crumbling Freedom of the Press too divisive to discuss?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 41 - 60 of total 263 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
DrBen

Trad climber
Feb 24, 2017 - 02:54pm PT

I think Eric Beck said it close to right. CNN has edited video to fit their fake belief. Not sure about the point that Bill Clinton was a 1 percenter. He didn't go in as one, but is now of course.


"Trump is right to hate the media. The establishment hates Trump and are disparaging him at every opportunity. CNN is the worst. I am not a Trump supporter and find it somewhat odd to be uttering a word in his defense. The big picture is that the last election was the first time that large numbers in both parties rebelled against 1% rule. One percent rule is the way it has been forever. Remember the divine right of kings?

I didn't vote for Trump and told my friends that a vote for Hillary was a vote for endless war. "
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:16pm PT
The USSR a quarter century gone. Boris, then Vlad fancied themselves more Czar than general secretary, consequently the commie rats abandoned ship and settled upon these shores. Most of the nutcase loons starting these political threads don't quite understand they are useful idiots. Others like Craig and Crankcase are a lot more hard core organizer than climber. CMAC should ban all anti American activities because they're not conducive to his capitalist path.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:23pm PT
Nut,

You're right. This issue is incredibly important. One of the most concerning things about Trump's election (apart from demonstrating the abject stupidity of those who voted for him) is that many of his supporters have been lulled into complacency because their guy "won". You cannot have been thinking that critically to have supported Trump, so it's not surprising that the same people fail to think critically about the importance of a free press to a democracy.
Trump is right to hate the media. The establishment hates Trump and are disparaging him at every opportunity. CNN is the worst.

I am not a Trump supporter and find it somewhat odd to be uttering a word in his defense. The big picture is that the last election was the first time that large numbers in both parties rebelled against 1% rule. One percent rule is the way it has been forever. Remember the divine right of kings?

I didn't vote for Trump and told my friends that a vote for Hillary was a vote for endless war.
This post strikes me as incredibly naive. Trump is right to hate the media, but they call it like it is (which I'm sure he doesn't like), not because they're making up stuff about him. It's probably closer to 'which of the many horrible gaffes do we cover next?'

Also, a vote for Trump was not a vote against the 1%. Again, incredibly naive. Try as he did to portray himself as a friend to the working man, this is a guy who has gotten to where he is by stepping on people, pure and simple. His only care is his own advancement.
Happiegrrrl2

Trad climber
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:28pm PT
Following the various leads from @20comittee, these people(seems quite a lot of them worked in/around/under NatSec) see to have taken it upon themselves to do investigative reporting, and are coming up with some very interesting reading and insightful commentary. They are not hacks, so far as I can tell, and it is pretty interesting.

One of said "Twittter Connections" posts quite a bit of info and suggests that the Trump casino losses were very probably laundromats for Russian dirty money. More than I can digest, but others may find as interesting as I am.
https://twitter.com/Khanoisseur/status/817982670277746688
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:36pm PT
If you honestly believe that parity exists between the accuracy of reporting from NYT, CNN, as opposed to Breitbart & Infowars, Trump and Bannon's work is complete.

Spot on! There is NO parity!

Neither Breitbart nor Infowars ever directly influenced an election by directly influencing the perceived outcome of a primary debate by handing only ONE participating candidate the questions in advance.

CNN was rightly called "Clinton News Network." Glad that's fixed now, as there's no Clinton to write much about anymore.

Regarding this mythical "assault on the fourth estate," I'm waiting to see any evidence of any actual assault. The first amendment defends the right of free speech and expression of opinion, even, gasp, on the part of the President.

What libs don't grasp (AT ALL!) is that words and ideas are NOT assaults. So, you don't get to justify violence effectively yelling "fire" in a crowded theater just because somebody, even, gasp, the President, expresses an opinion that you don't like.

Opinions are not dangerous.

Words are not dangerous.

Ideas are not dangerous.

What people DO on the basis of their beliefs can be dangerous. But in this nation we DO NOT engage in thought-pre-crime by calling ideas dangerous in themselves thereby to justify stopping people from thinking and expressing thoughts that are "offensive" (to even the majority).

