-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Trump Administration and the Press
- Thread starter Quetzal
- Start date
Toten
Member
The only difference between the affairs/opinion pieces in media is that there's no subtlety in opinion pieces, because they don't need it.
From withholding information to misleading headlines to outright covering subjects that aren't even relevant and distract from more important issues.
Toten
Member
I agree!
Don't get me started on Fox News XD
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
This is all about methodology.
What does a fair media look like?How do you measure the fairness of a specific media outlet? How do you measure the fairness of a specific piece of journalism?
All I hear is a series of unsubstantiated claims, with only confirmation bias to back it up. Until someone suggests a method on how and what to measure, that's all this will ever be.
Trump's position of media unfairness is an unsubstantiated claim.
Let me rephrase: The office of the President of the United States has chosen to make a set of unsubstantiated claims their official policy on journalistic access to the office.
What does a fair media look like?How do you measure the fairness of a specific media outlet? How do you measure the fairness of a specific piece of journalism?
All I hear is a series of unsubstantiated claims, with only confirmation bias to back it up. Until someone suggests a method on how and what to measure, that's all this will ever be.
Trump's position of media unfairness is an unsubstantiated claim.
Let me rephrase: The office of the President of the United States has chosen to make a set of unsubstantiated claims their official policy on journalistic access to the office.
This may have been said already but you don't actually need censorship to control the news media. There is a symbiotic relationship between the government and the press, as each depend on the other. The government wants good stories to get out to the public and the press want the exclusives and they want it asap.
All Trump has to do is simply choose which media outlets attend the breifing and get to ask the question. Thats not necessarily a major legal issue, but it restricts who can ask the questions and hold the administration accountable. Imagine a front row represented by fox news, breibart and infowars and you get the idea.
All the major media outlets can protest, but (as long as what the administration does is not illegal) eventually they will be dependent on the "approved" press to get the stories from (assuming they can't get it from anywhere else). Eventually, competition and the profit motive weed out those who don't have access and Trump can hold a press conference with press who don't question him at all because their jobs depend on them not getting thrown out the room. And the first amendment would still "technically" hold true without that much debate on freedom of the press at all.
What I'm saying is "fascism" doesn't have to be obvious to be effective. I mean Trump doesn't exactly have much to lose by kicking them out on the street and getting more "favourable" outlets in.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/thehill.com/homenews/administration/314756-trump-i-wont-move-press-briefing-room?amp
esmith
Veteran Member
No, we do not need, want, or deserve government control of our media.
However, I look at it this way.
The national media appeared to be solidly behind Hillary and solidly against President Trump. This is not the journalistic purity that should be expected from reputable news sources.
Now I can see why this administration is hostile to the media. Is it right? No. Is it fair? Maybe. However, all Presidents have had their issue with the media and this one is just a little more vocal.
President Trump realized early on in his campaign that his base, followers, supporters, whatever you want to call them were open to his attack against the media. Now, in order for him to accomplish what he wants he needs the support of those that elected him to hold their Congress persons feet to the fire when it comes to his agenda getting through Congress. This attack against the media is one of many tools that he has available to him and it may or may not work only time will tell.
The problem with many media sources is that their coverage of the news is biased, whether realized or not, by their own personal ideals or the ideals of the owner of the media. Now, I think the hostility could be toned down if the media went on a modified Jack Webb statement….”Just the facts ma’am”. But that doesn't sell and the media is a for profit business.
However, I look at it this way.
The national media appeared to be solidly behind Hillary and solidly against President Trump. This is not the journalistic purity that should be expected from reputable news sources.
Now I can see why this administration is hostile to the media. Is it right? No. Is it fair? Maybe. However, all Presidents have had their issue with the media and this one is just a little more vocal.
President Trump realized early on in his campaign that his base, followers, supporters, whatever you want to call them were open to his attack against the media. Now, in order for him to accomplish what he wants he needs the support of those that elected him to hold their Congress persons feet to the fire when it comes to his agenda getting through Congress. This attack against the media is one of many tools that he has available to him and it may or may not work only time will tell.
The problem with many media sources is that their coverage of the news is biased, whether realized or not, by their own personal ideals or the ideals of the owner of the media. Now, I think the hostility could be toned down if the media went on a modified Jack Webb statement….”Just the facts ma’am”. But that doesn't sell and the media is a for profit business.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
A too am worried because what else will they justify in the name of "alternative facts?"
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Ah, the pure-blood journalism argument. I'm with you on that to a point - but that's not at all how our modern media system works, is it?The thing about media outlets is that they're not supposed to have an OPINION. News and Journalism are meant to spread truthful knowledge to the American people. And frankly, that is not being done.
Our "Unbiased" media...
Has it ever been?
Name me a media outlet that doesn't rely on pundit personalities for ratings and then we can talk. CSPAN? That's about as close as you can get, and even then we're only talking about the unedited and uninterrupted broadcasts of speeches and congressional votes. Not a single populist outlet is free of bias. So it's really a null argument.
