Trump threatens to shut down networks who criticize him by Threedog Started on : 10-11-2017 01:01 PM Replies : 0 (6 views) Last post by : Threedog on 10-11-2017 01:01 PM
He said no such thing. I am calling you a liar. There is no reason to be inciteful. Here are his actual words...
quote
Donald J. Trump Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!
6:55 AM · Oct 11, 2017 11,416 Retweets 45,703 Likes
Edit: "Freedom of the press is essential to this country."
I wholeheartedly agree.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 10-11-2017).]
So tony, what does his tweet mean then? “At what point is it appropriate to challenge their licenses?” What is the point of tweeting that statement?
The point that they knowingly broadcast fake news and do it repeatedly with collusion between the leftist run news organizations. You libs have a cow when you think some rich dudes are price fixing to screw you.
Hearing a lot of squawking about the 1st amendment . Funny stuff, like that is going to save them. The first does not save you from the consequences of spouting horse poo. They are licensed and regulated by the federal government. They can lose that license for any number of reasons.
To use the FCC public airwaves through the permission of a broadcast license, you cannot use it for illegal purposes.
Don't know if deliberately and knowingly to lie and broadcast fake news under the guise of manipulating the public as "real" news is illegal or not. But good for Trump to call out the snakes on it.
So tony, what does his tweet mean then? “At what point is it appropriate to challenge their licenses?” What is the point of tweeting that statement?
How can I know his thoughts? You changed our President's wording. I believe that you purposefully did that to incite this forum. Falsely quoting a sitting President to seek out a reaction from us.
I am going to ask you nicely to refer to me by my name. I am not lower cased.
Edit: Listen here, if you cannot address me properly from here on out, then I will address you accordingly. I do not mind name calling, but you will not disrespect my given name. I have worked very hard to be me, post under no false pretenses, can be followed around on the net easily, and have no legal bounds. Unlike you "Brad", I have earned the use of this name and will not be moved. I have understanding that you do not recognize these words, but that does not make them any less for me or mine.
Could you answer the one question asked earlier about what you believe my intelligence to be? It would really set the tone for our further interaction.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 10-11-2017).]
The point that they knowingly broadcast fake news and do it repeatedly with collusion between the leftist run news organizations. You libs have a cow when you think some rich dudes are price fixing to screw you.
Hearing a lot of squawking about the 1st amendment . Funny stuff, like that is going to save them. The first does not save you from the consequences of spouting horse poo. They are licensed and regulated by the federal government. They can lose that license for any number of reasons.
As you are the only one that actually responded to my question, I'll respond.
The first amendment actually does protect against "spouting horse poo". The federal government can not punish a private organization for publishing information that it disagrees with. Now he can tell his supporters and the American people that they should not watch it, but he can not threaten to revoke their licenses because they are critical of him.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 10-11-2017).]
As you are the only one that actually responded to my question, I'll respond.
The first amendment actually does protect against "spouting horse poo". The federal government can not punish a private organization for publishing information that it disagrees with. Now he can tell his supporters and the American people that they should not watch it, but he can not threaten to revoke their licenses because they are critical of him.
No, it most certainly does not, that is just one of the reasons liable suits against news papers and TV are successful. Plus, "he" is doing nothing but saying that it be looked into. Somebody else or other department that over sees the license will be taking it away, fining, or suspending their broadcast license.
Please advise me on what is unconstitutional about this tweet. I'll even agree with your second sentence but, I do not agree that we have a Constitutional crisis. The press puts it's own "spin" on every news story that comes out. It is very obvious that the press (to include the major networks) mostly lean left and therefore we get a huge amount of slanted news. Add to that the fact that most news sources are protected and un-named, and it really becomes an untrustworthy media.
Do I think President Trump can or will do anything, NO. I don't even think anything should be done with the exception of changing to better sources of factual information that isn't slanted. I doubt there is a source that isn't biased one way or another but, there are definitely way more left leaning media outlets than right. Both need to be taken with train loads of salt.
