Media: it's our job to control what people think

[rogue06]

Obama regularly shunned conservative news organizations. Where were your howls of outrage then?

As I posted a week or so ago:

Liberals for the most part ignored how poorly Obama treated the press and the press itself largely smiled and masochistically took what he handed out because he was the Obamessiah and most of it was directed toward conservatives.

Source: WHY IT'LL BE HARD FOR TRUMP TO SURPASS OBAMA'S RECORD OF CHILLING PRESS FREEDOM

‘Folks like Rush Limbaugh, some commentators on Fox News, that hot house ... has been harmful to the country’


Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponent," insisting, "we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

The Obama administration made good on that threat. Soon thereafter, the administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shopping" until he found one willing to grant such a warrant without telling Rosen himself. Holder even told Google to not notify Rosen that the government was monitoring his email.

"To treat a reporter as a criminal for doing his job — seeking out information the government doesn’t want made public — deprives Americans of the First Amendment freedom on which all other constitutional rights are based," the Washington Post wrote at the time.

And it wasn't just Fox News. The New York Times's James Risen was targeted for almost the entirety of Obama's two terms. His crime? Reporting accurate information the Obama Administration didn't want reported. "Along the way, we found out that the government had spied on virtually every aspect of James Risen’s digital life from phone calls, to emails, to credit card statements, bank records and more," the Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.

With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Now imagine if Trump started tracking a bunch of reporters phone calls, not because they were publishing classified information, but merely because they had published a story that Trump wanted to be the first to release. Or sicced the IRS after reporters who asked tough questions. The howls of outrage would be heard far and wide and those would be the lead stories for days on end as scowling left-wing pundits and politicians would be calling for impeachment.

[shunyadragon]

I'm in favor of a media who holds the US Government to the the constitution which delegates powers to the government. Our government has already been abusive and claiming authority it doesn't have. I'm hoping that Trump can disrupt that without himself becoming abusive -- it seems unlikely that he will be able to grab so much power as to become a dictator. There will not be full support toward that by Congress, the courts or the states.

Fairy tale wishes and hopes are not reality.

[Tassman]

What happens when the judiciary system fails to do its job?

There's no indication this is the case. And, even if it was, it's not up to Trump to take its place. He's been showing alarming tendencies in this regard what with his "so-called judges" remarks or the denigration of the Latino judge over the Trump University scam.

[Tassman]

As I posted a week or so ago:

TL;DR

Where in your 13 paragraph list of Obama sins against the media did Obama ban leading news agencies such as the BBC from WH press conferences or attempt to discredit the media as "fake news" in order to undercut any future expose of presidential malpractice. Trump has done both.

[rogue06]

TL;DR

Where in your 13 paragraph list of Obama sins against the media did Obama ban leading news agencies such as the BBC from WH press conferences or attempt to discredit the media as "fake news" in order to undercut any future expose of presidential malpractice. Trump has done both.

Sorry about your short attention span. Maybe when you were counting the paragraphs you came across this:

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponent," insisting, "we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave."

The Obama administration made good on that threat. Soon thereafter, the administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

Funny how most of the left were silent about that and only now are upset.

And Trump hasn't done anything like what Obama did there. All he's done is expand the groups that are in the press corp asking questions. And unlike Obama when he was calling Fox "an opponent" Trump does call on the news agencies that he has called purveyors of "fake news" such as the one he teases the most -- CNN. See his recent long press conference where he called on CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta.

[Tassman]

And Trump hasn't done anything like what Obama did there. All he's done is expand the groups that are in the press corp asking questions. And unlike Obama when he was calling Fox "an opponent" Trump does call on the news agencies that he has called purveyors of "fake news" such as the one he teases the most -- CNN. See his recent long press conference where he called on CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta.

That’s what Trump’s doing, is it, “teasing” when he repeatedly calls major news outlets (including the BBC) “fake news”? I think he’s running scared. Interesting that the barred outlets have uniformly been key players in investigating ties between the Trump administration and Russian leadership, or in framing the issue as dire for the administration’s legitimacy! The Trump team wants the Russia stories to go away. Which is why, more than ever, everyone should be focused on them. Watch this space.

[rogue06]

That’s what Trump’s doing, is it, “teasing” when he repeatedly calls major news outlets (including the BBC) “fake news”? I think he’s running scared. Interesting that the barred outlets have uniformly been key players in investigating ties between the Trump administration and Russian leadership, or in framing the issue as dire for the administration’s legitimacy! The Trump team wants the Russia stories to go away. Which is why, more than ever, everyone should be focused on them. Watch this space.

Why is that different than calling a news group an "opponent"? Again that didn't seem to bother the left much then but now they're having conniption fits. Hypocritical double standards much?

