A.G. Nominee WILLIAM BARR Supports Arresting Journalists-Reporters for Serious Violations.

a reply to: JinMI

So are you honestly going to tell me that MSNBC published the story with no intent to drive an agenda?

MAGA hat....

a reply to: Lumenari

No.


I'm saying prove it, as the courts would do.


This is only in regards to the PotUS or other public figures. If it's the parents of the students, go hog wild.

a reply to: Lumenari

Take a look at the HUGE number of FAKE NEWS LIES from the U.S. Media in President Trump's 1st year in office.

List of MSM Lies in 2017: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Most of those "Breaking News!" stories captivated liberal media for at least a full day, only to be proven as a LIE, that was started by one...and quickly spread across 92% of U.S. media outlets.

Rather than apologize, the terrorist-owned Mainstream Media simply dream up another Anti-Trump, or Anti-America FAKE NEWS piece to print, or broadcast to the world.

It's time to crack down on these organizations, before someone gets seriously hurt. I'm hoping Attorney General Barr will take action to reel them in.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Lumenari

No.


I'm saying prove it, as the courts would do.


This is only in regards to the PotUS or other public figures. If it's the parents of the students, go hog wild.

I'd say venue shop.

That's what the left does.

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Lumenari

No.


I'm saying prove it, as the courts would do.


This is only in regards to the PotUS or other public figures. If it's the parents of the students, go hog wild.

I'd say venue shop.

That's what the left does.

Hehe.

I'm sure it would work its way up to the SCotUS. If they found proof, you can bet your bottom dollar that the MSM won't lose theirs and find another way to furnish propaganda. If innocent, you can bet that same dollar they the propaganda would intensify.

I wish that instead of pushing more and more blame to the media, we as a people would just smarten up a little bit and read before putting emotions fourth.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Lumenari

No.


I'm saying prove it, as the courts would do.


This is only in regards to the PotUS or other public figures. If it's the parents of the students, go hog wild.

I'd say venue shop.

That's what the left does.

I wish that instead of pushing more and more blame to the media, we as a people would just smarten up a little bit and read before putting emotions fourth.

The 24 hour news channels, and even the local nightly news, are written and produced to promote specific beliefs.

I haven't seen a study, but I bet the MSM is more influential than the Church, at this point.

a reply to: carewemust

Both sides even have their own flavor. So what?

Everyone gets an opinion.

That’s a public official. The President, stars, etc. may have to prove actual malice but “regular people” do not.

Edit: I see in a later post you noted this as well. So consider this not in response to you but just general info for others.

a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: JinMI

Broadcasters and Publishers of Intentional lies that are detrimental to our nation, should be punished.

You see this issue differently that I do...which is fine. Thanks for sharing yours.

I agree with you too. And so far the courts have upheld that if intentional malice can be proved, recourse is allowable. Let’s hope that doesn’t change or I think we are even more screwed.

a reply to: carewemust

a reply to: nicevillegrl

Yea, I saw the divergence in the qualifiers. No worries.

This PotUS, last PotUS, any PotUS should not be above reproach.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: JinMI

Broadcasters and Publishers of Intentional lies that are detrimental to our nation, should be punished.

You see this issue differently that I do...which is fine. Thanks for sharing yours.

Lets say your right.

Who carries the burden of being the arbiter of truth? What ministry could uphold its honor?

a reply to: JinMI

I think I've starred and flagged all of your comments in this thread, JinMi. Like you, I'm very hesitant to turn the 1st amendment on its head.

I wish that instead of pushing more and more blame to the media, we as a people would just smarten up a little bit and read before putting emotions fourth.

Exactly. It's our responsibility to separate the wheat from the chaff, and too many don't do it because they simply don't want to. Just like the brouhaha with the Catholic School kids and the Indian Chief.

A better option would be to demand complete transparency from the government, so that there is no opportunity for bogus anonymous leaks from federal officials... The real problem (and crime) is that so much truth is criminal, leaving a vacuum a mile wide for troublemakers.

a reply to: carewemust

red flags in journalism is say posting the names of overseas agents, Or maybe discussing a top secret project. Can even be issues where you do severe harm to the United States and tried for treason. So he is honest he says yes there are situations where we may jail reporters. Obama used the espionage act against reporters when he was in office.

originally posted by: bob77
coin has 3 sides,do you control information or information con-troll you?
maybe you should stop watching news and tv generaly(any kind of wiolent info),i did,it really helps to find that yellow brick road that resonates with truth.

