Let this statement sink in for a moment:

1. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago

   "President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of social media posts late Sunday, suggesting they be fined or taken off the air over polling and coverage of his administration."
   
   Think this through.
   
   "President Trump threatened major broadcast networks in a string of social media posts late Sunday, suggesting they be fined or taken off the air over polling and coverage of his administration."
   
   Is the price of eggs (which has not come down) worth the loss of a free press?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      quotationsposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      Are you at all concerned about the blatantly biased and propagandist "news" that they put out?
      
      Such as the Russiagate hoax, the Fine People Hoax, the "Maryland Dad" story, the coverage of the "mostly peaceful" BLM protests where a reporter was unironically calling the protests peaceful even while the city skyline was ablaze in the background, the Ferguson "hand's up don't shoot" hoax peddled by CNN that led to that city being looted and burned, the fake stories about Iraq's nuclear program that led to the death of millions (directly in the war and later through poisoning from depleted uranium munitions of the US, malnutrition, and civil war), or the time that they breathlessly covered allegations that an American citizen had been deported when nothing like that had happened?
      
      You can make this about Trump, but maybe the news you watch are the problem.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 22 hours agoin reply to this

         Good point... when the news is nothing but lies, maybe someone should shut it down.
         
         You know... 'The Left' just doesn't seem to get it.  What Biden gave us was worse than anything Trump has done.
         
         Loss of 25% of the Dollar's Value
         Open Borders and millions of migrants getting taxpayer freebies
         Transgenders in Women's sports... including High Schools
         DEI and Equity over Equality and Merit/ability
         World War III
         
         Yeah... screw the Democrats because when they got Biden in there, they sure did screw Americans, while demeaning them for complaining about it.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            peterstreepposted 5 hours agoin reply to this

            Don't be ridiculous. WWIII.!!!!!
            Is there a war in Japan,
            In Germany?
            In France?
            In India?
            In the US?
            In Indonesea?
            In South Africa?
            In Australia
            Are there battles in the Great Ocean
            etc. etc.
            
            It is not the threat of a WWIII, that acording to you is in full swing, that we should worry about.
            It's the climate crisis that is threatening mankind and the collapse of society.
            What has Donald Trump done so far to stop the climate crisis?
            The opposite.
            Creating de Big Beautiful Bill Act. Where he makes sweeping legislation, eliminates tax credits for wind and solar energy while granting the oil, gas, and coal industries major gains. It mandates extensive offshore and onshore drilling lease sales, lowers royalty rates, and introduces stronger carbon capture incentives for oil production—strategically favoring fossil fuels.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Readmikenowposted 4 hours agoin reply to this

               There is a major war in Europe that has taken more lives since WWII.
               
               russia has another nation providing them with troops to fight for them.  That is two nations against one.
               
               This does have the potential to become WWIII is not handled properly.

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  peterstreepposted 3 hours agoin reply to this

                  I agree with you there, but Ken is talking if WWII is already happening. And this is not true. The situation today in the world is not even comparable with WWII.
                  
                  What is happening in Ukraine shows the retreat of the US on the world stage, leaving a gap for other nations to fill.
                  I don't think it will lead to WWIII, as in the end, a war might be good for some business, for the majority it is not. And businesses like Apple, Tesla, Microsoft, Google,  etc don't want a war.
                  There is nothing to gain by a WWIII.
                  But yes, it should be properly handled. How, I do not know. But Trump is not the right commander to do so, he doesn't want to be involved and Putin knows this.
                  Probably it has to be Europe to do the negotiations as they have more to loose than the US. But Europe doesn't have an army, so in the end it's up to Ukraine to do it themselves. And they do an amazing job.
                  But in the meantime the war drags on and innocent people die because of the weird idea of a the Great Russia Putin has...

                  replyreport
               2. 72

                  Ken Burgessposted 31 minutes agoin reply to this

                  Don't forget to add Iran and Israel...
                  Iran which also supports Russia...
                  The BRICS nations, China, North Korea...
                  
                  But yeah nothing resembling a World War except that this looks more like the beginnings of a world war than the last two did in their early stages.
                  
                  -shrugs-
                  
                  Denial of facts and reality the lefties are great for that.
                  
                  It's especially endearing when it comes from those who have not seen war or understand international affairs at all.

                  replyreport
            2. 72

               Ken Burgessposted 40 minutes agoin reply to this

               I'm sorry you are completely oblivious to the war that has been raging for years now.
               
