is too. Both are bias party propaganda.

Anyone who supporters the president on this is a true moron. How can anyone on ATS be so naive to support this?

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's not about what he can or can't do. It's that the POTUS wants to silence his opposition while glorifying his party's propaganda station FOX news.

The point is that trump has no interest in honorable journalism, he wants to rule the media like a dictator.

Double post

a reply to: blueman12

If anyone can't see the HUGE problem with what trump said, then you are too far gone. How can trump supporters be so blind?

Trump wants to silence his opposing party's media and meanwhile is constantly propping up his party's media (Fox News). If CNN and MSNBC are fake news, then FOX is too. Both are bias party propaganda.

Anyone who supporters the president on this is a true moron. How can anyone on ATS be so naive to support this?

Trump asked something you don't like. We get it. So why don't you just say "I do not like the question Trump asked"?

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: Sillyolme

It's not about what he can or can't do. It's that the POTUS wants to silence his opposition while glorifying his party's propaganda station FOX news.

The point is that trump has no interest in honorable journalism, he wants to rule the media like a dictator.

Another person who is unable to comprehend what Trump said. So tell me how Trump would be silencing the opposition with this.

85% of the US news media can be brought to their knees financially by big government.

Please God let it happen.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: darkbake

Dont be obtuse. ATS is a member generated content site. No one is paid to post by TAN.

If someone really cared about fake news, they would definitely be worried about the spread of it on ATS. My point is that Trump supporters don't *really* care about the fake news, the real issue is that CNN has a different perspective. Trump supporters are using "fake news" as a way to get around stating their real reasoning behind harming CNN.

As a Democrat, I have seen Fox News put out fake news story after fake news story after biased news story after spun news story, and I don't agree with them. But I'm not going to suggest that we take away their press credentials because I am smart enough to know that that opens the door to taking away CNN's credentials later on, and this is all based on censoring opponent's views (not fake news). I believe in free speech and free press. I definitely don't think that censoring news organizations because they are against your view or the President's view is a good path to go down.

Now, if someone had a moderate and reasonable opinion that the media should not be spreading fake news, they would most definitely not write a biased post about shutting down liberal news organizations. Instead, they would have a middle-of-the-ground post detailing examples of fake news from both sides and would express concern that this is dividing our country and that both sides should get their act together.

originally posted by: blueman12
If anyone can't see the HUGE problem with what trump said, then you are too far gone. How can trump supporters be so blind?



Anyone who supporters the president on this is a true moron. How can anyone on ATS be so naive to support this?

Many trump supporters are not for free speech, as you can see everything even on this site as soon as a story critical of trump is out they jump on in droves claiming it's fake news, and or trump haters can't see past their hate, Obama was worse etc.

a reply to: carewemust

Please God let it happen.

Let me guess. The other 15% likes Trump?

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: darkbake

This theme of FOX being in Trump's corner continues to make me chuckle (laugh actually). FOX is only slightly right of CNN in reality. The only reason they might appear (to some) to be in Trump's corner is because they were NOT in Clinton's corner.

First of all, I meant Fox News was biased in a conservative manner and has been known to propagate fake news and biased news just as often as CNN. I know enough about bias to be able to tell. I've watched them and analyzed them myself. It is much farther to the right than CNN.

Second of all, I am not interested in who likes Clinton or who doesn't. Although it is interesting to know that Fox News doesn't always support Trump (if this is true), I've known Fox News to be biased since I was old enough to figure it out, and that was when George HW Bush was president and there was hardly any Clinton coverage (although probably a bit, as Fox News doesn't like the Clinton's).

Lastly, Fox News supports conservatives and even Trump enough that said conservatives would probably balk at taking away its credentials for the same reasons they want to take away CNN's.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: darkbake

Dont be obtuse. ATS is a member generated content site. No one is paid to post by TAN.

If someone really cared about fake news, they would definitely be worried about the spread of it on ATS. My point is that Trump supporters don't *really* care about the fake news, the real issue is that CNN has a different perspective. Trump supporters are using "fake news" as a way to get around stating their real reasoning behind harming CNN.

