Ben Sasse to Trump: Are you 'recanting' oath to protect the First Amendment?

[metis]

Maybe that's the real reason America will never be great again. It's citizens are more concerned with entertainment than responsibilty and accountability.

Unfortunately, amen to that.

If more people actually did some homework dealing with Trump's history instead of watching multitudes of hours watching games, we wouldn't be in the mess we're now finding ourselves in. And then if they'd actually have done their religious homework and put Trump's many word's and actions next to Jesus' and the apostles' words and actions, which pretty much are the polar opposite of each other, we wouldn't be stuck with the Donald that even his family and staff can't control.

Unfortunately, we're getting what we deserve because laziness, ignorance, and immorality have consequences.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I'd say if Trump lied about someone they have a case against him as well.

I fully expect to be lied to by politicians. If the media wants to call them out on it that's fair.

But we don't need news outlets to fabricate stories and push agendas (left or right leaning). What we need from news outlets is a fair and reasonable unbiased accounting of news worthy issues/stories. You know, the original purpose of the news, to inform people truthfully.

The MSM has become little more than extremely biased propaganda spin machines used by politicians to gain favor and be elected. Fortunately, the MSM is already on its last leg and soon to be on the way out. Trump just might be the final nail in the coffin. I say good riddance.

I think you are being ridiculous about the media. It's important to realize that media persons -- like every other person -- has the right to state opinions, and editorial pages are for precisely that. That is different from "reporting the news."' Now, I agree that news reporting should make every attempt to ask all the appropriate questions, and check all the appropriate sources, before reporting on something.

Second, I'd like to point out that everywhere there are editorial boards on both the right and left of the political spectrum, and they all publish their particular views when they write editorials and opinion pieces. In Toronto, where I live, I have a choice of 4 mainstream newspapers to choose from, and I read them all. Two are very right wing focused, and editorialize on the right. One is very left wing focused, and so editorializes on the left. The fourth tries to be "middle of the road" and publishes articles from both sides.

If I am offended by right wing blathering (and I often enough am) I don't have to read it. If I'm offended by far left blathering (and I often enough am), I don't have to read it. Or, best of all worlds, I can listen to everybody's opinion, and then make up my own mind what I think.

So on the reporting of news side, what I'd like to hear from you is this: exactly which news stories are you referring to that are "fabricated" but reported as if they were properly researched news?

 

[Enoch07]

I think you are being ridiculous about the media. It's important to realize that media persons -- like every other person -- has the right to state opinions, and editorial pages are for precisely that.

I am fine with that, but they are not presenting it as opinions. They are presenting it as fact. And then being burned once it's discovered to be false. Which is why their license is at stake.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I am fine with that, but they are not presenting it as opinions. They are presenting it as fact. And then being burned once it's discovered to be false. Which is why their license is at stake.

I would have appreciated it if you had answered my questions, rather than pick a tiny point of little importance. Still, I can't force you...

But you-- just like Trump -- seem to be unware that there is no "license at stake" for the networks, because they are not, in fact, licensed. Individual stations are licensed.

Why is just being honest about what we talk about something that so many posters feel uncomfortable with? Is just seeing and telling the truth so bloody fearful that nobody can do it?

 

[Enoch07]

So on the reporting of news side, what I'd like to hear from you is this: exactly which news stories are you referring to that are "fabricated" but reported as if they were properly researched news?

The list is too long. Which is why is didn't bother listing it. But imo the vast majority of MSM is p00p.

But you-- just like Trump -- seem to be unware that there is no "license at stake" for the networks, because they are not, in fact, licensed. Individual stations are licensed.

I don't really care about small details like that. They are not important. What is important is the validity of the stories they publish. Most of which I question as of late.

 

[garden47]

Ben Sasse to Trump: Are you 'recanting' oath to protect the First Amendment?

The Republican majorities in the House and Senate, with a few isolated exceptions, have assumed the role of Trump "yes-men" to provide the President with "wins," rather than asserting themselves as a co-equal branch of government!

It is within this context that the "fake news" media must also assume the role of providing the
necessary "checks and balances" for a GOP dominated Congress that has been AWOL!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The list is too long. Which is why is didn't bother listing it. But imo the vast majority of MSM is p00p.

I don't really care about small details like that. They are not important. What is important is the validity of the stories they publish. Most of which I question as of late.

