Should the Media Strike Back at Trump?

MaeZe · Feb 24, 2017

ElaineA said:
To be very clear, this isn't the daily press briefing in the media room we're used to seeing that they were excluded from. It's a far less formal thing called a "media gaggle" press secty's do on the side, in their office, with outlets the Press Secty often chooses (or they can include everybody, if they want). Which explains Ari Fleischer's statement. Now, there's plenty of outcry from MSM media outlets, so this level of restriction IS unusual, it's just important to point out this isn't the regular briefing.

That makes sense given Trump would be losing their TV broadcast time. And yes, it also makes a little more sense what Ari Fleischer was talking about.

DancingMaenid · Feb 24, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
Some libertarians would say that such are not "true" libertarians, but of course that gets into the murky territory of who gets to define a movement (and no true Scotsman fallacies).

At best, libertarians who are pro transgender rights on a personal level, feel that it's desirable for people to be allowed to discriminate at a private level, and some dodge the choice bullet by saying that they think it should be "up to the states" to decide if abortion should be legal in their jurisdiction. Why it's palatable to have one's freedom restricted by an overbearing state government but not the feds, I have no idea. That comes off (to me) more as traditional conservative (states rights and strong local government with a weak federal one) than libertarian (as few government restrictions as possible).

I am not, and never will be, libertarian because I don't see any historical evidence that people will grow up and start treating one another with respect or start chipping in to pay for things I consider good and valuable (things that are too expensive for most people to buy for just themselves) without taxes, laws, and government. We have had some pretty amazing things that are funded in whole or in part by taxpayer money in the US--national and state parks, universities, public broadcasting networks, arts and science, NASA etc. I want to live in a civilization, darn it, and civilizations take compromise and shared purpose via government.

We also, imo, need a strong central government and laws restricting the right of those in the majority to discriminate against those in the minority (or those who have traditionally been disenfranchised).

Agreed. At best, I've never seen a Libertarian provide a good solution to support civil rights without legal enforcement. The only thing that I suppose could be helped by less government interference is abortion access, since currently the main impediment to laws designed to make it hard to have an abortion. Otherwise, "just let people make their own choices" has not been a historically successful approach to discrimination. It's not like antidiscrimination bills are usually introduced as a first resort. They usually come about after people have been struggling for a while and cultural changes are not enough to help.

You can believe in limited government but also support civil liberties, but if you don't have any plan for how to protect civil liberties without governmental measures, that support is kind of hollow.

Also, I find that a lot of Libertarians are more interested in limiting government than correcting existing imbalances. I have no big objection on a philosophical level to the idea of doing away with legally-recognized marriage, for example. If someone had an idea for a good alternative system, I'd be willing to listen. But the Libertarians who used that as a justification to be against gay marriage never seemed to seriously campaign to strip straight marriages of legal recognition. They were just fine with letting the imbalance continue.

BoF · Feb 24, 2017

cbenoi1 said:
Talk about Trump striking back at the media...

White House blocks news organizations from press briefing

http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/24/media/cnn-blocked-white-house-gaggle/

Say goodbye to freedom of the press.

-cb

This morning at CPAC Trump started his speech lamblasting the media. He said that the media had dropped the word "fake" in his "enemy of the American people" tweet. The New York Times fact checked the speech. They produced the original tweet; no word "fake." Still, CPAC attendes gobbled up the speech like a Texan downing Bluebell Ice Cream.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/...ws-and-repeats-inaccurate-claims-at-cpac.html

Michael Wolfe · Feb 24, 2017

Roxxsmom said:
Some libertarians would say that such are not "true" libertarians, but of course that gets into the murky territory of who gets to define a movement (and no true Scotsman fallacies).

Indeed. Personally, I think issues like abortion rights and immigration are disputed often enough in libertarian circles that it's probably fair to say there's no One True Libertarian Position on things like that.

But I think it's fair to draw a line somewhere, in a lot of cases. If a free-market capitalist wanted to call himself a Marxist, or someone who described homosexuality as a mental disorder wanted to call himself a liberal, or someone who thought the only problem w/ the war on drugs was that it wasn't aggressive enough wanted to call himself a libertarian, I'd probably look at such people with a good deal of skepticism.

Kweei · Feb 24, 2017

So what news story are they trying to distract us from with blocking news outlets? You know there has to be something.

ElaineA · Feb 24, 2017

Kweei said:
So what news story are they trying to distract us from with blocking news outlets? You know there has to be something.

Can't it be "All of the above"? (Meaning everything they've reported on from the time he won the nomination until now.)

Cmalone · Feb 24, 2017

Kweei said:
So what news story are they trying to distract us from with blocking news outlets? You know there has to be something.

The FCC attempting to rollback Internet privacy rules?

MaeZe · Feb 24, 2017

Kweei said:
So what news story are they trying to distract us from with blocking news outlets? You know there has to be something.