As a Democrat, I have seen Fox News put out fake news story after fake news story after biased news story after spun news story, and I don't agree with them. But I'm not going to suggest that we take away their press credentials because I am smart enough to know that that opens the door to taking away CNN's credentials later on, and this is all based on censoring opponent's views (not fake news). I believe in free speech and free press. I definitely don't think that censoring news organizations because they are against your view or the President's view is a good path to go down.

Now, if someone had a moderate and reasonable opinion that the media should not be spreading fake news, they would most definitely not write a biased post about shutting down liberal news organizations. Instead, they would have a middle-of-the-ground post detailing examples of fake news from both sides and would express concern that this is dividing our country and that both sides should get their act together.

Since you are so high and mighty, where in the Constitution does it say the employees of the press have the right to sit in on presidential news briefings?

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: darkbake

Dont be obtuse. ATS is a member generated content site. No one is paid to post by TAN.

If someone really cared about fake news, they would definitely be worried about the spread of it on ATS. My point is that Trump supporters don't *really* care about the fake news, the real issue is that CNN has a different perspective. Trump supporters are using "fake news" as a way to get around stating their real reasoning behind harming CNN.

As a Democrat, I have seen Fox News put out fake news story after fake news story after biased news story after spun news story, and I don't agree with them. But I'm not going to suggest that we take away their press credentials because I am smart enough to know that that opens the door to taking away CNN's credentials later on, and this is all based on censoring opponent's views (not fake news). I believe in free speech and free press. I definitely don't think that censoring news organizations because they are against your view or the President's view is a good path to go down.

Now, if someone had a moderate and reasonable opinion that the media should not be spreading fake news, they would most definitely not write a biased post about shutting down liberal news organizations. Instead, they would have a middle-of-the-ground post detailing examples of fake news from both sides and would express concern that this is dividing our country and that both sides should get their act together.

Since you are so high and mighty, where in the Constitution does it say the employees of the press have the right to sit in on presidential news briefings?

Every single functioning person with a brain knows that, if you are kicked out of the briefing room, you can report the news from the white house lawn. So how is the President suppressing free speech? I swear half the posters have never taken a college course in their lives.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have an awful lot of respect for the FCD I used to know.

The FCD I used to know, was noble, decent, and would be against being a citizen in a country run by a lesser man than himself. The FCD I used to know, used to get just as angry as me, when the government elected to use propaganda tactics to get what it wanted, the FCD I use to know wanted a government which understood that the means by which a thing is done, show whether or not the ends of the thing are just.

But I have not seen that guy around for a very long time. There is some imposter around here, who seems to think that backing a morally degenerate, hate preaching piece of effluent is somehow a good idea. That imposter wants to gag the press when he does not agree with them, and accepts on face value the notion that news which is bad for the administration or the President personally is all fake, despite it being perfectly easy to establish the facts and find that it is his golden idol, not the press, who have been talking in falsehoods, lies and obfuscation.

I do not even KNOW who you are, but you are not the person I respect, you are not the person whose counsel on matters I have trusted previously, or whose viewpoint I have sought out to gain perspective on situations.

I have nothing but admiration for Flyingclaydisk, but I have not seen that individual around these parts since Trump started his campaign. I miss that individual intensely, and many others, who seem to have been replaced with vermin imposters since Trump came along.

I hope that, whoever the hell you are, you shuffle off so that Flyingclaydisk can return to the boards, in the state he was before the disgusting plague that is Trumps cult of personality infected, corrupted and broke every decent person on the right of the spectrum around here. I take it personally however, that I am reduced to hope, because that was entirely avoidable.

Either way, you are in someone elses chair, whoever you are, and you need to get out of it, so that the owner can return to it.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have an awful lot of respect for the FCD I used to know.

The FCD I used to know, was noble, decent, and would be against being a citizen in a country run by a lesser man than himself. The FCD I used to know, used to get just as angry as me, when the government elected to use propaganda tactics to get what it wanted, the FCD I use to know wanted a government which understood that the means by which a thing is done, show whether or not the ends of the thing are just.

But I have not seen that guy around for a very long time. There is some imposter around here, who seems to think that backing a morally degenerate, hate preaching piece of effluent is somehow a good idea. That imposter wants to gag the press when he does not agree with them, and accepts on face value the notion that news which is bad for the administration or the President personally is all fake, despite it being perfectly easy to establish the facts and find that it is his golden idol, not the press, who have been talking in falsehoods, lies and obfuscation.