In other words, you are willing to state that these media are "fabricating stories," but not willing to actually point to one and defend your accusation. You are being asked to produce one, just one, story in the mainstream media that has been presented as "news" but is false. And you do not.

It is as I thought. Sorry, but I'm not a great fan of that sort of dishonesty.

 

[Enoch07]

In other words, you are willing to state that these media are "fabricating stories," but not willing to actually point to one and defend your accusation. You are being asked to produce one, just one, story in the mainstream media that has been presented as "news" but is false. And you do not.

It is as I thought. Sorry, but I'm not a great fan of that sort of dishonesty.

I already have.

The 2 scoops if icecream fiasco. Fake pointless news. Its a true story, but it never should have made the news, because who cares?

Russia hacking the election booths- fake news, Pres. Obama himself went on air with Trevor Noah before he left office, on the daily show and confirmed, that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest Russia hacked the voting machines. This story ran for 3 or 4 months afterwards still.

The OK hand gesture is secret code for white supremacist. Fake news, a 4 Chan troll that successfully made liberals the fool.

Drinking milk is a sign of white supremacy. Fake news , again another 4 Chan troll that got ate up by the MSM and published.

The Russian goldenshower hooker story -fake news, another 4 Chan troll successfully devoured by not only the MSM, and liberals, but also the FBI.

Oh and let's not forget "Trumps" travel ban. Which was actually wrote by Obama in 2015, he never got the chance to enact it while in office. So it was left for one of Trump's first actions in office. This was twisted into a story of Muslim hatred when it was not even written by Trump.

The list goes on all day. Most stories you would consider breaking news from the MSM are fake useless pointless news that is only there to grab ratings.

 

[metis]

Oh and let's not forget "Trumps" travel ban. Which was actually wrote by Obama in 2015, he never got the chance to enact it while in office. So it was left for one of Trump's first actions in office. This was twisted into a story of Muslim hatred when it was not even written by Trump.

Under Obama, the travel ban was temporary based on threats coming from these states whereas better security measures needed to be in place, plus it was not levied against Muslims per se but against anyone from those countries. OTOH, Trump campaigned for his Muslim travel band whereas he said that all Muslims were to be at least temporarily stopped, only later changing his tune and applying it to only those countries. Even many in his own party criticized him for how he wanted it set up.

 

[leibowde84]

Question.

How does Trump chastising the media equate to him attacking the 1st amendment?

Because the 1st Amendment protects the right of the press from governmental intrusion. If Trump had evidence to prove that any news organization prints stories that are fraudulent, he can sue them. If he had any evidence of this nature he WOULD sue them. Since he doesn't, he's trying to use his power as the President to intimidate them into submission. He just doesn't like negative coverage, but instead of doing something about it, reaching out to these organizations, he has declared war and just childishly complains.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Freespeech does not cover libel or slander though. If Trump can prove either of these the MSM does not have a leg to stand on. He certainly has a case for defamation by the MSM to investigate them.

Libel and slander are individual actions, that can only be prosecuted individually and privately.
They are not in any way breaking the law.
You can not prosecute a person or organisation because they sometimes publish libelous material. you can only take them to court for individual libels.

 

[leibowde84]

The 2 scoops if icecream fiasco. Fake pointless news. Its a true story, but it never should have made the news, because who cares?

This is not a "fake" story as it actually happened. You and Trump need a dictionary, badly.

Russia hacking the election booths- fake news, Pres. Obama himself went on air with Trevor Noah before he left office, on the daily show and confirmed, that there was absolutely no evidence to suggest Russia hacked the voting machines. This story ran for 3 or 4 months afterwards still.

Can you provide a link?

The OK hand gesture is secret code for white supremacist. Fake news, a 4 Chan troll that successfully made liberals the fool.

Never heard this one in the mainstream media. Can you provide a link?

Drinking milk is a sign of white supremacy. Fake news , again another 4 Chan troll that got ate up by the MSM and published.

Never heard this one in the mainstream media. Can you provide a link?

The Russian goldenshower hooker story -fake news, another 4 Chan troll successfully devoured by not only the MSM, and liberals, but also the FBI.

This story is still being investigated. It could be true, it could be fabricated. But, it certainly isn't fake news. The stories were that the dossier claimed these things were true ... which is a FACT. The dossier did, in fact, make these claims so they reported on it.

Oh and let's not forget "Trumps" travel ban. Which was actually wrote by Obama in 2015, he never got the chance to enact it while in office. So it was left for one of Trump's first actions in office. This was twisted into a story of Muslim hatred when it was not even written by Trump.