Additionally, NBC (who this seems to target) is not licensed by the FCC, television broadcast stations have licenses. They (the stations) carry the programing that the major and minor networks put out there so, NBC has nothing to worry about.
This is more about Democrats/Liberals getting a chance to knock President Trump with a very willing press and network that for the most part, lean way left. Get over yourselves already.
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
I sincerely hope that life is never discovered on another planet because, sure as hell Progressives and Socialists will want to send them money.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-11-2017).]
Since it is the actual stations that get regulated by the FCC, I don't think that President Trump can actually follow through on this. Although I do like the sentiment of somehow punishing the continuous lies of the left leaning news organizations. I think the punishment can be done through popularity of the news media which when they are caught lying all the time, they should be called out on it. And I think that the public will respond by not watching/listening to them.
As an example: CNN and others have been pushing the Russia Gate thing ever since the election. There is and never has been anything to it. They are not very well respected now because of it and I believe it has hurt their ratings. Along with that, most of the public does not believe them and now even if President Trump does do something really bad, most people would ignore the left and their compatriots at CNN and other left news sources. The left is sealing their own demise with all of this fake news.
We have to be very careful with this "shut 'em down" thinking.
It's too much like some of the right wingers who want to make flag burning illegal.
Besides being WRONG, any attempt at censorship will come right around and bite us in the ass. We're developing some equality in the media now, what with the internet to counter the old stream guys. The last thing we need to do is look like .......................................... .............................................................NAZIS.
How about we just beat the sh*t out of them on the battlefield of ideas?
Id like all those news organizations to stay in business. Only the liberals believe all the garbage they make up...rest of the world just laughs at all of them. I need the humor everyday myself. Everyone should have the right to have open laughter every day. I get more laughs on NBC news daily than any episode of Saturday Nite Live in the last 10 years.
About the only thing the White House could do would be to take NBC to court under a civil suit for either slander or libel depending on what media they use. If the White House does file suit and NBC loses, it wouldn't look good for them. Of course, if that happened, the media would likely bury that story to avoid embarrassment. However, the other networks could also jump on a story like that to help eliminate their competition. If Trump feels so strongly that NBC is reporting lies, then maybe he should sue to put those accusations to the test and see who comes out ahead afterwards. If Trump is right, shame on NBC. If NBC is right, shame on Trump. I see it like this, the media is in tight competition for ratings with every other network. If they report a few things that are "less-than-accurate" it still gets them the ratings they're after and they can print a retraction later if they have to. The media has stopped being the people who report the news and become the people who make the news to report. Most, if not all, of the cable news networks have some kind of spin or manipulation on the majority of their political reports. Just take them with a grain of salt and do your own research.
Look, I know we have an idiot problem in this country that is fed by the left wing media but the very idea of the government monitoring the news makes me queasy.
Another post from a "claimed" teacher, that can not even understand simple words.. News Flash 3 hog. The free press only goes as far , as reporting the news correctly and honestly, with facts to back up the story.. It does not protect them from editing video or cutting a statement to change it's context.. nor does it protected them from making up crap as they go..
YOUR POST IS FAKE NEWS.
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 10-12-2017).]
The free press only goes as far , as reporting the news correctly and honestly, with facts to back up the story.. It does not protect them from editing video or cutting a statement to change it's context.. nor does it protected them from making up crap as they go..
How do you figure that?
Other than printing something that actually HARMS another human being, isn't that what "Free Press" means?
Other than printing something that actually HARMS another human being, isn't that what "Free Press" means?
Go slow in your response. I am NOT the enemy.
slander.. most of what they pull is slander.. They have got away with it for a long time, It might be time for them to have to pay for their lies, editing a statement to get the context to fit What they want to the story to be.. is slander. editing a video to show context that isn't the truth of what happened is slander.. starting a video midway through a statement to change the statements context is slander.. This is the news, not a fiction novel.. They don't get to make up the story, The news should be fact driven. not we hate this side so we can demonize them and make stuff up..
slander.. most of what they pull is slander.. They have got away with it for a long time, It might be time for them to have to pay for their lies, editing a statement to get the context to fit What they want to the story to be.. is slander. editing a video to show context that isn't the truth of what happened is slander.. starting a video midway through a statement to change the statements context is slander.. This is the news, not a fiction novel.. They don't get to make up the story, The news should be fact driven. not we hate this side so we can demonize them and make stuff up..