If you think that ideas themselves are dangerous, then you are motivated (and the left clearly is so motivated) to send us into 1984-land, where thought-crimes are the FIRST things to be attacked by the violence of the State. We're nearly there already, thanks to the left's relentless determination to establish the notion of thought-crimes.

You want to know something truly dangerous? How about FORCING people to SAY what you insist that they say? You know, like FORCING people to refer to others by "preferred pronouns" and other such absurd tripe. And all of this in flagrant disregard for basic biology!

FORCE is in fact dangerous. Yet libs don't get up in arms about that, as long as the force is being employed to FORCE their ideas to become law. You know, LAWS are dangerous too, because laws imply force.

So, when we see Trump proposing LAWS to FORCE the press to SAY particular things, or laws disallowing the press to say particular things, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, all you've got to moan about is Trump's expressions of dislike. Tough! Trump gets to engage in such expressions, even if they offend you.

That's how freedom works: People get to say things that offend you, and you don't get to pass laws to call such expressions "dangerous," "wrong," or illegal.
drF

Trad climber
usa
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:39pm PT
They are not hacks, so far as I can tell

Learned from extensive times spent in Walmart parking lots. You've been multi-tooled.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:43pm PT
One of said "Twittter Connections" posts quite a bit of info and suggests that the Trump casino losses were very probably laundromats for Russian dirty money. More than I can digest, but others may find as interesting as I am.

You libs are literally hilarious!

Everywhere you look, in the UTTER absence of the same "burden of PROOF" you demanded regarding the endless Clinton scandals, you find "evidence" of Trump's "wrongdoing," because you see smoking guns everywhere you look.

However, let Clinton exhibit gross negligence in her handling of classified materials and her OBVIOUS intention to violate every records-keeping law the federal government has, and you not only turn a blind eye but claim that anybody having a problem with this should "provide PROOF or shut up."

Alright, back atcha. Provide PROOF or shut up.

Show me the CRIME Trump's been convicted of, or shut up.

You don't get to have it both ways. Use a consistent standard of evidence-evaluation. And Twitter is not a "source." I know, sorry to burst your bubble.

You libs are doing EVERYTHING you warned in advance that non-libs had better not do WHEN Clinton was (for sure) elected.

Mellow out. The sky's not falling. Unless YOU foment a civil war, this nation's gonna go on like before.
drF

Trad climber
usa
Feb 24, 2017 - 03:47pm PT
The fake DrF is not me you dimwit.

Russ is correct. I'm not he. But you are indeed a dimwit.
Fat Dad

Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
Great, madbolter is back. I look forward to many insightful, substantiated claims from him.

Like I said, the guillibility that prompted people to vote (and continue to defend) him is the same cluelessness that makes this look like a non-issue. Step on the 1st Amendment, no problem. Reasonable restrictions on firearms, hell no.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 24, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
Madbolter, there are more nuanced ways of subverting the power of the press to report on facts. By blocking their access to facts, this administration is actively seeking to destroy the news agencies that have published unflattering information, agencies that have a tradition of exposing corruption in our government, and that have been instrumental in exposing corruption in the present administration. Note that of the major agencies that were allowed, one is owned by the President's son in law (edit: I screwed up on this point, Washington Post not owned by Kuchner- that is New York Observer), and another is the Chairman of the Board for the agency while also being the White House Chief Strategist. If I was writing a fictional movie, I couldn't make it more nefarious. If someone from the past was transported into this scenario, they would naively assume that making this information public would be the end of the administration, and their head would explode at how people don't seem to give a sh!t.


Not allowing a set of disfavored news agencies access to information about policies emanating from the White House, while showing favor to others with direct and intimate ties to the administration, is criminal in spirit if not in current letter of the law for several reasons. It should be explicitly illegal for these reasons:

1. It sends a clear message to all news agencies that if they want the information upon which their livelihood depends, they have to play ball in a way that the White House likes.

2. It provides an incentive for real news agencies to not publish real information they receive from other sources, for fear of being cast out from the approved list of White House press briefings.

3. It sanctions and grants more credibility to news agencies which formerly were recognized as fringe crazy folks but are now being elevated to a level beyond real news agencies.