I have largely stopped. However, this does nothing to stop the media from influencing others who have not stopped watching, and these other people are citizens who can vote for politicians and laws into the books which effect me. And so therefore it remains a concern of mine. I hope you find this explanation to be helpful. Namaste.

a reply to: carewemust

Excuse me, but what measure of proof will be expected, to place a journalist in the dock? I only ask, because there seems to be a lack of understanding on the part of many people, this Barr fellow included, over what constitutes a red line.

Will it be the case that in any event in which a journalist is placed on trial, the facts of the event, events, or assertions they have made which have landed them in hot water, will be publicly investigated and the results made clear to everyone? I mean, that would be the only way to handle such a thing in a manner appropriate to a free nation, rather than an oppressive tyranny, so one would expect this at least. After all, if journalists were to be placed in jail for simply going against the narrative of events put in place by the current administration, without any proof that their statements or writings were factually false, that would simply be unthinkable, wouldn't it?

I think Mr Barr ought to be compelled to make a complete list of red line issues, and methods by which a journalist might find themselves in the dock under his watch, as opposed to under prior occupants of his position, so that there can be no confusion on that topic among the press, and to prevent this man from abusing his station and applying broad measures to things that ought to be dealt with narrowly.

a reply to: 3n19m470

However, this does nothing to stop the media from influencing others who have not stopped watching...

Do you really and truly believe that people don't know any better? Do you really and truly believe that people don't cooperate and participate in their "influence?"

This is a sincere question. I'm not just being facetious.

At what point do we stop making excuses for people and demand that they be intellectually honest with themselves and everyone?

At what point do we stop playing "whatabout" games and demand that we stop making excuses for bad behavior? What mom ever said, "Oh! Johnny did it first? Well then okay..."

Pew recently published a study in which people did not know the difference between fact and opinion... At what point do we stop pretending that opinions equal fact? That believing the worst (or best) about someone doesn't make it true? And all we really know is that we don't know!

Consider the Catholic School kids wearing the MAGA hats. When I first saw the video of the "smirking" kids, my thought was that he was an ordinary kid in an extraordinary situation, he had no clue what was going on or what to do, so he just stood there. But I knew I had no idea what led up to that moment, who initiated the contact, etc. All I knew for sure is that there was some kind of confrontation between an old man and a teenage punk.... but I also know that a teenage punk can not be held to a higher standard than an old man.

How many people took one brief moment out of context and pretended they "know" what really happened? How many people pretended to "know" what that kid was really thinking and what he believes, etc? When the truth is, they haven't a clue.

Maybe I'm giving people too much credit, but I believe the disconnect is willful and deliberate. People do know that they don't know, but there's no penalty for pretending otherwise, and it's so much fun talking smack...

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: JinMI

So are you honestly going to tell me that MSNBC published the story with no intent to drive an agenda?

MAGA hat....

I think real constitutionalists don't want to give the government an inch because they'll take a mile.

Let them start to go after libel as they please, and corporate media and their lawyers will brush it off...

The real targets would be places like ATS, and when a Comet Pizza happens again, what's to stop them from going after people in a thread saying that there was a crime ring there causing a crazy to go in with a gun?

Constitutionalists don't go after opponents, because they know it's a matter of time before it would backfire.

All or nothing, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

a reply to: carewemust

After 2 years of non stop hate speech, mostly directed at Trump, media lynchings often leading to violent mobs and death threats, and fake news, it's time to hold these clowns responsible for their actions.

All the news today is entertainment, like pro wrestling. It's opinion and propaganda disguised as journalism. There should be a disclaimer across the screen: Not real news, for entertainment purposes only.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: carewemust

I remind you of the first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If people are too stupid, ignorant or lazy to obtain all the facts before coming to a conclusion, then much the same as with the government, we deserve what we get.

I wish I were more surprised that so many folks here (who otherwise agree with you on most political issues) are giddy with anticipation of jailing journalists....

Good on you for being a person of principle.