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

[Felya]

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."

They are... they are a check on authority. It’s why people like “executive order” Trump hate them so much and would rather you were distracted with gay frogs or social Marxism. After all... if you look the other way, nothing happened.

[Kiri]

I don’t disagree with you. I always check a story first presented to me by Fox. The same with CNN. You can goto Fox right now and find nonsense stories.

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.

In the end, the slanted news that you consider opinion portrayed as news is simply a product of technological advance and readership behaviour. There is a whole field of economic research into media bias, which I cannot truly portray well enough in a brief post. However, just to give an indication what kind of facets there are to the issue, I will just list some neutrally.

- Through technological advance, news has become much faster and 24/7. That means news agencies need to report on developing stories much faster in order to beat the rush and capture viewers, which substantially increases the risk of errors etc. It is usually better to just rush out a story and get your clicks quick while later apologizing, than thoroughly researching it first, then presenting it. Consumers demand their news asap, so they get the news asap.

- With the internet, news has become incredibly available at low cost. Heck, most of us get all our news basically for free. But what means that fewer and fewer people subscribe to anything that costs money. So, news agencies turn towards ad revenue or are supported by wealthy donors. The latter obviously introduce bias. The former means that you need to get those clicks, so baiting them is more important than actually reporting properly. Hence clickbait.

- Technological advance has also made starting up a news outlet very cheap, especially internet-based ones. Heck, a lot of so-called news sites just re-package news that is already broken with commentary. But even discarding those, there are so, so many sources compared to a few decades ago on a national level. A lot of competition means that many, basically following hotelling models, try to carve out their little segment of the market. In news media, this is relatively easily controlled via introducing slant or bias. People simply like reading news that re-affirms pre-existing notions. That is just human nature. That's why Fox news is not even trying to compete for the viewership of CNN. They rather double-down on catering to their own base than trying to strike a compromise. Vice-versa as well.

If I was to tie this up with a little short thesis of my own, I would posit the following: the media bias in the US might be as strong as it is because there is not enough will to pay for unbiased news. Instead, there is a huge hunger for sensational, bias-affirming and free news. That's what the is in demand. So, the market supplies.

[Edge-]

I wasn't aware they were entitled to be considered friends of the people.

They aren't, and nobody has ever said that should be the case. They're there to do a job. They're there to report news. Calling them "the enemy of the people" is an overt attack against the press that's straight outta, "Authoritarianism for Dummies", chapter 2.

Should we hold Mr. Stelter or Accosta as friendly?

People can think whatever they want of them, and I'm not sure what relevance they have to Trump's frequently blanket attacks against the press.

It seems you are still pushing for "They must be given some form of reverence."

Nope. I'm just pushing for the POTUS to not attack a free press because they report critically on him when he says or does dumb shit.

[Draco-Onis]

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."

So you don't understand what enemy of the people means, I am pretty sure you are smart enough to know what it infers and are just playing dumb. The president can very well dispute or fight with the press several presidents have done so very effectively without the hyperbole.

[Dug]

First, De-humanization is my right, I owe nobody some form of respect, especially when, in my view, they've shown themselves to be nakedly hostile to me. They are not entitled to my love, admiration or respect. Nor anyone else's. I am against violence towards them generally speaking, but don't have any sympathy for them when it happens, as they clearly have none for me as they've called for violence with impunity against persons like me. So as a general rule, I don't consider there to be a compelling reason to care for them.

The quote in question

I'm more curious what MSM are calling for violence against middle class white women from California like you inferred in the other thread. Or is is this the vague "violence" of diversity = white genocide?

[Theodarzna]

So you don't understand what enemy of the people means, I am pretty sure you are smart enough to know what it infers and are just playing dumb. The president can very well dispute or fight with the press several presidents have done so very effectively without the hyperbole.

I understand its meaning can mean two things:

Broadly it could mean all people, or narrowly it can mean the people he speaks to or support him. Neither of which any press institution or institutions are entitled to be shielded from being called bad.

[Draco-Onis]

I understand its meaning can mean two things:

Broadly it could mean all people, or narrowly it can mean the people he speaks to or support him. Neither of which any press institution or institutions are entitled to be shielded from being called bad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Isn't it tiresome twisting yourself in pretzel defending the indefensible?

[Theodarzna]

They aren't, and nobody has ever said that should be the case. They're there to do a job. They're there to report news. Calling them "the enemy of the people" is an overt attack against the press that's straight outta, "Authoritarianism for Dummies", chapter 2.

People can think whatever they want of them, and I'm not sure what relevance they have to Trump's frequently blanket attacks against the press.

Nope. I'm just pushing for the POTUS to not attack a free press because they report critically on him when he says or does dumb shit.