               Im sorry for you that you still believe the power hungry lunatics pushing the 'climate crisis' as a real thing... Or that DEI and Equity would be a fix for whatever historical wrongs occurred to whatever oppressed minority one chose to belong to.
               
               Climate change is a real thing ...sure...our ability to change it by shipping our coal and oil to China so they can be the world's industrial power rather than the U.S.... is not.

               replyreport
      2. 78

         Kyler J Falkposted 5 hours agoin reply to this

         Idk where the "mostly peaceful" line came from and why it is used in place of the most famous CNN quote of the time.
         
         "Fiery, but not necessarily unruly," was the quote used by a CNN reporter as a police station burned behind him. I think that more truly captures the spirit of what is referred to now by the, "alt-right," as the, "summer of love."
         
         To be honest, we could use some, "fiery, but not necessarily unruly," protests directed at the proper targets this time around.

         replyreport
   2. 80

      Credence2posted 31 hours agoin reply to this

      Yes, Kathleen, I saw that. Only this cretin of a man would have the gall to so blatantly promote tyranny. CBS and NBC networks are over 90 years old. What does it take for the American people to “pull their heads out” and pay attention to what lies right before them?

      replyreport
2. 59

   Willowarborposted 2 days ago

   Democracy dies when dictators define freedom.  America has entered its Fascist era

   replyreport
   1. 83

      quotationsposted 2 days agoin reply to this

      It's been a Democrat fascist state for a long time, just with better press coverage. Deplatforming, debanking, punitive IRS audits, all brought in under Obama, with the connivance of a media apparatus paid for by USAID dollars and controlled by just a few corporations. Do not fool yourself into thinking that the media was free before.

      replyreport
3. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago

   Fine. You pick the sources or source you want to follow. What I'm concerned about is the freedom of media outlets to report the information they find as they see fit without a president fining them or restricting their flow of information to the public.
   
   Do you understand what is at stake?

   replyreport
4. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 2 days ago

   Maybe not. But it will be worse if this happens.
   
   When there is seriously bad news, can MAGAs ever manage not to look backwards for a whataboutism?

   replyreport
5. 83

   Sharlee01posted 23 hours ago

   I think your comment oversimplifies the situation and misses why so many Americans continue to support Trump. Millions voted him back into the White House after living through a turbulent four years under a Democratic administration, not because of the price of eggs, but because they were dissatisfied with broader issues like the economy, borders, and national security. Suggesting that voters only cared about groceries ignores the very real concerns people had about leadership and policy.
   
   His posts about networks weren’t about “losing a free press”; they were about calling out outlets that repeatedly misrepresent facts, spin polls, and ignore successes of his administration. Holding media accountable doesn’t destroy press freedom; it’s about ensuring the public gets accurate information.  I think we need to look at the straightforward facts: numerous fact-checking reports have highlighted errors and bias across major media outlets, and there have been multiple lawsuits filed against some of the most popular networks, including Fox News, for misleading coverage. With all of this, it’s hard not to question reporting these days.
   
   In short, the millions who returned Trump to the White House made a deliberate choice based on governance and accountability, not egg prices. Reducing their decision to sarcasm about eggs misses the bigger picture entirely.  Just my view

   replyreport
   1. 82

      peterstreepposted 22 hours agoin reply to this

      Is it not that there is always bias in the press? And that this bias can be called free speech. In a good running free country you need press from all different angles. If a president or government starts to intervene with press freedom you have a big problem.
      Freedom of speech and freedom of press means that you also have press that is not printing articles according to your own view.
      
      A government should not intervene with free speech and art. The moment a government is doing so, it is a sign of state power control over freedom of expression. Something nobody would want.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         Sharlee01posted 3 hours agoin reply to this

         I strongly agree that we need a press that presents multiple perspectives. At the same time, we also need an honest press, one that can stand up to fact-checking and demonstrate the truthfulness of its reporting. I believe articles should be rich in facts rather than dominated by personal opinions.
         
         At this point, I don’t believe our government is interfering with free speech. I see one individual in government using his own free speech to highlight issues as he perceives them. From my perspective, I’ve witnessed numerous instances of injustice perpetrated against Trump by the media. I admire his courage to step up and have his voice heard. I certainly don’t always agree with everything he says, but he has as much right as I do to exercise his freedom of speech. I would consider it inadequate if he did not call out the lies and bias he perceives in the press.

         replyreport
6. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 6 hours ago

   When it is proven that someone lies, and the media reports it, it is bad news for the liar. It is not biased reporting.
   
