• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Sign in to follow this  
Bent Sailor

Trump vs Media

Recommended Posts

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-12/donald-trump-threatens-nbc-broadcast-licence/9041652

United States President Donald Trump has threatened NBC's broadcast licences because he is not happy with how its news division has covered him.

 

Must make the (not) supporters of Team Red so proud to have a man like this deciding how the US Federal Government protects free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Un-American to the max.

What boggles the mind is the Trumpsters that start up with the 'Hell yeahs' on this sort of fascist crap. I think we know how Hitler pulled it off now, we're seeing it live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

I think we know how Hitler pulled it off now, we're seeing it live.

Pretty much. You have the "useful idiots" that never had any principles cheering on whatever populist crap their strong man figurehead spouts, and you have those that have some principles but are willing to sacrifice them one by one in order to keep power for the other principles... until they realise they have no principles left to follow and/or they no longer have the capability of reining in the "useful idiots" who now control the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What surprises me is how closely the world follows the unfolding of a fascist America. Here Carl Bernstein talks to La Stampa's Alain Elkann:

"Carl Bernstein: Trump presidency is more far dangerous than Watergate," La Stampa, October 8, 2017, http://www.lastampa.it/2017/10/08/esteri/lastampa-in-english/carl-bernstein-trump-presidency-is-more-far-dangerous-than-watergate-affair-Rw6vebIyO7L3sPTXlKZKvO/pagina.html  accessed October 11, 2017.

Alain Elkann, ''(Carl Bernstein) Trump presidency is more far dangerous than Watergate,'' La Stampa, October 8, 2017.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking from a performance review perspective— Mr Trump has fallen short of the clearly stated goals he offered.  

NBC and other mainstream and lower level media outlets have fallen short of the standards the public deserves.  Their propensity to use “unnamed sources” leaves them open to manipulation.  

 

Has anyone noticed that nothing strivuted to an “unnamed source” has said anything positive?  It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive. Yet all we hear are allegations someone called him a moron- that has been denied. Allegations he hates everyone. And now the comment about nukes - provided somewhat out of context. 

Yes Trump is falling short.  But that does not authorize media outlets to use “unnamed sources” that appear to have an axe to grind as sources for news stories.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Snore said:

Speaking from a performance review perspective— Mr Trump has fallen short of the clearly stated goals he offered.  

NBC and other mainstream and lower level media outlets have fallen short of the standards the public deserves.  Their propensity to use “unnamed sources” leaves them open to manipulation.  

 

Has anyone noticed that nothing strivuted to an “unnamed source” has said anything positive?  It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive. Yet all we hear are allegations someone called him a moron- that has been denied. Allegations he hates everyone. And now the comment about nukes - provided somewhat out of context. 

Yes Trump is falling short.  But that does not authorize media outlets to use “unnamed sources” that appear to have an axe to grind as sources for news stories.  

It's no different than Trump saying that "Many people are saying it! Believe me! It's true! Very smart people are saying it too..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Occam's razor.  What makes more sense.  The entire journalism/news industry is failing to do job for which they all went to college and that government is incapable of coherent thought?  Or that neither are actually interested in fact and both are much more interested in popularity?

I think both the government and communicators of the government - both private and public - are completely happy with the status quo.  

 

0cd64e18de229bd1064157716c8d60fb8bed31d53d556f872707f71d47d85d4d.jpg.2d25de6e618a475c13e18c8bc8a3d9fe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Snore said:

 But that does not authorize media outlets to use “unnamed sources” that appear to have an axe to grind as sources for news stories.  

How about all of the "unnamed sources" which pop up after some latest Trump shitfit where the sources say that Ivanka or Jared weren't in favor of this latest policy? Are those ok?

This is just Trump's culture warrior thing. It's all Trump's got. Don't be a dupe.

Occam's razor suggests Trump is incapable of coherent thought - here's trumpy last night.

DL5lhpSUMAA2e3B.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Snore said:

Speaking from a performance review perspective— Mr Trump has fallen short of the clearly stated goals he offered.  

NBC and other mainstream and lower level media outlets have fallen short of the standards the public deserves.  Their propensity to use “unnamed sources” leaves them open to manipulation.  

 

Has anyone noticed that nothing strivuted to an “unnamed source” has said anything positive?  It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive. Yet all we hear are allegations someone called him a moron- that has been denied. Allegations he hates everyone. And now the comment about nukes - provided somewhat out of context. 