This is so dishonest and wrong it isn't worth responding to. Obama never had any plan to ban immigrants from all of the countries in question. Heightened security, sure. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is a lie to say that Obama had planned to ban travel from all of those countries.

 

[Enoch07]

Under Obama, the travel ban was temporary based on threats coming from these states whereas better security measures needed to be in place, plus it was not levied against Muslims per se but against anyone from those countries. OTOH, Trump campaigned for his Muslim travel band whereas he said that all Muslims were to be at least temporarily stopped, only later changing his tune and applying it to only those countries. Even many in his own party criticized him for how he wanted it set up.

Complete conjecture, here is what actually happened.

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...ation-responsible-muslim-ban-executive-order/

 

[Enoch07]

Because the 1st Amendment protects the right of the press from governmental intrusion. If Trump had evidence to prove that any news organization prints stories that are fraudulent, he can sue them. If he had any evidence of this nature he WOULD sue them. Since he doesn't, he's trying to use his power as the President to intimidate them into submission. He just doesn't like negative coverage, but instead of doing something about it, reaching out to these organizations, he has declared war and just childishly complains.

Negative coverage is fine. MSM whining about him eating 2 scoops of icecream is ridiculous. The man can't do anything at all without it being spun to defame him. I cant say I blame him. I would drop the hammer on the MSM as well.

 

[Enoch07]

Libel and slander are individual actions, that can only be prosecuted individually and privately.
They are not in any way breaking the law.
You can not prosecute a person or organisation because they sometimes publish libelous material. you can only take them to court for individual libels.

The law disagrees with you. Defamation - Wikipedia

 

[leibowde84]

Negative coverage is fine. MSM whining about him eating 2 scoops of icecream is ridiculous. The man can't do anything at all without it being spun to defame him. I cant say I blame him. I would drop the hammer on the MSM as well.

Can you provide the links to the articles I asked for in my last post? I am not familiar with those stories.
And, I guess you aren't a fan of the 1st Amendment, which absolutely protects a news outlet's right to print a story about him eating 2 scoops of ice cream. It also protects them if they decide to write 100% negative stories about him.

 

[Falvlun]

Negative coverage is fine. MSM whining about him eating 2 scoops of icecream is ridiculous. The man can't do anything at all without it being spun to defame him. I cant say I blame him. I would drop the hammer on the MSM as well.

Trite news isn't fake, or false, news, though.

I largely agree that the 24 hr media paradigm that requires incessant fodder to fill up the minutes is problematic. But I don't see that as grounds for "revoking a license". I mean, how would you enforce that? "You can only broadcast meaningful news." That's a dangerously subjective standard.

 

[Enoch07]

Trite news isn't fake, or false, news, though.

I largely agree that the 24 hr media paradigm that requires incessant fodder to fill up the minutes is problematic. But I don't see that as grounds for "revoking a license". I mean, how would you enforce that? "You can only broadcast meaningful news." That's a dangerously subjective standard.

That alone is not enough reason. But combined with the outright lies. Its an issue that needs addressed.

 

[Enoch07]

Can you provide the links to the articles I asked for in my last post? I am not familiar with those stories.
And, I guess you aren't a fan of the 1st Amendment, which absolutely protects a news outlet's right to print a story about him eating 2 scoops of ice cream. It also protects them if they decide to write 100% negative stories about him.

This is so dishonest and wrong it isn't worth responding to. Obama never had any plan to ban immigrants from all of the countries in question. Heightened security, sure. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is a lie to say that Obama had planned to ban travel from all of those countries.

Refer to post #73 for the link. The travel ban is Obama policy. The MSM has lied to you to push a narrative. This is why the MSM is in hot water.

 

[leibowde84]

Refer to post #73 for the link. The travel ban is Obama policy. The MSM has lied to you to push a narrative. This is why the MSM is in hot water.

Wrong again. Obama's was never intended to be a ban. From your own source:
"This is not the same as an outright ban on citizens and dual-citizens of these countries, as the new executive order seems to have instigated. Instead, this list of countries- which is the list of countries referenced by the new order- merely says that if you were, say, from the United Kingdom (and could enter the US under ESTA rather than getting a visa at the embassy) but had visited Iran since 2011, you would not be able to get into America without applying for a full visa."

Read more at: https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...ation-responsible-muslim-ban-executive-order/