Is Calling CNN 'Fake News' an assault on Freedom of the Press?

[Theodarzna]

We are told these days that journalism is under assault, the freedom of the press is in danger in the Trump era. This is invariably because Trump sows mistrust and speaks ill of various press organizations. Often calling institutions like CNN and the NYT's 'Fake News'.

But is this a fair representation? Is this accurate or is this hyperbolic and perhaps even insane in what it implies? The answer is yes as lying beneath that line of thinking is a rather odd and maybe dangerous set of beliefs. Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the principle that communication and expression through various media, including printed and electronic media, especially published materials, should be considered a right to be exercised freely. For Americans this is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

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.

Rolled in with Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Religion is the Freedom of the press. However is telling ones, political followers, to be distrustful of some journalists, to doubt the intentions and objectivity of journalists a violation of this principle? The media institutions in questions are not entitled admiration or even trust from the masses. Nowhere in Freedom of the Press is an implication nor mandate for reverence for any particular media organization. That is the point of them being non-state enterprises. There is no mandate to respect them. Much as there is no mandate to respect and champion a protest movement simply for being a protest movement or a religion for being a religion.

Would anyone on this forum seriously consider disliking say an organized religion as an assault on Freedom of Religion? Is Bill Maher's 2008 film Religulous an assault on the freedom of religion? I mean nobody in this forum is going to seriously argue that dedicated atheists can't hate churches and mock and insult them. Nowhere in the First Amendment is there a compulsion for reverence for any specific media institution. Yet now, we must treat the NYT's or CNN as some sacred cow, whose people must be given reverential faith and trust. As if the fact that a sitting president or even masses of Americans don't consider Brian Stelter or Racheal Maddow the voice of gospel truth is an assault on the freedom of the press. Nowhere does it imply a chummy relationship between any specific media organization, or any specific journalist, and any given politician or the public. It is especially laughable when such people making such claims would never have that same attitude about religion and religious institutions. To do so would essentially forbid say Bill Maher from the presidency, or really anyone who's ever posted on r/Atheism.

The implications buried under this kvetching is rather alarming. That Brian Stelter, or Jim Accosta not only have a right to operate without being imprisoned for what they report (Given Wikileaks treatment though, even this isn't true but it should be true), but that these figures have a right to be revered, an entitlement to your reverence and respect. That they are entitled to a chummy relationship with politicians and the revential respect of the masses is a bridge too far and I'd hope anyone could see that as nakedly preposterous.

[Felya]

News does not require faith...

[Cthulhu 2020]

Maybe when our president isn't lowkey calling for organized attacks on our news agencies I'll have some sympathy for Theo's anti-left whinging. No president has ever called for outright attacks on our religious institutions. No president has made attack on Christianity a central theme of their campaign.

Come back and whine again when the next president is calling for the dismantling of religion in America. I'll be waiting.

[Theodarzna]

There is a distinct difference between misleading, spun, and straight out lies. Calling CNN fake news sticks because they have been caught multiple times pushing non-stories, underreporting, and only showing a single side of an obvious two sided story. However, CNN is not "Fake News" and they aren't like brietbart who has a very clear agenda. Even Fox News I still consider news, but I can regonize when some dolt talking head is pushing an agenda and when a news caster reports a story.

You can say contest it being fair as characterization, but is it an existential attack on the concept of Freedom of the Press to question anyone institution?

[Felya]

You can say contest it being fair as characterization, but is it an existential attack on the concept of Freedom of the Press to question anyone institution?

You are conflating religion, with the journalism, implying you don’t understand either. The president of the US attacking the press, is not the same as Bill Maher’s movie.

- - - Updated - - -

No.

And particularly when the organization is similar to CNN and becomes partisan and openly antagonistic. They no longer deserve or receive the aura of nobility or informative. I’m
Not saying CNN is fake news, just that they’re an embarrassment to traditional journalism. They’ve become an opinion network, not a news network.