Yes Trump is falling short.  But that does not authorize media outlets to use “unnamed sources” that appear to have an axe to grind as sources for news stories.  

The problem with eliminating "unnamed sources" is that whistleblowers are very often targeted.

It is a problem to make wild claims, call it "news," and then attribute it all to "unnamed sources." However when reported news is consistent with previously known facts, when it reveals some important aspect of gov't policy or a specific gov't activity, which speaks directly to the reason -why- we need the First Amendment and protecting sources is criticaly important.

The Trump Administration has shown, over and over, that they don't want real news, that they want adulation not the truth. This is dangerous for a free country. If the gov't is free to take revenge on people who tell reporters what's going on, then we will not have a free press any more.

So, what a great FREE country, huh? Employers are free to impose their religion on employees, and gov't officials are free to punish anyone who publishes unflattering "news" regardless of whether it's the truth. It's all about freedom, baby!

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive.

Got a source for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
TOP

uLxq8RE.gifSecretary of Defense James Mattis discredited a questionable NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement. “This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”

The NBC report suggested that Trump’s surprising request caused Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to call the president a “moron,” part of another report which both the secretary of state and the president have criticized for inaccuracies.uLxq8RE.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

Un-American to the max.

What boggles the mind is the Trumpsters that start up with the 'Hell yeahs' on this sort of fascist crap. I think we know how Hitler pulled it off now, we're seeing it live.

But when are we going to get the re-education camps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, the_abandoned_brane said:
 
TOP

uLxq8RE.gifSecretary of Defense James Mattis discredited a questionable NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement. “This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”

The NBC report suggested that Trump’s surprising request caused Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to call the president a “moron,” part of another report which both the secretary of state and the president have criticized for inaccuracies.uLxq8RE.gif

Neither actually denied the reports, they just changed the subject, and went on to their talking points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Moderate said:

But when are we going to get the re-education camps?

Judging by the apparent state of education in the USA these days, I wouldn't worry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, the_abandoned_brane said:
 
TOP

uLxq8RE.gifSecretary of Defense James Mattis discredited a questionable NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement. “This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”

 

42 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Neither actually denied the reports, they just changed the subject, and went on to their talking points.

 

Out of curiosity, what else could Mattis have said that would have convinced you that he denied the report?  

 

NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said...

 

I don't know how Mattis could have said anything more direct.  What am I misreading?  I could understand accusing Mattis of lying but failing to deny the report and then changing the subject?  "Recent reports ...are absolutely false'.  How is that failing to deny?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, cmilliken said:
1 hour ago, the_abandoned_brane said:
 
TOP

uLxq8RE.gifSecretary of Defense James Mattis discredited a questionable NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said in a statement. “This kind of erroneous reporting is irresponsible.”

 

54 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Neither actually denied the reports, they just changed the subject, and went on to their talking points.

 

Out of curiosity, what else could Mattis have said that would have convinced you that he denied the report?  

 

NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said...

 

I don't know how Mattis could have said anything more direct.  What am I misreading?  I could understand accusing Mattis of lying but failing to deny the report and then changing the subject?  "Recent reports ...are absolutely false'.  How is that failing to deny?

Is that verbatim? I saw him on a clip of the news the other day, and I don't recall that. I did not shorthand his statement but it was to the effect that President Trump did not make a serious request for a tenfold increase in the US nuclear arsenal. Mrs Steam complimented  his ability to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, a refreshing change after years of "Nook-you-lurr." But the way I parsed his exact words, Trump almost certainly said something about wanting a big increase in nukes.

It would be a strange thing to make up out of thin air. And words are much easier to put together in ways that are truthful but misleading, much more so than a photograph. A relatively trivial matter anyway, as long as the generals understand that Trump's tantrums don't constitute lawful orders.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One columnist thinks it is an impeachable offense.  She is no democRAT, she's an American.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355070-conservative-columnist-trump-is-who-the-founding-fathers-had-in-mind-when-they

Conservative columnist: Founding Fathers had Trump in mind when they included impeachment clause

I'm not saying that the Pride of New York is not the greatest President ever to hold the office, and I don't support him, though I can't put a finger on any specific instance in which I have disagreed with one of his policy decisions....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is that verbatim? I saw him on a clip of the news the other day, and I don't recall that. I did not shorthand his statement but it was to the effect that President Trump did not make a serious request for a tenfold increase in the US nuclear arsenal. Mrs Steam complimented  his ability to pronounce "nuclear" correctly, a refreshing change after years of "Nook-you-lurr." But the way I parsed his exact words, Trump almost certainly said something about wanting a big increase in nukes.