I will say that I would prefer more fact-based reporting and fewer sensational headlines... that all comes from owners of news outlets seeing it as a profit and influence peddling machine more than a higher calling to preserve a democracy. But it is not the job of the White House to fix this problem, and what they are doing can't credibly be called "fixing" the problem. We could perhaps make a rule that no newspaper is allowed to have a majority stake owned by another corporation or individual. It would help, but it would be subverted by behind-the-scenes collusion. And it might wreak havoc on the blogosphere of no-name individual reporters with no real business structure.

In short, the problem of fixing media industry issues is separate from condemning our government for denying access to mainstream media outlets. And it is separate from a government administration favoring news outlets that are intimately related to them.

For any of the apologists or people who accept this, or say "oh it's always been that way", I would like to know where you personally draw the line and say "now I find it unacceptable." Do they need to have a firing squad for journalists before you take it seriously? Or just a law where the Executive Branch can shut down any media outlet for matters of "national security"? I'm trying to home in on the point at which it becomes unacceptable.


Edit: I would like to delete a major mistake I made above, but I'll just point it out here. Washington post is not Jared Kuchner's... I was confusing that with New York Observer and not fact-checking myself while I wrote. Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos. One might consider a conflict of interest in terms of Bezos' need to have his space-related business interests be supported by the government, rather than blocked for "national security" concerns. But in any case, I was wrong to call out Jared Kuchner on this one.
survival

Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:06pm PT
Russ is correct. I'm not he. But you are indeed a dimwit.


All of the stitcher in chief's personalities are coming out today.

Here you go:
*You seem to hate drF, and so do you.
*One of your posts was about JTree tipping.
*One of your posts was knowledgeable about El Cap.
*One of your posts was slapping Patrick Sawyer some more.
*One of your posts was bumping your own chat room thread.

It sucks to get busted at your own trolling I guess. That dude is not me is the same thing you said last time I busted you.

Regardless of who you are, you're a n00b on this site.

If you're not RUSS then you better unspoon from his ass, cuz you sure post like him. Get your own personality if you're not RUSS.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:07pm PT
Eric Beck... it saddened me to read your post.


...

"I am frustrated when you take an important issue that affects us all, and laugh it off or play the peanut gallery as if it doesn't affect your life, or the life of people you care about, or the lives of people they care about." -NA

NutAgain, you continue to impress me as occupying a level above this place. Don't be too disheartened by what you see or read here, it's only a climbing forum.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:08pm PT
Neither Breitbart nor Infowars ever directly influenced an election...

Neither of them has ever published anything factually accurate either.

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:13pm PT
Not allowing a set of disfavored news agencies access to information about policies emanating from the White House, while showing favor to others with direct and intimate ties to the administration, is criminal in spirit if not in current letter of the law for several reasons.

Too much to say in response to your post. So, I'll settle for responding to one thing.

You libs have ZERO credibility to talk about "criminal in spirit" in the face of your machinations to avoid having to agree that Clinton was "criminal in spirit."

Now that Trump's in office, you see "danger" everywhere you look and want to see brand new laws to "ensure" that the "danger" is abated. But you voted for and sincerely wanted a Clinton in the WH, and she did many things (including her own OBVIOUS "in" with the Russians) that you turned a blind eye to and actively berated others for calling attention to.

There is NO doubt that the mainstream media are far-gone, FAR worse than merely "biased." If Trump doesn't want his words (or even what he doesn't say) to be actively and intentionally misinterpreted by the media, more power to him.

Nothing he's said so far can hold a candle to "What? Like with a cloth?"

The 1st amendment cuts all ways. Trump has the right to speak or not speak as he pleases.

The sky is not falling.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:17pm PT
Neither of them has ever published anything factually accurate either.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "accurate." By your standards, neither has the mainstream media in a long time.

ALL news now-a-days is "editorial." I can't think of the last time I read an article and thought, "Wow... just the facts as can be verified via other sources. Amazing!"

Even the "facts" are spun and pre-digested. What ISN'T known or said is interpreted for the LACK thereof. In short, the media takes a few "facts" and MAKES them into whatever it wants.
Curt

climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:17pm PT
You libs have ZERO credibility...