By your own reasoning, shouldn't Trump's social media attempts at micromanaging his image should also be under scrutiny? Shouldn't the words of his White House Spokesman only focus on issues and factual reporting of information, not on the propagandist construction of defense of the administration's world view?
Where do you draw the line? (That's not rhetorical.)
Do we just fall in line and only accept the "official" information presented by the administration without question? Isn't it the job of media to expose problems when and where they exist, even if they kind of suck at it sometimes?
The official line about inauguration numbers, for example, is entirely fabricated and without substantiating data. Why is it wrong to press the administration's spokesman for an explanation as to why they are presenting apparently false information? In elementary math classes, kids are asked to show their work when solving a problem. Kids don't get credit for attempting to discredit the teacher's credentials and questioning why our modern number theory exists... They get a zero on their paper and perhaps a parent-teacher conference.
I don't agree with the role of overly opinionated pundits either - but they are just one piece of the "media" pie; a very necessary piece when people are just making $hit up.
Toten
Member
You said it yourself. That's not how our media is. Sad, really.
Our media's been propaganda machines since World War 1.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's sad. It's a reality that we need to acknowledge so that we can have more productive collective conversations about information, knowledge, facts, etc...
Not understanding this great truth is what makes it possible for Conservatives to belittle Liberal news outlets and for Liberals to belittle conservative news outlets, never understanding that it's through the dissent from both sides that truth is eventually discerned.
Without one, the other is never held accountable. And that's what's wrong with what Trump's team is doing.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
Reporters are sort of like Historians, that report facts to the public what is going on in the world and let the public decide with their own minds, to analyze the situations according to the facts that was reported to them. Josephus was a Historian. But in those days he was considered as a reporter, informing the public about events that has taken place. The Prophet s were reporters as well. They had reported true events without adding their own opinion into these reports. Back in those days, that they did not have any type of recording devices to record these events. They has used writings to record these events. But the Recorders must record the truth only. .And so a upright person (Jashers) was chosen to record these events. And so the reporters were known to have the people's trust.
2 Samuel 8:16 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was recorder;
1 Chronicles 29:29 As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer,
2 Samuel 8:16 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was recorder;
1 Chronicles 29:29 As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer,
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Try the election of 1800, between our 2nd and 3rd presidents. The media of that time also printed some crazy stuff:
The Dirtiest Presidential Campaign Ever? Not Even Close!
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
Reporters are sort of like Historians, that report facts to the public what is going on in the world and let the public decide with their own minds, to analyze the situations according to the facts that was reported to them. Josephus was a Historian. But in those days he was considered as a reporter, informing the public about events that has taken place. The Prophet s were reporters as well. They had reported true events without adding their own opinion into these reports. Back in those days, that they did not have any type of recording devices to record these events. They has used writings to record these events. But the Recorders must record the truth only. .And so a upright person (Jashers) was chosen to record these events. And so the reporters were known to have the people's trust.
2 Samuel 8:16 Joab son of Zeruiah was over the army; Jehoshaphat son of Ahilud was recorder;
1 Chronicles 29:29 As for the events of King David’s reign, from beginning to end, they are written in the records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet and the records of Gad the seer,
Well, there goes your credibility for today.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It is so much fun reading classical trash talk!
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
I have no interest in a media that has been "put in its place." Sounds like subjection of Freedom of the Press. And if we start getting news filtered through the President and the White House then we are in trouble.
Last edited:
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Actually, he's at war with the truth. As long as the media keeps reporting him accurately, he's going to keep looking like the bully bigot that he is. He's going to keep fighting them every step of the way.
Scuba Pete
Le plongeur avec attitude...
Is the new euphemism for lying? He out and out tells his current audience just what he thinks they want to hear. It's like 1984, only it's not fiction. How sad is that?
Better that it filters through an elected official than Ted Turner.
It depends how Trump goes about it. The government has a duty to bust up monopolies. So if Ted Turner or a handful of media moguls control all the media they need to be broken up. Or they are a threat to our freedom with their ability to manipulate public opinion.
No, I haven't seen that at all. Do you have a video clip of Trump lying? For the first time in any of our lives a president actually did what he said he would do in his campaign speeches. Trump did away with the TPP free trade agreement today, as promised.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
We basically elected an Internet troll, and like all trolls, Trump has to be the biggest troll out there. Now the media is currently the biggest troll out there, so Trump is driven uncontrollably by his troll instincts to lash out at them. Unfortunately for him the media has much more ammunition than just Twitter, and is a much bigger troll than he is; as such, his continued assault can only turn out badly for him.
Now, as we all know a troll draws their strength from attention, and the best way to defeat a troll is to simply ignore them, but Trump is too much of a troll himself to do this.
Now, as we all know a troll draws their strength from attention, and the best way to defeat a troll is to simply ignore them, but Trump is too much of a troll himself to do this.