I do not even KNOW who you are, but you are not the person I respect, you are not the person whose counsel on matters I have trusted previously, or whose viewpoint I have sought out to gain perspective on situations.

I have nothing but admiration for Flyingclaydisk, but I have not seen that individual around these parts since Trump started his campaign. I miss that individual intensely, and many others, who seem to have been replaced with vermin imposters since Trump came along.

I hope that, whoever the hell you are, you shuffle off so that Flyingclaydisk can return to the boards, in the state he was before the disgusting plague that is Trumps cult of personality infected, corrupted and broke every decent person on the right of the spectrum around here. I take it personally however, that I am reduced to hope, because that was entirely avoidable.

Either way, you are in someone elses chair, whoever you are, and you need to get out of it, so that the owner can return to it.

How is this vermin gagging the press?

Since you are so high and mighty, where in the Constitution does it say the employees of the press have the right to sit in on presidential news briefings?

All I'm saying is don't be surprised or butt-hurt or even complain if Democrats cut Fox News out of press briefings in the future based on something Trump does with CNN. I am also trying to get across that biased news and fake news are different. Fake news involves fabricating facts.

Also, I was under the impression that some conservatives wanted to go farther than just taking away CNN's access to presidential press briefings. And I am still under the opinion that the reasoning behind this isn't fake news, but the fact that CNN doesn't like Trump. And I think that is an immature reason to deny them access to press briefings.

originally posted by: darkbake

Since you are so high and mighty, where in the Constitution does it say the employees of the press have the right to sit in on presidential news briefings?

All I'm saying is don't be surprised or butt-hurt or even complain if Democrats cut Fox News out of press briefings in the future based on something Trump does with CNN. I am also trying to get across that biased news and fake news are different. Fake news involves fabricating facts.

Also, I was under the impression that some conservatives wanted to go farther than just taking away CNN's access to presidential press briefings.

So report the news from the lawn? Where did anyone say they wanted to ban ppl from publishing news reports?

Very few journalists cover the white house in the cosmic scheme of things. The only credentials the President *might* have the power to revoke are white house press credentials.

Meanwhile, working pros are doing journalism 24/7 far outside his reach. They cover city council meetings, school boards, local arts, business, and culture. Their credentials can't be "revoked" by a president, no matter what he thinks.

They use data science to sift through mountains of information and are adept at using non-commercial search engines and applications to uncover information about the powerful to hold them to account.

Like everything else out of Washington D.C., the president's latest proclamations are more pipe dream than policy. It has never been easier to publish the results of an investigation in the real world or online. That Gennie can't be shoved back inside the bottle. Indeed -- the entire concept of "leaders" is doing its last waltz and doesn't even know it yet. Algorithms can do the work of judges or senators while protecting the rights guaranteed by our constitution and bill of rights, and they can do it transparently, without the bias of their all-too-human counterparts.

The best thing that could happen right now is a lot less "talking head" opinion journalism on BOTH sides and a lot more data-driven journalism right down the middle.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: blueman12

If anyone can't see the HUGE problem with what trump said, then you are too far gone. How can trump supporters be so blind?

Trump wants to silence his opposing party's media and meanwhile is constantly propping up his party's media (Fox News). If CNN and MSNBC are fake news, then FOX is too. Both are bias party propaganda.

Anyone who supporters the president on this is a true moron. How can anyone on ATS be so naive to support this?

Trump asked something you don't like. We get it. So why don't you just say "I do not like the question Trump asked"?

Because it undermines the constitution, democracy and is the actions of a dictatorship. These are all very signficant things and giving any president state controlled media powers would be a disastrous Ministry of Truth 1984 move which isn't something to be blaze about.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: blueman12

If anyone can't see the HUGE problem with what trump said, then you are too far gone. How can trump supporters be so blind?

Trump wants to silence his opposing party's media and meanwhile is constantly propping up his party's media (Fox News). If CNN and MSNBC are fake news, then FOX is too. Both are bias party propaganda.

Anyone who supporters the president on this is a true moron. How can anyone on ATS be so naive to support this?