So, only liberals slander? Only liberals lie about things?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Some cases are easy to show harm, others, as int he case of Mr. Trump, are not.
Slander is the making of defamatory statements in a spoken representation. Hard to prosecute that what with the whole 1st amendment thing.
Libel is the making of defamatory statements in a printed medium. However, if the statement is in say, an editorial, it can be viewed as an opinion and NOT open to prosecution.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. Just trying to point out that this is not the black and white issue as some would have it.
Again, let's leave the media monitoring to Tin Pot dictators and continue to stand on the bedrock of the Constitution.
Let everyone have their say and let everyone else sort out what they've said.
From day 1 in this country, the press has had free rein to say/print/distribute what it wants in regards to the federal govt..and any other level of govt for that matter, and they have done so with wild abandon for 200+ years. It is fully and simply up to the reader to possess the intelligence and acumen to be able to separate the journalistic wheat from the chaff.
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Some cases are easy to show harm, others, as int he case of Mr. Trump, are not.
Slander is the making of defamatory statements in a spoken representation. Hard to prosecute that what with the whole 1st amendment thing.
Libel is the making of defamatory statements in a printed medium. However, if the statement is in say, an editorial, it can be viewed as an opinion and NOT open to prosecution.
I'm playing devil's advocate here. Just trying to point out that this is not the black and white issue as some would have it.
Again, let's leave the media monitoring to Tin Pot dictators and continue to stand on the bedrock of the Constitution.
Let everyone have their say and let everyone else sort out what they've said.
Couldn't have said it better myself Ray.
I totally understand disagreeing on issues, I totally understand when people here disagree with my views. However, threatening to investigate news sources because they are "fake news" is crossing a line. No president is constitutionally allowed to go after a network because they don't like what they are publishing.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane:
From day 1 in this country, the press has had free rein to say/print/distribute what it wants in regards to the federal govt..and any other level of govt for that matter, and they have done so with wild abandon for 200+ years. It is fully and simply up to the reader to possess the intelligence and acumen to be able to separate the journalistic wheat from the chaff.
Its an essential foundation of our truly messed up democracy(lol). Well said.
[This message has been edited by Threedog (edited 10-12-2017).]
When this and other related issues arise, I'm reminded of a quaote sometimes attributed to Justice Scalia:
quote
“If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy-bearded weirdo who burns the American flag.....“But I am not king.”
Courts have long held, that members of all three branches do have a right to state their private opinions on any given subject, and only when they act upon those opinions in an overt manner does it fall into constitutional scrutiny regarding the "Congress shall make no law.." thing. (Congress historically meaning any branch of govt local thru federal, due to the power sharing clause) Now, does the fact that Trump saying what he did equal an "act"? I don't think so. Certainly no worse than a political donor of significant means publicly threatening to cut off donations to congressional members if they don't initiate impeachment hearings, but financial supporters of either side have long tried to influence congress with the almighty dollar.
Biggest 'problem' nowadays across all spectrum is the seemingly endless gullibility of the North American reader. I see it here at PFF on at least a weekly basis from all sides. I often wonder if those few really believe the rest of the reading public believes a single thing they write or type any more and if they think everyone else is as incredibly stupid and ignorant as they themselves are.
Also part of why I tried to draw attention to the entities that do act.
Would that include the exaggeration exposed in the thread title?
------------------ Ron
Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun.... Open your frigg'n minds, think about all the other tools that can be made into WMDs.
I sincerely hope that life is never discovered on another planet because, sure as hell Progressives and Socialists will want to send them money.
So hows about some treason, sedition, colluding, covering up felony's which of course for you and I would mean charges for being an accomplice or at least an obstruction charge. One would think this would be enough to pull a license........
