Donald Trump: We're going to 'open up' libel laws...

[Blade Wolf]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...el-laws-219866

And americans are fucking thinking about electing him?!

[Elegiac]

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-med...el-laws-219866

And americans are fucking thinking about electing him?!

Fun Fact: Most voters are not terribly educated or foresighted individuals.

[Kaleredar]

This sounds like Trump saying that news needs to be more politically correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Fun Fact: Most voters are not terribly educated or foresighted individuals.

I disagree. I think they are terribly educated and foresighted.


At least, Trump's ilk seem to be.

[Cybran]

Fun Fact: Most voters are not terribly educated or foresighted individuals.

So you don't mind oligarchies with tight control over media?

[Kaleredar]

So you don't mind oligarchies with tight control over media?

No, silly, we don't want to move to Russia.

[Deleted]

Fun Fact: Most voters are not terribly educated or foresighted individuals.

Keep telling yourself that.

Trump has rallied the "silent majority".

You ignored them for far too long mister Didactic.

[Elegiac]

So you don't mind oligarchies with tight control over media?

Can you actually read the OP next time before making bullshit comments like this?

Trump wants to expand libel laws to make it easier to sue people for ostensibly defamatory statements.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep telling yourself that.

Trump has rallied the "silent majority".

Cool story. The silent majorty are a bunch of utter morons.

You ignored them for far too long mister Didactic.

For good reason. I'm not interested in the opinions of the ignorant.

[taliey]

But but libel lawsuits violate the First Amendment!!!!!

[Boathouse]

Scary time we're living in...That's for sure.

[xChurch]

I do actually agree that you should be open to lawsuits if you're printing provably dishonest stories. Though the burden of proof should be high to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

[cuafpr]

not a fan per say but trump > hillary/bernie so if he gets the nod so be it.

[apeiron1234]

Can you actually read the OP next time before making bullshit comments like this?

Trump wants to expand libel laws to make it easier to sue people for ostensibly defamatory statements.

- - - Updated - - -



Cool story. The silent majorty are a bunch of utter morons.



For good reason. I'm not interested in the opinions of the ignorant.

You are ignorant.

Infracted for flaming

[Elegiac]

I do actually agree that you should be open to lawsuits if you're printing provably dishonest stories. Though the burden of proof should be high to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

The existing litmus test, i.e. "would a reasonable person believe this is true" is fine as is.

Because quite frankly, nobody is really hurt by Hustler printing that Jerry Falwell fucks his granny in the tool shed or whatnot.

[Deleted]

why ppl post about trump all the time , its not like he will be president

[Jayma]

Donald Trump made the race more fun and engaged more people in the election process, but this outcome wasn't worth it.

I'm now officially scared of what this man is capable of.

[Boathouse]

why ppl post about trump all the time , its not like he will be president

He probably will, but he'll be up for impeachment in under a month

[Vanyali]

"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative"

Sounds like a very....


...PC thought.

"So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead"

I am shocked that Trump sees sueing as "win money" rather than "fix problem" though. Really, really shocked to my absolute core.

[Cybran]

No, silly, we don't want to move to Russia.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...inton-pundits/

Here’s an example CNN’s disclosure approach in practice. On Feb. 17, during his daytime program, CNN lead political anchor Wolf Blitzer turned, as he often does, to the 2016 race. Hillary Clinton, noted Blitzer, was engaged in a tight race against Bernie Sanders, as polling indicated a “dead heat” in Nevada (which Clinton eventually won). The esteemed anchor introduced a pair of commentators to hash things out: “Let’s bring in our CNN political commentators, Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona, and Republican strategist, Tara Setmayer.”

The “Democratic strategist” contributed this comment when asked what had happened to Clinton’s vanishing lead in Nevada. It must be quoted in full:

I think what happened is we have a real primary on our hands. I’ve been saying from the beginning is actually great for the Democratic Party. Look, her campaign absolutely needs to focus on the fact that she needs to continue underscoring her message of lifting barriers for everybody, of making sure that this economy works for all communities of color. The speech she gave in Harlem yesterday was fantastic.

And those, I think, are the themes that will resonate in communities like Nevada, which has a lot of Latino voters there. Latinos have traditionally been backing her, and I think will continue to back her. And is she needs to continue to focus on this message of economic prosperity for everybody. That’s where I think she’ll start to get the younger voters and also focusing on how to it actually get things done as opposed to just talking about what everybody likes and sounds good. But how are you going to deliver for everyday Americans. That’s where I think her strength is.

It’s right there that Blitzer might have said, Viewers should know that you and your colleagues, Maria, have various financial ties to the Clinton campaign and groups seeking to assist it. Instead, Blitzer passed the baton on to Setmayer, and the context-deprived discussion continued.

The minimalist disclosure is ho-hum outrageous — which is to say that it’s an outrage made routine by prevailing TV industry practices. And even though CNN and others wouldn’t comment to Fang, there’s some on-the-record material in the history books. Eons ago in cable-news time, CNN launched a rebooted version of the old warhorse fight show “Crossfire,” anchored by the likes of Newt Gingrich, Stephanie Cutter, Van Jones and S.E. Cupp. The program covered a range of topics, and in so doing got itself in trouble. The nouveau “Crossfire,” for instance, welcomed Sen. Rand Paul as a guest — a guy to whom Gingrich had steered money. CNN issued this blog a statement over the matter:

Crossfire hosts have never been required to disclose their contributions regarding guests on the show because their political support and activism are there for all to see. It’s obvious they support liberals or conservatives.

Especially liberals or conservatives with whom they do business. Of course, it isn’t obvious. The very same networks that deploy commentators with stakes in their topics also bill themselves as independent voices. Without extensive and detailed disclosures, viewers may well assume that everything they hear is untainted by cash (unless, of course, they have the Erik Wemple Blog archive memorized).

The only thing that’s “obvious” is the inability of CNN and its competitors to distance themselves from Beltway green. The networks want to fill their airtime with players — people who have been on the inside of campaigns, who have racked up countless TV appearances, who continue to receive whispers from other players in Washington. Just so happens that these players make a living in ways that strip the independence and objectivity out of everything they say on air. No wonder news outlets are hesitant to make all necessary disclosures.

Because american media isn't corrupt to the core and it doesn't favor Hillary? Are you for serious?

[Elegiac]

"I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative"

Sounds like a very....


...PC thought.

"So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead"

I am shocked that Trump sees sueing as "win money" rather than "fix problem" though. Really, really shocked to my absolute core.

American culture has a ridiculously unhealthy obsession with profit; why is this surprising?

[Knaar]

The more news regarding Trump i read, the more i want him to win, just so i can enjoy a brand new kind of Reality-TV show where it's actually real reality and not scripted stuff :')
And i need more pop-corn, now that i think about it.