Trump asked something you don't like. We get it. So why don't you just say "I do not like the question Trump asked"?

Because it undermines the constitution, democracy and is the actions of a dictatorship. These are all very signficant things and giving any president state controlled media powers would be a disastrous Ministry of Truth 1984 move which isn't something to be blaze about.

Again, how does Trump banning ppl from the White House presser have any effect on them to report the news?

Where in the constitution does it say members of the press must be present for daily briefings?

originally posted by: BrennanHuff

So report the news from the lawn? Where did anyone say they wanted to ban ppl from publishing news reports?

Government Press conferences are used as propaganda world wide, the press are present at them to question the government, hold them to account, investigate claims, act as a wacthdog and fourth estate in a democracy and counterbalance what the government are saying and uncover any lies. The government are free to tell the public only what they want to tell them and issue unchallenged statements of 'facts'.

Denying the ability to do this or ask the president questions gives a greenlight for unquestioned propaganda with a government free to do whatever it wants as the public will never find out and all their votes and opinions don't matter anyway y that point as the pubic are denied any informed vote or knowledge of government actions.

By all means he can boycott giving interviews to certain news orgs and certainly wouldn't blame him (pretty sure most presidents do this, Obama did with Fox I think) but the conferences and white house briefings are a critical point of democracy and transparency in US politics.

The press are granted it in the First Ammendment. Denials of the press are unconstitutional. There's several expert opnions here when they rewvoked cnn nyt ones last year. www.justsecurity.org...

Robert Corn-Revere, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP:
Whether or not a White House press briefing is a public forum, the selective exclusion of certain news organizations or reporters as retaliation for unfavorable news coverage or simply because the Administration does not like the “tone” of their coverage raises a significant First Amendment problem. While there are not a lot of cases in this area – perhaps because most responsible public officials know better than to engage in such tactics – they have held that arbitrary denials of press access are unconstitutional. Perhaps more to the point, such actions are deeply offensive to American values generally, and to the spirit of the First Amendment specifically. And that is true regardless whether a Republican or Democratic administration does it.

Jameel Jaffer, Executive Director, Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University:
The Supreme Court has long recognized that in administering access to a public forum, or even a limited forum, government may not privilege some and disadvantage others on the basis of ideological viewpoints. Writing for the Court in Police Department v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 96 (1972), Justice Thurgood Marshall observed: “The government may not grant the use of a forum to people it finds acceptable, but deny use to those wishing to express less favored or more controversial views.” In explaining this proposition, Justice Marshall insisted that “[t]here is an equality of status in the field of ideas and government must afford all points of view an equal opportunity to be heard.” The Court has further recognized that the First Amendment protects not only the right to speak but the right to receive information and to engage in the free exchange of ideas.

A presidential press briefing is not a public forum. The briefing is clearly not open to all members of the public. But, such an event can comfortably be understood as a limited forum where reporters from significant news outlets are invited as participants. In conferring access to this forum, government officials may limit the number of participants to ensure against overcrowding of the room where the event is being held. The officials might also create categorical criteria for exclusion (such as news outlets that publish on a daily basis or whose readership or viewing audience exceeds a certain number). They may even confine the discussion to certain topics. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788 (1985). But what the government officials cannot do, consistent with the First Amendment, is to grant or deny access to news agencies or reporters based upon the views expressed by those individuals or publications. To do so, violates a neutrality principle that is basic to the First Amendment.

The Court’s adherence to this prohibition against viewpoint discrimination applies even beyond circumstances where government is regulating access to a forum and even when government officials attempt to mask their motives behind laws that appear to be facially neutral. Grosjean v. American Press Company, 297 U.S. 233 (1936) involved a Louisiana tax that singled out for special adverse treatment the newspapers in the State with the largest circulation. The tax did not identify the newspapers by name. It was imposed simply upon newspapers whose circulation exceeded 20,000. But, by no coincidence, these were the newspapers that were most critical of Louisiana’s governor, Huey Long. The Court looked behind the facial neutrality of the statute, finding the tax unconstitutional upon the ground that it had been enacted “for the purpose of penalizing the publishers of a . . . selected group of newspapers.” Here, again, the First Amendment was violated by the efforts of government officials to penalize expressive enterprises on the basis of viewpoint.