Come on guys, this has gone far far beyond getting a story or two wrong here and there and as recent actions from Al Gore's losing tantrum to the travel ban rulings prove a court response is likely not the solution.
So hows about some treason, sedition, colluding, covering up felony's which of course for you and I would mean charges for being an accomplice or at least an obstruction charge. One would think this would be enough to pull a license........
Come on guys, this has gone far far beyond getting a story or two wrong here and there and as recent actions from Al Gore's losing tantrum to the travel ban rulings prove a court response is likely not the solution.
NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox nor any of the other media conglomerates have FCC licenses. Local broadcasting stations do. President Trump was ranting in his public tweet. He needs to cool his heels IMHO with the tweeter. But, just as it is Dog's right to exaggerate in his thread title, President Trump can tweet his thoughts.
Doubt there's anyway to stop it. NBC is fighting back and being very careful in how they state their "facts" now. They'll still spin the story as they can and have done so many times in the past.
NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox nor any of the other media conglomerates have FCC licenses. Local broadcasting stations do. President Trump was ranting in his public tweet. He needs to cool his heels IMHO with the tweeter. But, just as it is Dog's right to exaggerate in his thread title, President Trump can tweet his thoughts.
Doubt there's anyway to stop it. NBC is fighting back and being very careful in how they state their "facts" now. They'll still spin the story as they can and have done so many times in the past.
So, are you saying that "local stations" that contract time and wear the badge of these entities have no legal responsibility for the content? Too big to fail maybe?
I am not trying to come off confrontational, right up front, I am not a lawyer or trying (like some) to portray extraordinary knowledge on how this works. This should be of great concern to every dammed citizen, political party preference should not enter into it. Sickening that it does and most certainly why it is ignored or dismissed..
So, are you saying that "local stations" that contract time and wear the badge of these entities have no legal responsibility for the content? Too big to fail maybe?
I am not trying to come off confrontational, right up front, I am not a lawyer or trying (like some) to portray extraordinary knowledge on how this works. This should be of great concern to every dammed citizen, political party preference should not enter into it. Sickening that it does and most certainly why it is ignored or dismissed..
No, all I'm saying is that President Trump can't do anything except complain about what NBC says unless he choses to take them on in civil court. NBC does not have an FCC license. I am also not a lawyer nor am I a legal mind though I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
I also agree that everyone should be concerned about the truth being told and not spun. But, I also doubt any organization is going to be totally factual and leave it at that. Headlines draw viewers, sponsors like viewers and sponsors pay big money to have their name out there. The bigger the headline, the greater number of viewers.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-12-2017).]
I'm not sure the FCC concerns itself with distortion of news, or inaccuracies. Do they?
There are rules to remain within FCC compliance and remain a member or licensee in good standing but, I don't pretend to be an expert. I think a person needs to stay at a Super 8 to possess that knowledge.
There are rules to remain within FCC compliance and remain a member or licensee in good standing but, I don't pretend to be an expert. I think a person needs to stay at a Super 8 to possess that knowledge.
All I'll say is, Google is your friend.
There are rules, what they are is the detail. I looked at their page for a short time, couldn't quickly determine it. Someone with more time or cares more can check if they feel the need.
"the FCC responded to most of these complaints to explain that social media and non-broadcast cable news do not fall under its jurisdiction. In some cases, the complainants were pointed in the direction of the Federal Trade Commission, or a state consumer-protection agency. "
So maybe actual broadcast news does fall under that jurisdiction. Does that mean just news that hits those airwaves, or is put out by the same company , but on the web? Does it have to slander or just be inaccurate? Does the retraction have to be big and noticable? etc
Since you said "NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox nor any of the other media conglomerates have FCC licenses. Local broadcasting stations do." That probably doesn't leave a lot?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-12-2017).]
I have come to understanding that most liberals are soul destroying narcissist. You know damn well libel and slander are not protected as free speech. However you will continue to twist and contort the truth in true narcissist fashion. God have mercy on your students.
This is not slander?
Or this?