It would be a strange thing to make up out of thin air. And words are much easier to put together in ways that are truthful but misleading, much more so than a photograph. A relatively trivial matter anyway, as long as the generals understand that Trump's tantrums don't constitute lawful orders.

-DSK

I had thought it was a quote but I didn't dig into the actual veracity.  I thought you responding to what  the_abandoned_brane had quoted - which seemed pretty cut and dry.  If that's not accurate, then I understand the comment better.

Thanks for the reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive.

Got a source for that?

[sarcasm font] Sorry that came from an unnamed source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why Trump wants to shut down the American press:
1. Stop reporting bad news about his ‘good son,’ Jared.
2. Prevent reporting on the Mueller investigation.
3. No more bad news about Himself.

"(CNN)The head of a government bureau responsible for clearing background checks told lawmakers Wednesday he has "never seen that level of mistakes" when asked about numerous omissions in Jared Kushner's security clearance application." ( http://us.cnn.com/2017/10/12/politics/jared-kushner-background-check-form/index.html )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You read it here, second: Trump walks away from UNESCO (State Department, October 12, 2017)

Why Trump is tearing up agreements, closing everything down, and why every deal made by the previous administration is a “bad deal,” according to Trump:
TRUMP CANNOT PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. He has Alzheimer’s Disease!

If he can eliminate the duties of the president, then he can play more golf, grab more rays at his myriad resorts. You know, so he can retire and live the Great American Dream.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/10/12/u-s-withdraws-from-unesco-the-u-n-s-cultural-organization-citing-anti-israel-bias/?utm_term=.b6bd4106a857

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Captain Gigi said:

DYK that if you insist “repeatedly that Mr. Trump scored 73 recently,” then it’s not #FakeNews?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/donald-trump-golf-score-golf-magazine-patently-unbelievable-a7997606.html

Still on my game…  © The New Yorker.jpg

Several people that have golfed with Trump have reported that he cheats. It would be consistent with his character.

So it is entirely possible he scored 73. The likelihood that he only hit the ball 73 times is a lot lower, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, B.J. Porter said:

The likelihood that he only hit the ball 73 times is a lot lower, I'd say.

:lol:  Reminds me of the old adage to set low expectations, then aim lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Captain Gigi said:

"TRUMP CANNOT PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENCY. He has Alzheimer’s Disease!"

Trumps' anger symptomatic of Alzheimer's Disease. His father, Fred Trump, died from AD, which is hereditary.  https://www.nytimes.com/1999/06/26/nyregion/fred-c-trump-postwar-master-builder-of-housing-for-middle-class-dies-at-93.html

Trumps' anger symptomatic of Alzheimer's Disease.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Captain Gigi said:

DYK that if you insist “repeatedly that Mr. Trump scored 73 recently,” then it’s not #FakeNews?

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/golf/donald-trump-golf-score-golf-magazine-patently-unbelievable-a7997606.html

Still on my game…  © The New Yorker.jpg

Trump cheats at golf?

He cheats at EVERYTHING, why should golf be exempt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Snore said:

It is statistically impossible for Trump to say nothing positive.

Got a source for that?

5 hours ago, Snore said:

[sarcasm font] Sorry that came from an unnamed source.

well played.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, what else could Mattis have said that would have convinced you that he denied the report?  

 

NBC report Wednesday that claimed President Donald Trump demanded a tenfold increase in the size of the nuclear arsenal.

“Recent reports that the President called for an increase in the U.S. nuclear arsenal are absolutely false,” Mattis said...

 

I don't know how Mattis could have said anything more direct.  What am I misreading?  I could understand accusing Mattis of lying but failing to deny the report and then changing the subject?  "Recent reports ...are absolutely false'.  How is that failing to deny?

easy - he could have repeatedly advocated, argued for, but not "called for"* a 10 fold increase. It's a loophole big enough to nuke through.

*called for = demanded or required. You talk the mango moron down before he does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the fascist prick could get some traction with this amongst his moran followers, the SCOTUS would slap him down on an expedited motion.

I think the First even takes precedence over the Second with the gunnies.