You mean like Fox News? Are you honestly asking what happens when Fox News comes to be? I the real world, the reason Fox News steamrolled all other networks (according to Forbes) is because they switched to a mostly talk radio format on TV. Before Fox News, the only relevant TV show politician was Larry King. Fox doesn’t even hide it, but used it in marketing.

[Dontrike]

No.

And particularly when the organization is similar to CNN and becomes partisan and openly antagonistic. They no longer deserve or receive the aura of nobility or informative. I’m
Not saying CNN is fake news, just that they’re an embarrassment to traditional journalism. They’ve become an opinion network, not a news network.

Are you describing CNN or Fox News, 'cause it sounds like the later.

[Felya]

Come back and whine again when the next president is calling for the dismantling of religion in America. I'll be waiting.

I think this is spot on. It’s like we have to remind people that Trump is the president of the US. Yes, if Bill Maher was the president of the US and had a movie about attacking religion, it would be the same problem. The difference in the OP, is simply that Trump is president and Bill Maher is a comedian. It’s why at the corespondents dinner, when a liberal comedian attacked the press for making a fortune on Trump drama, no one claimed her attack was on freedom of press.

[Grapemask]

Telling people to be more mindful of their news is one thing. Your highest leaders falsely stating that your news media is fake is another altogether. Let's not drift into disingenuous horse shit.

[Felya]

There is a distinct difference between misleading, spun, and straight out lies. Calling CNN fake news sticks because they have been caught multiple times pushing non-stories, underreporting, and only showing a single side of an obvious two sided story. However, CNN is not "Fake News" and they aren't like brietbart who has a very clear agenda. Even Fox News I still consider news, but I can regonize when some dolt talking head is pushing an agenda and when a news caster reports a story.

Let me rephrase the OP...

Why didn’t Bill Maher get in trouble for making an anti religion movie attacking freedom of religion, just like Michelle Wolfe didn’t get in trouble for attacking freedom of press during a correspondent dinner? Because both are comedians without any authority. It’s just talking, without any authority.

It’s an issue when you add Trump to the mix, because it does change it. Not because Trump is a conservative, but a person with authority to impact laws saying it, is extremely different than a comedian. Just because people think Trump is a joke, his use of executive orders to back his bullshit, sure as hell isn’t. A climate change denier that’s a comedian, cannot appoint a climate change denier as the head of EPA. That’s the difference...

- - - Updated - - -

I do think what Trump is doing is dangerous, however I also think that the press, as it has become, has earned the criticism.

I’m with Michelle Wolfe... the press is reporting just enough click bait to profit off Trump’s insanity, but doesn’t focus on the less sexy shit he is doing. It’s why there is never focus on the story beyond the next one hitting. Trump being so vocal against the media, people are missing the relationship. How are MSM ratings under Trump vs Obama? How about Bush vs Obama? It’s a symbiotic relationship, with our biases/ADD blocking us from seeing them suck each other’s jaggons....

[Dug]

It's one thing to call news media "Fake news" and it's a whole other thing to call them "enemy of the people". But you know this.

[Edge-]

No, but repeatedly calling them "The enemy of the people" is.

[NED funded]

Enemy of the people is the problematic part. The mental gymnastics to justify Trump are amazing on this one.

[Dug]

Oh brother in another thread you're on your momma bear war path again with "they're threatening me and muh child". Give it a rest already Theo we get it.

[Grapemask]

No, but repeatedly calling them "The enemy of the people" is.

Even this I'd say is letting the envelope be pushed too far. The accusations are becoming progressively worse, and we normalize the last as Dear Leader unveils a new one. Maybe a year from now, we'll be saying "No, but telling people to slug journalists is." This whole thing is a slippery slope fallacy made real and we're already a mile down the hill.

[Felya]

That is pretty much why I am of two minds on this.