   When it is proven that someone is interfering with the effectiveness of the agencies and institutions of our country, and the media reports it, it is bad news for the one doing the damage. It is not biased reporting.
   
   When every single day one of these two things are happening, every single day it is the responsibility of the media to report it. It is not biased reporting.
   
   If you voted for a liar; if you voted for someone who is damaging our country, I'm sure you don't want to hear about it every day. Your unhappiness doesn't make the reporting biased.
   
   In any case, it is not the job of any president to restrict the press. If they knowingly and willingly report falsehoods - the courts are at everyone's disposal. Just ask FOX -many of their former staff are now in this administration. Think on that for a moment as well.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Willowarborposted 4 hours agoin reply to this

      "If you voted for a liar; if you voted for someone who is damaging our country, I'm sure you don't want to hear about it every day. Your unhappiness doesn't make the reporting biased.
      
      YES

      replyreport
   2. 83

      Sharlee01posted 3 hours agoin reply to this

      I would strongly challenge the notion that repeated negative coverage automatically equates to truth or unbiased reporting. While it is certainly the responsibility of the media to report verifiable facts, the selection, framing, and emphasis of stories can create a perception of bias even if each individual fact is accurate.
      
      Media outlets make choices every day about which stories to highlight, how to contextualize them, and which voices to amplify, and those choices can systematically favor one narrative over another. Reporting that constantly emphasizes alleged wrongdoing by a single individual, while downplaying similar behavior by others, can subtly shape public perception in a way that is far from neutral. Furthermore, “proving” a lie or interference is often not as clear-cut as suggested; legal, procedural, or factual ambiguities exist, and the media’s interpretation of these events can influence how the public perceives them.
      
      Dismissing someone’s perspective by calling them a “liar” or accusing them of damaging the country is neither productive nor respectful. People can disagree about policies, actions, or interpretations of events without being dishonest or harmful. Criticism of media coverage is not simply about “unhappiness” with negative stories, it can be about whether reporting is balanced, accurate, and contextually fair. Constantly labeling voters as complicit in wrongdoing because they support a particular candidate ignores the complexity of political choices and undermines civil discourse. Honest debate requires engaging with differing viewpoints without resorting to personal attacks or assuming bad faith.
      
      While no president should restrict a free press, it is equally valid to scrutinize whether media coverage is fair, representative, and comprehensive rather than assuming constant negative reporting is inherently unbiased.

      replyreport
7. 78

   Kyler J Falkposted 5 hours ago

   I've long said Trump would be the first to try altering the first amendment, and that thought came from me speculating on how I could change it myself without altering the foundation of society to such a degree that civil war, revolution, or even world war would break out.
   
   It's a slippery slope to be sure, but an inevitable slope we must traverse. I'd rather it be a conservative at the wheel when we decide to take the journey toward altering the first amendment.
   
   The right's need for rigid traditionalism is my deterrent to outright supporting them, and the left's need to pander to every aberrant minority is my deterrent to outright supporting them. May whoever holds the reigns of this chariot choose the best path of attack, because I would sooner take out the driver than ride off of a cliff with them.
   
   Alteration of freedom of speech was always inevitable, let's not make it militantly partisan. Especially not at a time where I believe we are seeing all of the signs that we are entering into a wartime economy and government, and unity will be socially if not forcefully mandated.

   replyreport
   1. 100

      DrMark1961posted 5 hours agoin reply to this

      "Your post has been deleted because it contains misinformation."
      The US first amendment has been attacked for a long time. How long have hate speech laws been around? Were you not aware of what happened to any physician that disagreed with the WHO during the pandemic?

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Kyler J Falkposted 5 hours agoin reply to this

         The plandemic was, what I believe, to be a planned isolated event that got out of control during the now seemingly-forgotten and widespread Hong Kong protests. I didn't believe anything they said during that time for a second, and followed the journalists who immediately targeted the Wuhan labs and the doctors in China who spilled the beans about the protein on the virus that only occurs in lab conditions.
         
         Yes, it has been under assault for a long time, and will inevitably be amended. I can only hope we amend it for efficiency as opposed to authoritarian control.

         replyreport
      2. 72

         Ken Burgessposted 37 minutes agoin reply to this

         Or anyone that disagreed that there was a Russian conspiracy... Or anyone that spoke about Hunter's laptop... 50 former top Intelligence officials penned their names to a paper calling it a Russian hoax, if that wasn't a Red Flag.

         replyreport