That the Trump team was indeed working with the Russians to influence the election. That is the story the NYTs printed that the Priebus and others on the Trump team are trying hard to stop the FBI from pursuing, or if that fails, convince supporters the charges are fake.

This little sideshow started here: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Of course that's in addition to all the other stories circulating about Trump: his obvious-we-can-see-the-picture lies, Trump and his cabinet minions keep providing conflicting information, Mexico was not handled well, etc etc etc.

Kweei · Feb 24, 2017

ElaineA said:
Can't it be "All of the above"? (Meaning everything they've reported on from the time he won the nomination until now.)

Cmalone said:
The FCC attempting to rollback Internet privacy rules?

MaeZe said:
That the Trump team was indeed working with the Russians to influence the election. That is the story the NYTs printed that the Priebus and others on the Trump team are trying hard to stop the FBI from pursuing, or if that fails, convince supporters the charges are fake.

This little sideshow started here: Trump Campaign Aides Had Repeated Contacts With Russian Intelligence

Of course that's in addition to all the other stories circulating about Trump: his obvious-we-can-see-the-picture lies, Trump and his cabinet minions keep providing conflicting information, Mexico was not handled well, etc etc etc.

It's so hard to keep up! I follow the news everyday and I'm always wondering what else did a miss? Man, I hope the news goes after him hard.

MaeZe · Feb 24, 2017

And the list grows:

DHS analysis found no evidence of extra threat posed by travel-ban nations: report

A draft intelligence report compiled by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finds little evidence that citizens from the seven countries included in President Trump’s travel ban pose a terror threat, according to The Associated Press.

The document, compiled by the agency’s intelligence unit, reportedly says citizenship is an “unlikely indicator” for terror threats within the U.S.

It also points notes that just a handful of people from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and Sudan have been linked to terrorist activity in the U.S. or participated in attacks.

Trump administration sought to enlist intelligence officials, key lawmakers to counter Russia stories

The decision to involve those officials could be perceived as threatening the independence of U.S. spy agencies that are supposed to remain insulated from partisan issues, as well as undercutting the credibility of ongoing congressional probes. Those officials saw their involvement as an attempt to correct coverage they believed to be erroneous.

The effort also involved senior lawmakers with access to classified intelligence about Russia, including Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairmen of the Senate and House intelligence committees. A spokesman for Nunes said that he had already begun speaking to reporters to challenge the story and then “at the request of a White House communications aide, Chairman Nunes then spoke to an additional reporter and delivered the same message.”

Jeffry Lord is bringing up fake news about Goldwater as supporting evidence this is all fake news now. And CNN is paying him?

Helix · Feb 24, 2017

Apparently, children's book authors are a threat now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...t-los-angeles-airport-by-us-officials/8303366

MaeZe · Feb 24, 2017

Helix said:
Apparently, children's book authors are a threat now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...t-los-angeles-airport-by-us-officials/8303366

My country is getting scary.

She'll likely never find out what the initiating reason was. And we'll likely not get anyone to address the behavior of the INS which I have no doubt is close to what she describes. The Stanford Prison Experiment in practice.

MaeZe · Feb 24, 2017

And it doesn't stop there:

Muhammad Ali Jr., a U.S. citizen, was detained at Florida airport for 2 hours while immigration agents asked how he got his name and asked if was a Muslim.

Muhammad Ali Jr., 44, and his mother Khalilah Camacho-Ali, the second wife of Muhammad Ali, were arriving at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport on Feb. 7 after returning from speaking at a Black History Month event in Montego Bay, Jamaica. They were pulled aside while going through customs because of their Arabic-sounding names, according to family friend and lawyer Chris Mancini.

Immigration officials let Camacho-Ali go after she showed them a photo of herself with her ex-husband, but her son did not have such a photo and wasn't as lucky. Mancini said officials held and questioned Ali Jr. for nearly two hours, repeatedly asking him, "Where did you get your name from?" and "Are you Muslim?"

If this shit doesn't sweep Republicans out of office by 2018, I'm buying a gun (for self protection, in case that wasn't clear). These people are really starting to scare me.

gothicangel · Feb 25, 2017

The BBC where also excluded (I imagine it is because they reported on Parliament debating whether Trump should be allowed to address both Houses on a state visit). Very worrying times for the US. This is an attack on the freedom of press.

Celia Cyanide · Feb 25, 2017

DancingMaenid said:
Also, I find that a lot of Libertarians are more interested in limiting government than correcting existing imbalances.

True. I also find that a lot of Libertarians are more interested in limiting government than not ruining things that are already working well.

Cmalone · Feb 25, 2017

MaeZe said:
immigration agents asked how he got his name and asked if was a Muslim.

But it's not a Muslim ban, you see. And since they're pulling this with famous people, imagine what they're doing to regular old citizens who aren't in a position to have their stories reported.

MaeZe said:
If this shit doesn't sweep Republicans out of office by 2018, I'm buying a gun (for self protection, in case that wasn't clear).

Might as well get it now then.