It is harming the "Fourth Estate", on the other hand the "Fourth Estate" has become worthy of being "harmed". I tend to stay clear of commercial MSM in the US, and mainly consume NPR/PBS/BBC, etc. And even that at times is biased.

That’s the thing... regardless of how credible MSM is, you should seek out other point of views. It shouldn’t be that Trump hating MSM, defining MSM as against Trump, thus should be trusted/distrusted. There shouldn’t be a paradigm where you stick to one source. But, that’s also a catch 22... are you searching a different perspective or are you searching for something to confirm it. Because both exist on the internet and both look very similar... usually carried on the same platform...

[Felya]

I’m fine with opinion. I just dislike when opinion is portrayed as news. Jim Acosta made the story about him and took on the role of a pundit. Hannity doesn’t call himself a news program. Or if he’s dumb enough to do so, normal people make a distinction between him and Shepherd Smith. I’m just asking people apply the same scorn given to Fox to other outlets that are just as opinion driven.

I think they do, it just comes from a different direction. I don’t really see people get as defensive over the concept of CNN, as they do of the concept of Fox News. Mathematically speaking, due to Fox News rating dominance, it’s not possible for most Fox News viewers, to view any alternative. MSNBC had a record breaking ratings year, yet were still steam rolled by Fox News. I don’t think CNN viewers mater... they seem to get more traction online, than in the ratings.

[Felya]

That poor kid.

Has the devil put a spell on him? Galileo? Ha! That queen movie must be coming to DVD soon. Fucking advertising...

This is on topic... FYI... it’s not subliminal...

- - - Updated - - -

I'm looking for something that states the facts and lets me decide if it's good or bad. Or to use the old fashioned 4 w's "Who, What, Where, Why" (and sometimes How) That I was taught in school. The issue is that the news now has become "if it bleeds it leads" because of the mentioned "click bait".

Yeah, but when everyone is talking about the story that just hit around the water cooler, are you going to be the guy on the side line that resists instant gratification? Now... put it in context of someone dropping a thread on the story here or any social media.

[Orbitus]

No.

And particularly when the organization is similar to CNN and becomes partisan and openly antagonistic. They no longer deserve or receive the aura of nobility or informative. I’m
Not saying CNN is fake news, just that they’re an embarrassment to traditional journalism. They’ve become an opinion network, not a news network.

So what do you call any news source right of say the Hill? That includes Fox News and everyone to the right of them. Because those are worse than CNN.

[Felya]

Even this I'd say is letting the envelope be pushed too far. The accusations are becoming progressively worse, and we normalize the last as Dear Leader unveils a new one. Maybe a year from now, we'll be saying "No, but telling people to slug journalists is." This whole thing is a slippery slope fallacy made real and we're already a mile down the hill.

The problem is that people don’t understand that the way to declaw journalism, is transparency. You don’t have to scream they are fake news or enemy of the state, if the state is transparent. It shouldn’t be a wonder, that the least transparent White House in likely all of history, has to attack the media constantly. Transparency and media scrutiny don’t mix...

- - - Updated - - -

I tend to stay clear of watercoolers, mostly because I don't really care about social chitchat.

I’ve experienced both sides of that, from the perspective of being the one to gather everyone for a smoke break. Yeah, I even grabbed none smokers... because, wtf? Why do smokers get breaks? Plus some of them were cool and some smokers were assholes... to working strictly from home. You get a lot farther ahead if you are “the man” at the water cooler.

Edit: My nick name at that job was Jewish grandmother. ‘Course I fucking cared that everyone was alright. It fucking beats being called Ronald McDonald, because your hair got dyed bright red... I liked green more anyway. Oh hair... I miss you so much...

[Theodarzna]

No, but repeatedly calling them "The enemy of the people" is.

I wasn't aware they were entitled to be considered friends of the people. Should we hold Mr. Stelter or Accosta as friendly? It seems you are still pushing for "They must be given some form of reverence."