It's just more ranting hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Even if the fascist prick could get some traction with this amongst his moran followers, the SCOTUS would slap him down on an expedited motion.

I think the First even takes precedence over the Second with the gunnies.

It's just more ranting hot air.

Trump would have to link his regulation of the content of the mainstream news to a greater good, like teaching all the kids Christianity in elementary school or punishing women that want to have abortions.  That would make it righteous.   Especially if we were allowed to say "Christmas" again.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Even if the fascist prick could get some traction with this amongst his moran followers, the SCOTUS would slap him down on an expedited motion.

...

I don't know how fast they would work but agree that the SCOTUS would probably once again foolishly pretend that corporations have first amendment rights. Yes, probably all nine of them once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was the printing presses that had the protection, not the companies that owned them.

Isn't that what "Freedom of the Press" means?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I thought it was the printing presses that had the protection, not the companies that owned them.

Isn't that what "Freedom of the Press" means?

Printing presses aren't people. Don't be ridiculous. The Bill of Rights is exclusively for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, you mean like the people that own the printing presses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, SloopJonB said:

Oh, you mean like the people that own the printing presses?

I guess the corporations that own them are "like" people in some ways. At least, to Republicans. And all 9 Justices on the Supreme Court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

The Bill of Rights is exclusively for people.

Oh fuck...here comes Citizens United!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently I need to utilize that sarcasm font more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

Apparently I need to utilize that sarcasm font more frequently.

nah, we agreed to stop using it, as it's more fun seeing who can't see sarcasm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for him - he sacrificed a lot more than most over the issue of freedom of speech.

Keeriste his magazine was repulsive though - he gave porno a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

I wonder what he's going to do if he gets some dirt?

Use corporate money to $pread that information about a politician, I'd guess.

That's sometimes bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Good for him - he sacrificed a lot more than most over the issue of freedom of speech.

Keeriste his magazine was repulsive though - he gave porno a bad name.

The Internet kinda made Hustler seem tame. Except for Chester the Molester. If there's a hell, some people are going there over that shit. But Hustler was hilarious, especially the ads. The woman with a crotch like Chewbacca, "I NEED IT BAD".  Nobody does comedy like that anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Hustler "the pre$$" or what?

If they are, using corporate money to broadcast proof of bad actions by Trump would not necessarily be bad. Pre$$ corporations are entitled to superior first amendment rights.

Of course, if Hustler is not "the pre$$" but is instead just an ordinary corporation, $peaking like that about a politician would be extremely bad if we had an upcoming election. But we don't. So is it still bad?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty good comeback to Trump:
 

Quote

 

'It's frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write," said President Trump on Wednesday, "and people should look into it."

Amen, brother! It's downright abominable that people in the media can just spout off the first thing that comes into their heads with no concern for veracity or the potential for harm. What do they think this is, a personal Twitter account?

 

The rest of the article is kind of an Andy Rooney-like rant against everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump's underlying agenda is simply to get even with Obama for what he did to Trump at the 2011 White House correspondent's dinner - that's all Trump is really after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/14/2017 at 8:13 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

Is Hustler "the pre$$" or what?

If they are, using corporate money to broadcast proof of bad actions by Trump would not necessarily be bad. Pre$$ corporations are entitled to superior first amendment rights.

Of course, if Hustler is not "the pre$$" but is instead just an ordinary corporation, $peaking like that about a politician would be extremely bad if we had an upcoming election. But we don't. So is it still bad?

 

are you back to talking about citizens united

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

are you back to talking about citizens united

Or possibly NY Times v Sullivan. Or maybe NAACP v Button. I'm not sure.

So is Hustler "the pre$$" or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The Press was long ago defined by the SC as  "newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter."  In other words, anything that is printed.  That's why things like one-time pamphlets and single-page broadsheets were so often part of the early cases - because 'the press' is so broad.

 

BAck to school for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. The Press was long ago defined by the SC as  "newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter."  In other words, anything that is printed.  That's why things like one-time pamphlets and single-page broadsheets were so often part of the early cases - because 'the press' is so broad.

 

BAck to school for you

Cite?

So a news broadcast by NBC, for example, would not enjoy freedom of the pre$$ since it's electronic and not printed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic - https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketapper/status/920759386431205376

 
"Low" would be sexually harassing staffers and then getting fired for it -- humiliated in front of the world. Now THAT would be low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this