He was calling them "fake news" long before Russia. Nothing has changed there except as the Washington Examiner notes the MSM is concocting fake news stories at a rate of one per day since he's been president.

[Meh Gerbil]

This is the dumbest thread on TWEB.
I think that is why I'm attracted to it: It is a train wreck.

I don't think you guys are as far apart on these issues as the discussion would seem to indicate.
In fact, I can come up with three statements that I'm betting you'd all agree upon:

1: If a member of the press lies he needs to be disciplined.
2: If a politician lies he needs to be disciplined.
3: Lying by person 'A' does not excuse lying by person 'B'.

Even though I like Trump if he intentionally lies then he needs to be removed from office (1). Period.
Even though I despise the press if they lie then they need to be punished. Period.

Now if you're the type of clown that thinks liars should only be punished if they're on the other side of the aisle then please respond to this thread and let me know that you're that big of a retard so I can add you to my ignore list. Type out: "I'm a partisan tool who can only see lies when they disagree with my programming" and you can join Shunyadragon and others who are incapable of seeing past total nonsense.


NOTES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I'm willing to give Trump a brief 'breaking in' period as he's probably not accustomed to this level of fact checking.

[Meh Gerbil]

Winning a thread on TWEB isn't what it use to be.

[Darth Executor]

Even though I like Trump if he intentionally lies then he needs to be removed from office (1). Period.

That sounds like a pretty terrible idea. I think you should reactivate your facebook account, you're kinda slipping.

Now if you're the type of clown that thinks liars should only be punished if they're on the other side of the aisle then please respond to this thread and let me know that you're that big of a retard so I can add you to my ignore list. Type out: "I'm a partisan tool who can only see lies when they disagree with my programming" and you can join Shunyadragon and others who are incapable of seeing past total nonsense.

Wow I guess our bromance is over. I have no problem with Trump lying to liberals and moderates to get his agenda through. They are my enemy, I don't owe them a shred of honesty and neither does Trump. I don't think that makes me a retard, I think that makes me somebody who actually believes in his principles. From my experience (and this is typical of the American conservative) people who endlessly obsess over the fairness of a conflict, contra their protestations, have no actual hard principles. If they did they would defend them, and if they truly cherished them they would defend them by any means necessary. The posturing about fairness (against an existential enemy???) is a sign of a weak and confused mind IMO.

[Sparko]

This is the dumbest thread on TWEB.

Thank you!

[Meh Gerbil]

Wow I guess our bromance is over. I have no problem with Trump lying to liberals and moderates to get his agenda through. They are my enemy, I don't owe them a shred of honesty and neither does Trump. I don't think that makes me a retard, I think that makes me somebody who actually believes in his principles. From my experience (and this is typical of the American conservative) people who endlessly obsess over the fairness of a conflict, contra their protestations, have no actual hard principles. If they did they would defend them, and if they truly cherished them they would defend them by any means necessary. The posturing about fairness (against an existential enemy???) is a sign of a weak and confused mind IMO.

I don't see much commitment to principles when the other person is determining whether or not you're a liar.
That isn't any different than being against abortion unless you decide now is a really bad time to have a baby.

[Tassman]

That sounds like a pretty terrible idea. I think you should reactivate your facebook account, you're kinda slipping.



Wow I guess our bromance is over. I have no problem with Trump lying to liberals and moderates to get his agenda through. They are my enemy, I don't owe them a shred of honesty and neither does Trump. I don't think that makes me a retard, I think that makes me somebody who actually believes in his principles. From my experience (and this is typical of the American conservative) people who endlessly obsess over the fairness of a conflict, contra their protestations, have no actual hard principles. If they did they would defend them, and if they truly cherished them they would defend them by any means necessary. The posturing about fairness (against an existential enemy???) is a sign of a weak and confused mind IMO.

The 'whatever it takes' mentality' you share with Trump makes you immoral, not "retarded", although one could be both of course.

[Darth Executor]

The 'whatever it takes' mentality' you share with Trump makes you immoral, not "retarded", although one could be both of course.

*shrug*

When dealing with existential threats like your evil, all-corrupting ideology it is entirely appropriate.

[Darth Executor]

I don't see much commitment to principles when the other person is determining whether or not you're a liar.
That isn't any different than being against abortion unless you decide now is a really bad time to have a baby.

Defending principles by destroying existential opposition sounds like a perfectly good commitment to principles to me. Arguing that yes, the enemy brings ruin to everything but that's no reason to treat them any differently smacks me of internal conflict at best and treason at worst. It's the rough equivalent of saying you shouldn't shoot at an enemy soldier just because he's shooting at you since you wouldn't, after all, shoot grandma. It's such poorly thought out logic that I simply don't believe it was thought out at all and is mostly a panicked reaction by people who see increasing polarization around them and they are beffuddled as to why it's happening or how to stop it.