And yet, still tons more credibility than you. Funny isn't it?

Curt
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:22pm PT
And yet, still tons more credibility than you. Funny isn't it?

Only in your own mind. Funny how that works, isn't it?

See? The game you're playing is EASY. You think that drive-by quips and "cleverness" (falsely so called) equates to argument and discussion. These threads are all the same: When confronted with their own inconsistencies, libs always devolve into Kindergarten behaviors, including name-calling and lame jibes.

You DIDN'T care when Clinton was selling off our uranium to the Russians (while getting rich in the process). You didn't care when she was violating every records-keeping law we have a law for. You didn't care... well, what's the point? You DIDN'T care!

Now that she didn't win (as she surely MUST have), you accept a LOWER bar of "evidence" to "convict" Trump in popular opinion. It's like Christ said: "You strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."

I find it laughable now.

The sky is not falling.
Happiegrrrl2

Trad climber
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:31pm PT
Use a consistent standard of evidence-evaluation. And Twitter is not a "source."

Twitter can act as an aggregator of information. Some people like to collect funny cat videos, and others provide their own opinion pieces, resource analysis, data sets, and links to news reporting/excerpts from books written by professional academics and experts in particular fields. @20Committee seems to to do a pretty good job with the latter.

If this is your idea of someone you consider a hack, I'd like to suggest you are incorrect in your a*#ertion.

John R. Schindler is a strategist, author, and commentator whose security-focused career has included a couple decades as both a scholar and practitioner. He is the national security columnist for the New York Observer.

Previously a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, where he taught courses on security, strategy, intelligence, terrorism, and military history, before joining the NWC faculty, he spent nearly a decade with the super-secret National Security Agency as an intelligence analyst and counterintelligence officer. There’s not much he can say about that, except that he worked problems in Eastern Europe and the Middle East with a counterespionage flavor, and he collaborated closely with other government agencies who would probably prefer he didn’t mention them. He’s also served as an officer specializing in cryptology (now called information warfare for no particular reason) in the U.S. Navy Reserve.

https://20committee.com/about/

The people he tends to RT are at a similar level. "they" seem to think that the Russia/TrumpCo connection is fairly intriguing, and don't appear to be types that would be spending their time and reputation on conspiracy theories.

They also are not necessarily Democrats. Does t come as a surprise to you that there are also Republicans, Independents and NoneOfYourBusinessers who are appalled at the current situation?

the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 24, 2017 - 04:31pm PT
As I said a few months before the election there is no sense trying to reason with Trump supporters anymore.

You'll just hear a lot of "you libs" or "you lefties" "believe this", "do this". Almost always with a huge degree of hypocrisy or straw man arguments (hence the you lefties believe this, because they can't debate the reality).

Again, I'm a moderate, all the animosity against the left doesn't really bother me, but it's telling how all they can do is attack the messenger/opposition.

Trump is a horrible joke. He is doing so many things wrong it doesn't begin to make up for the few things he is doing right.

I almost laughed out loud at the earlier statement about how this election was a rejection of the 1%. Like Trump isn't the 1% personified. But I guess the election of Trump proves how gullible so many people are.
NutAgain!

Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 24, 2017 - 04:33pm PT
Folks, do you really not care about policing abuses of power that more gravely threaten us than any foreign country can?

Corruption is corruption, regardless of who is committing it. Assume for the moment that Trump is the least guilty of blocking the media of any President in history, and it is only through his administration's heavy-handed approach that we can see the nefariousness. Assume your favorite other whipping boy or girl is more guilty. Redirection to past violators is a non-defense, a non-argument here. We can't fix the fact that Europeans came and slaughtered or imprisoned a continent full of indigenous people to make our country. We can't fix Bay of Pigs, Iran/Contra Affair, Watergate, deposing democratically elected leaders of other nations, Whitewater controversy, presidential affairs, etc.... We can act on the here and now according to what we believe is acceptable or unacceptable behavior for our government.

Focus! Where do you defenders/distractors/demurrers draw the line? I would like to better understand what sort of people I share this country with.
Messages 41 - 60 of total 263 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta