Do you remember when these statements were made?
"Good morning ladies and gentlemen. The president has asked me, as his spokesperson, to tell you he was aware of the burglary at DNC headquarters in the Watergate complex, and he personally sanctioned the burglary".
"The Department of Defense would like you to know that on March 16, 1968 approximately 504 unarmed civilians in My Lai, Vietnam were massacred by U.S. Army soldiers. The Army accepts full responsibility for the incident and the relevant legal procedures are in motion to bring the perpetrators to justice".
"As spokesperson for the Third Reich, I'd like to inform the people of the world that we are currently engaged in the systematic extermination of Jews and others we believe to be inferior to the aryan race."
Probably not, because obviously none of those statements were ever made.
Instead all of the above events came to the public's attention through the news media.
I think it was right for the public to be informed about those events.
Do you think this statement would have been made:
"Good morning ladies and gentlemen, the President wants you to know the FBI have found that his choice for National Security Advisor, Michael Flynn, has been compromised by the Russian state. He also wants you to know that he was informed about this three weeks ago, but allowed Flynn to remain a member of the National Security Council, possibly compromising national security".
I think it's unlikely. This story too, came to light mainly because of the news media. Is it as significant as some of the above incidents? Debatable. Does the public have a right to know if a senior security official has been compromised by a foreign state? Absolutely, and it does, mainly thanks to the media and a concerned whistleblower.
This is why the news media (with all its faults) and whistleblowers are needed.
It is also why the first thing dictators do when they get into power, is attack the free media.
The founding fathers knew this. That's why the press is specifically mentioned in the very first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
So no, the media is not the enemy of the people.
A free media, armed with accurate information from a whistleblower, is the enemy of tyrants, despots dictators and criminals. Anyone in power who says otherwise, is a wannabe tyrant.
I quite agree, Don. Nixon and Watergate pale in comparison to what might have happened between Russia and Trump/Campaign. Now, it appears the President is trying to stonewall the press. (I am often troubled by how his concern is often focused on what is legal as opposed to a breach ethics.) If it hadn't been for Woodward and Bernstein, we would never have known about Watergate. And there were clearly laws broken when they were given information, aka "leaks."
I can't recall an administration that hasn't been annoyed with certain news outlets, from time to time. But not one of them would seek to disparage the news media as a whole, by defining them as "an enemy of the American people." The term, "unhinged," doesn't begin to qualify such a statement that is targeted to appeal to the fearful and uninformed. Sadly, this appears to be more characteristic of the defensive rhetoric of a dictator who seeks to minimize opposition or the call from concerned citizens for an investigation into the facts.
Well this term in particular, "enemy of the people", is associated with the Stalinist purges in Russia. The term was used to describe academics, artists and intellectuals critical of the regime. It was also a favorite of Mao Zedong.
Trump is almost certainly unaware of the associations (mainly because he's culturally ignorant). Stephen Bannon, on the other hand, is not.
Bannon is quoted as saying: "I am a Leninist . . . I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment"(1). To Bannon, certain parts of the media represent the "establishment".
What's truly frightening is that you can see a straight line from Bannon's brain to Donald Trump's mouth. Trump has no idea about the historical significance of these associations. He's just saying what bannon tells him. Bannon is the threat. Trump is just a useful idiot.
(1) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … inist.html
I have always thought that Trump's friendship with Bannon is not unlike his former association with the ruthless and shameless, Roy Cohn, who was once Trump's long-time friend and mentor. ("Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?")
Great sentiments. Keep up the good work. We need it. Thx.
I agree with your premise and I even wrote a hub on the same title.
However, there is a difference between an honest press wanting to keep an eye on people in power and a dishonest press who try to distort and create news to advance an agenda.
The media has been doing this for quite some time.
In fact, during the Obama years, they turn blind eye to some of the unConstitutional and criminal acts of that Admin. I can give you a few examples, the IRS, and the immigration executive action, were criminal and unConstitutional, nothing was done by the media.
On Trump, it was the opposite. During the primaries, they created the myth of this person who is sexist, racists...of Trump. They were false characature of him. Hence, the problem now. Now that Trump is the President, they continue this attack which were unfounded. They created this myth and now, millions of people have this false fear about Trump...
It was created in part by the distortion of the media. They are biased from the start. 90% voted democratic. They attacked all republican candidates. It happened during the 2012 cycle with Mitt Romney. It is out in the open. They have created the bed and now they have to lie in it.
The best thing that came out of this election, is exposing these media for the dishonesty.
Good morning, Jack. I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree. The media certainly did report on Obama's 2014 immigration action, and the IRS issue was all over the media. Regarding Mr. Trump, the media discussed voter opinions based on Trump's actions and rhetoric on the campaign trail, and before. As a matter of fact, a number of them have said that they didn't think Trump was racist, despite his years-long campaign to claim that former President Obama was not a legitimate President while channeling the absurd birther movement. I also wrote a hub on the media and the election results.
https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/My-Op … al-Analyst
That is why were are here to discuss and disagree... I also wrote about the media and their dishonesty and bias...
I am not a Trump supporter and didn't even vote for him this cycle. However, I call it as I see it. It is funny and sad to see the media going down in flames with TDS... They have lost total credibility and the contrast between how they treated Obama vs. Trump is glaring.
The bottom line is, the media was played by Trump all along because he is the master at manipulation and the media finally met it's match. They have controlled the narative election after election, giving support to democrats and cover for them, while attacking republican candidates...
Now, they met someone like Trump that does not cave.
They are besides themselves and don't know what to do...
They created this false narrative and now they must live with the consequences.
The media is dead.
The media isn't dead. Have there been exaggerations or in the past on the part of certain outlets? Of course. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. What I find especially interesting about your comment is that this is exactly what Trump wants us to do. This country needs the free press -- perhaps now more than ever. I think Don has stated the reasons why, perfectly.
What I mean about the media is that they have lost all credibility with the public. When people don't trust you anymore, you might as well close shop. They went too far in attacking Trump and create false narratives and now they have no where to go but down.
I also believe our country needs a free press as dictated by the Constitution.
They are in charged with keeping an eye on our elected officials and keep them honest...
They didn't do that during the Obama years, and now they have completely gone off the deep end.
I hope you can see a difference between an honest independent press and a biased press as exhibited by the MSM lately...
The media and academia have both been targeted by the political right for the same reason. They both produce data-based, hard to refute information that can make it hard for powerful people to make money in business or acheive personal targets in politics.
When the powerful cannot win an argument, they generally resort to bullying (lawsuits, political persecution, personal attacks etc) or campaigns of misinformation.
Trump goes a lot further. He is seeking to destroy fact-based criticism altogether. Democracy cannot survive this kind of attack for long.
Think about this , Trump is fighting off both established , ingrained political parties AND a biased and disingenuous media ALL three . And he is winning because he is right and because of his following !
You believe in one sided media and B.S. from one party .
The powerful IS winning the argument , truth and Trump .
Who is the strongest ?
Trump is losing, which is a reflection of how he won the election by default in that 74% of all eligible voters never voted for him. These recent campaign type rallies are to garner more support, and the adulation and attention he needs like the air he breathes, in light of his low approval ratings. He's not "taking on" anything. He is merely being Donald Trump. He attacks anything and anyone who disagrees with him or calls him out on his misstatement of facts. His incessant lying, distortion of the facts, and ineptitude are now under scrutiny. The media went relatively easy on him during the general. Those days are gone. Truth and freedom are the strongest, and that God for that. The "establishment" GOP, which the voters placed into office (they didn't get there by waving some kind of magic wand), will keep him around until they can push their agenda through without the threat of veto. That is, unless he does something truly idiotic and reprehensible. After all, Pence is waiting in the wings.
By your logic, Barack obama also won by winning 25% of the voters...
You still fail to understand the appeal of Trump this election cycle.
It is unlike any election in the past.
The people are fed up with both parties. I repeat, in case you missed it.
They are fed up with both parties and the insiders of DC.
In the past, no matter which party wins, the American people lost.
That is the appeal of Trump. He is his own man, no lobbies, no politics as usual...
Give him a chance and he may surprise you.
Why do you think they attack him so harshly? They are afraid if he wins by changing DC, they will loose their power and control. That is what its all about.
Hello Genna East, it's good to see another active forum participant.
Your response prompts the question of why you felt the need to lead-off with such a spun and misleading 'fact'.
"...74% of all eligible voters never voted for him."
Since it can be no more than speculation how "eligible voters" that did not vote might have voted, your 74% declaration* can only be viewed as spin - intended to mislead.
*it is my assumption that you draw your conclusion from Pres. Trump's vote count vs. total eligible voters. Is that wrong? Would the difference between eligible voters vs. registered voters, (about 31 million), mean anything to your point?
Would you balk at the declaration that 72%, (+/- a point or two), never voted for Hillary? Why did you feel the need to include the spin of an irrelevant fact to bolster your point?
Hi Jack and GA Anderson:
I had already mentioned this element of change (which is only one of the reasons Trump received votes -- certainly not all), on my hub that you claimed to have read before commenting. Given that this is the third or fourth comment you've made that ignores the context of that article, I have assume that you might not have read it.
Jack and GA: It makes no difference in terms of my point, but GA, I should have been clearer: The 74% figure is relevant at it relates to the propaganda spiel by both Trump and his surrogates about "the majority of Americans" or "why most Americans voted for Trump." Pure hooey. We have to keep in mind that it was a mixed bag in terms of who voted for Trump and why. For example, a number of voters cast their ballot for him, assuming he would be impeached in 6-18 months, with Pence waiting in the wings. Other just wanted to keep Hillary out, with the same end-game in mind. There are other reasons as well, e.g., "change," in addition to the 1-2 issue voter.
What I find especially significant is that this election has stirred the conscience of millions voters who did not vote at all that day, or did but not for either Presidential candidate. These are among the people you see in the streets in protest of Trump, and those numbers are growing
For example, on Jan 29th, tens of thousands of Bostonians and neighbors gathered at Copley Square -- less than a block from the site of the Boston Marathon Bombings of 2013 -- to protest Trump's executive order "temporarily" banning refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries. Indies, Dems and Repubs, alike, took part in this protest, as well as the one held on Jan. 21. I was there and it was quite an experience.
They can protest all day long but what is their end goal? If they want to change our government, there is only one way. That is in the ballot box. They need to put up candidates in local and national elections that agree with their political views. That is how democracy works.
Hello again Genna,
Your explanation covers the why, but does not alter the character. One of the worst examples of this position seen recently were comments declaring that less than 20% of Americans voted for Pres. Trump: 62 million votes/320 million citizens = 19%
Your example makes your point, (I guess I missed that context in the comment I responded to), but, since only votes cast count, wouldn't using the popular vote count have made the same point without the spin?
I'm not sure I would attribute much protests participation to Trump supporters that have changed their mind, but I could certainly agree that a segment of non-Trump supporter, (as in the anybody-but-Hillary types), voters might be suffering from 'buyer's remorse', and are nervously wondering what the hell they got themselves into.
Hi GA. I should have explained it better; my apologies. The spin is the "the majority of Americans" or "why most Americans voted for Trump." That just didn't happen. I didn't want to get into the percentages you stated, nor the popular vote because I often hear: Well, those 3 million voters for Hillary are all in California." Or, even worse, "3-5 million voted illegally," which is nonsense.
I used to be a Republican but switched to Indie about ten years ago for a number of reasons -- namely, the GOP is not the Party I grew up with, to say the least. Some of my friends voted for Trump -- others for Hillary. But half of those who went with Trump have voiced "buyer's remorse," but did not use that term. I was surprised by who attended those Boston crowds. We certainly didn't take a poll, but in talking with others, I was startled to encounter more Repubs and Indies than I had expected.
I'm glad you agree.
I have no issue with complaining about bias, or fake news. But when you pretend that factual reports are fake news, just because it makes Trump look bad, I'm sorry but that's just called lying, and people can see through it.
Also, something else you don't seem to get, is the fact that no spin is needed here. The facts are enough for any reasonable person to be concerned. For example:
Did Trump say he wants to ban Muslims from the country? Yes.
Did he say he wants to prioritize Christian refugees? Yes.
Did he say he likes to "grab women by the p****"? Yes.
Did the person he selected for National Security Adviser, lie to the FBI about what he said to the Russians? Yes.
Did Trump allow him to remain a member of the National Security Council for three weeks, after being told he was compromised by the Russians? Yes.
Was Jeff Sessions rejected from being a federal judge in the 80s because of serious allegations of racism? Yes.
Is Donald Trump (via Trump Inc) currently the leaseholder for the Old Post Office building in DC, in breach of the lease for that government-owned building? Yes. Is he also (as president) currently the boss of the man who would have to enforce the terms of that lease? Yes.
Are Trump's aides currently under investigation by the FBI for alleged inappropriate contact with Russian officials and Russian intelligence? Yes.
I could go on . . .
The key point is that none of these things are spin, or bias. They are facts that can be objectively verified, and are matters of public record [note: if you can provide reliable evidence that proves any of the above is untrue, I will withdraw it]
So it is not the media being biased that is making Trump look bad. The facts speak for themselves. That doesn't mean the media is never biased. Of course it can be. But in this case, that's not the problem. The problem is the things that Trump and his administration say and do. And here's the important part . . .
If plain facts make Trump and his people look foolish, incompetent, dangerous, disorganized and dishonest (which they do) then the problem is with Trump and his people, not the facts, and not those who report them.
And complaining about bias and fake reports, but failing to show how any of those reports are fake or biased, comes across as a denial of reality. That makes people even more concerned, because it looks like the people in charge of running the country are delusional, and it makes those who support those people look like fanatics.
Let me support Jack on this one. The media certainly did not make an issue of the following:
1. Pres. Obama deported approx. 2.5 million undocumented people from the U.S. Other than a few House Reps., I did not hear a peep.
2. Whistle blower prosecutions became a very frightening function of his Administration.
As much as I hate Trump, I have to be fair. Obama was given a pass by the media. That is a fact.
I don't even know where to begin on that one. Obama announced his 2014 policy during a special address to the media. Also, CNN and the BBC alone, quoted figures, based on Pew Research statistics:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … h-in-2013/
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/politics/ … index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/25/politics/ … he-border/
http://www.business2community.com/gover … Gmlmio7.97
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 … ing-mexic/
There's much more; I've read about this and listened to it on the news, repeatedly. I have no idea where you got "never heard a peep about it." This info was discussed and reported numerous times.
As far as whistleblowers are concerned...do the names John Bitterman, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden and ring a bell? And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Trump loved the media when it was reporting on the Clinton email scandal.
He also loved trying to criminalize The Clinton's charitable foundation. Now that he's exposed by all his lies, nothing is done about it. As Bill Maher said the other night, if you have that "magic R" after your name, lying and hypocrisy is the name of the game. If Hillary had won, she never would have gotten away with all these lies. And the whole cabinet should have been picked after the election and before the Inauguration (but he chose a victory tour). He's an unhinged narcissist, and I hope he gets impeached, like R's loved threatening Hillary. He figured he could get a staff, sit back, and let everyone else do the work. Putin is just toying with him because Trump is so naive about politics and anything tat isn't about himself. He'll tell Putin all our classified info, or Putin can call Julian Assange.
©hμmp focus is on the leaks. Fines / arrest reporters who publish classified info is next. Check out this latest firing :
Tell me how everything is running smoothly bigly.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … trump.html
How can you tell that Bannon is feeding Trump lines?
When Trump doesn't sound like Trump at all:
From the transcript of the Florida rally speech
"Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln and many of our greatest presidents fought with the media and called them out often times on their lies.
Thomas Jefferson said, “nothing can be believed which is seen in a newspaper.” “Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle,” that was June 14, my birthday, 1807."
The actual quote says: 'It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly [sic] deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.'
Jefferson maintained the importance of the media later in life, when he said: 'the only security of all is in a free press.The force of public opinion cannot be resisted, when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary to keep the waters pure.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … z4Z8sr7X16
by Mike Russo 2 months ago
At this moment if you are watching CNN, they are showing over 10,000 people marching and protesting about Trump. If you watch Fox New, they are talking about all the great accomplishments Trump has done while being in the UK. And in the lower right corner of the screen, barely visible...
by Don W 4 months ago
"The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine told lawmakers Tuesday that President Trump made the release of military aid contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for...
by Credence2 2 years ago
To refer to the "press as the enemy of the American people' in the terms he did was the epitome of stupid. This was attacked by many GOP as attacking the very foundation of America Democracy, the Fourth Estate. So many people think that I am picking on Trump, but I am not Charlie McCarthy,...
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
I watched Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus at CPAC state the following:"Nearly all of Trump’s cabinet choices are known mostly for despising and attacking the very Federal agencies they’ve been designated to lead. Bannon explained—in very clear language--that they weren't appointed to lead...
by ahorseback 18 months ago
When you as media obstruct and not just report ?When you sensationalize and create false media ?When you constantly attack and defame ?When you ignore real media issues ?When you journalize and editorialize instead of report ?You become the enemy of the people .
by ahorseback 3 years ago
Not the sensationalizing "face -book " mentality of todays mainstream news media . Once , there was a time when selling the headline was the profiteering, business method of presenting the mainstream media , Sure profit , selling ,...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|