Shadowmoo · Feb 25, 2017

My guess is that the federal gov't is in full meltdown mode that a president is basically compromised by foreign powers and doesn't know how to handle it. Trump keeps yelling 'political witchhunt' despite the fact that he has 5 separate gov't investigations against him including the NSA CIA and FBI. A bunch of the alt news sites claim that anti-trump elements of the intelligence agencies have gone 'nuclear' against trump.

Twick · Feb 25, 2017

I don't think the FBI brass is "against" him. Comey loves him some Trump. Individual agents? Seeing the POTUS compromised by Russian, who they've fought for generations? And their head won't move on it? No wonder they're leaking information. It must be a horrible sensation.

BoF · Feb 25, 2017

Twick said:
I don't think the FBI brass is "against" him. Comey loves him some Trump. Individual agents? Seeing the POTUS compromised by Russian, who they've fought for generations? And their head won't move on it? No wonder they're leaking information. It must be a horrible sensation.

Who the leakers are might be a mystery for sometime. The people FBI and the CIA know a bit about covering their asses.

We didn't know who "Deepthroat" was until Mark Felt Revealed himself thirty years after the fact.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2005/07/deepthroat200507

Ambrosia · Feb 26, 2017

ElaineA said:
To be very clear, this isn't the daily press briefing in the media room we're used to seeing that they were excluded from. It's a far less formal thing called a "media gaggle" press secty's do on the side, in their office, with outlets the Press Secty often chooses (or they can include everybody, if they want). Which explains Ari Fleischer's statement. Now, there's plenty of outcry from MSM media outlets, so this level of restriction IS unusual, it's just important to point out this isn't the regular briefing.

Unusual? Has it ever happened before where so many major news outlets were barred from this briefing? And why is it important to point out this isn't the regular briefing? Do you feel it is less important?

In my mind, this topic should be on the lips of every U.S. citizen. Limiting the news reporting to a few news sources who may be, because of their political bias, more amenable to not asking the hard questions hides the truth from the citizenry. If we do not have a balanced media, anything can be fed to us and swallowed.

ElaineA · Feb 26, 2017

The initial wave of tweets, etc, about the ban implied that they were barred from the regular daily press briefing. That was not the case. I was trying to clarify in the moment what was happening.

Yes, it's important that the press have full access, no, it hasn't happened that a large number of media outlets have been excluded from the gaggle all at once, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out, it's not the formal press briefing, and not all outlets are included in the gaggle every time. As for importance, all I can say is, from what I have read, it's an informal, not always all-inclusive, sit-down in the Press Secty's office and within his/her purview.

While of course I find it alarming, and a toe in the door, I do feel it is important to keep facts straight as events unfold, now more than ever.

MaeZe · Feb 26, 2017

Ambrosia said:
Unusual? Has it ever happened before where so many major news outlets were barred from this briefing? And why is it important to point out this isn't the regular briefing? Do you feel it is less important?

Of different importance, perhaps not less important.

Trump is not giving up TV coverage of anything. This is a distraction, and part of the marketed media message: don't believe anything bad about Trump, it's all made up. His base is buying that message. I'm back to my optimism that his base is limited and most people are not buying it. My pessimism continues that the Republican legislators who think Trump is a joke, don't think he's all that dangerous and they will keep him as long as he's useful for their agenda. In the meantime they have Pence in the wings.

Ambrosia said:
In my mind, this topic should be on the lips of every U.S. citizen. Limiting the news reporting to a few news sources who may be, because of their political bias, more amenable to not asking the hard questions hides the truth from the citizenry. If we do not have a balanced media, anything can be fed to us and swallowed.

But I don't think you can find much news the limited sources have access to that the mainstream news media does not.

BoF · Feb 26, 2017

Donald Trump has tweeted that he won't be attending this year's White House Correspondents Dinner.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2017/02/25/trump-wont-attend-white-house-correspondents-dinner/

Zach Braff suggested Alec Baldwin be invited to pinch hit for Trump.

http://www.ajc.com/news/national/za...correspondents-dinner/uUJhVVCsPZgYkfb5ddyRLP/

rugcat · Feb 26, 2017

This is the scariest article I have read in a long time. How the combination of big money – and I mean really big, billionaire big, and technological advances in data mining and psyops have completely changed the way we receive information and may well be the controlling factor from now on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

Roxxsmom · Feb 26, 2017

rugcat said:
This is the scariest article I have read in a long time. How the combination of big money – and I mean really big, billionaire big, and technological advances in data mining and psyops have completely changed the way we receive information and may well be the controlling factor from now on.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage

Yeah, this article is downright depressing.

Should the Media Strike Back at Trump?

New kid...seven years ago!

Cautious Daredevil

Jambo Bwana

Expert Procrastinator

All about that action, boss.

Expert Procrastinator

socially distancing

Toughen up.

Joker Groupie

Prophet of the Eldritch ones.

Cautious Daredevil

Grand Duchess

All about that action, boss.

Cautious Daredevil

Lost in the Fog

Beastly Fido