I don't see how CNN, NYT or any other organization is entitled to a chummy or friendly relationship with the POTUS. I don't recall that ever being mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Trump hasn't shut them down, busted in with guns and rounded them up. He calls them douchebags and regaurds them with malic and disdain. Which is again, not fundementally against the Bill of Rights nor impeding the Presses ability to operate.

[NED funded]

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.

Holy shit you aren't kidding.

Nor anyone else's. I am against violence towards them generally speaking, but don't have any sympathy for them when it happens, as they clearly have none for me as they've called for violence with impunity against persons like me

This is some next level LARPING.

[Theodarzna]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_of_the_people

Isn't it tiresome twisting yourself in pretzel defending the indefensible?

Isn't it tiresome screaming over nothing? The term enemy of the people is a designation for the political or class opponents of the subgroup in power within a larger group. The term implies that by opposing the ruling subgroup, the "enemies" in question are acting against the larger group, for example against society as a whole. As per your link. Considering the whole Covington thing, I think it'd be fair to say at the least their is some hostility between a lot of Trumps traditional base and the press whom has considerably more power than them, and a very malicious intent towards them.

[Draco-Onis]

Isn't it tiresome screaming over nothing? The term enemy of the people is a designation for the political or class opponents of the subgroup in power within a larger group. The term implies that by opposing the ruling subgroup, the "enemies" in question are acting against the larger group, for example against society as a whole. As per your link. Considering the whole Covington thing, I think it'd be fair to say at the least their is some hostility between a lot of Trumps traditional base and the press whom has considerably more power than them, and a very malicious intent towards them.

Ok good now read the rest of it and post again.

[Theodarzna]

Holy shit you aren't kidding.



This is some next level LARPING.

lol I never mentioned my kid, curious shit you guys spin to avoid a conversation.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok good now read the rest up of it and post again.

Not worth it since you're kvetching over imaginary things. Freedom of the Press isn't contingent on a Politician regarding them as friends or even holding them in high regard. Trump hasn't busted in and shut them down, that is what it means.

[Draco-Onis]

Not worth it since you're kvetching over imaginary things. Freedom of the Press isn't contingent on a Politician regarding them as friends or even holding them in high regard. Trump hasn't busted in and shut them down, that is what it means.

Again I am going to state the obvious it is very easy to critique the press several presidents before Trump have done it without crossing the line where you are riling your base to send them bombs and attack them at your rallies.

[Dug]

lol I never mentioned my kid, curious shit you guys spin to avoid a conversation.

Just getting ahead of it since you always find a way to cram it into the conversation eventually.

Also, word of the month: "kvetching"

[Theodarzna]

Again I am going to state the obvious it is very easy to critique the press several presidents before Trump have done it without crossing the line where you are riling your base to send them bombs and attack them at your rallies.

At no point in the Bill of Rights does it prescribe how one is to regard the press or relate to it.

There is no line other than don't bust in with the feds and shut it down.

[Draco-Onis]

At no point in the Bill of Rights does it prescribe how one is to regard the press or relate to it.

So you think it's fine for the president of the United States to call for removing broadcasting rights of news institutions he doesn't agree with?

[Edge-]

I don't see how CNN, NYT or any other organization is entitled to a chummy or friendly relationship with the POTUS.

They're not, and nobody is saying they are. But that's not the only other position to take. You can treat them professionally and respectfully while remaining critical of coverage you dislike. Just as every other president has done. Did you ever see Obama call Fox "the enemy of the people"? No, he was critical of their coverage without attacking them and still even sat down for interviews with them. Just as Trump does with the press he attacks.

Trump hasn't shut them down, busted in with guns and rounded them up. He calls them douchebags and regaurds them with malic and disdain.

If he did that specifically that would still be wildly unprofessional and out of pocket, but he hasn't. Nobody is saying he done any of these other things, but that's a nice strawman you've built there.

[Polyxo]

When it's through an official, government source, definitely.

[Theodarzna]

So you think it's fine for the president of the United States to call for removing broadcasting rights of news institutions he doesn't agree with?

The goalpost sure shifted.

The FCC already pointed out Trump can't do that. Which is now a new topic from him saying so and so is an enemy of so and so. I'd agree he shouldn't call for that, both because he can't do that anyway and its calling for something that would be illegal for him to do.

[Draco-Onis]

The goalpost sure shifted.

The FCC already pointed out Trump can't do that. Which is now a new topic from him saying so and so is an enemy of so and so. I'd agree he shouldn't call for that, both because he can't do that anyway and its calling for something that would be illegal for him to do.

So you agree Trump is attacking freedom of the press and the law is preventing him from acting on his impulses.