WTF Community

What's driving the narrative? Is it fake news, PR stunts, real legal arguments?

curated-threads

#121

NY Times publisher Sulzberger gets out his message (again) to reprimand T’s cavalier and bullying remark that press is ‘enemy of the people.’

The Fourth Estate - press, freedom of speech and the thought that the press can/will challenge the facts, and challenge what has been enacted by the government. Keeping a watchful eye on power is the main purpose of the press.

Of course, there will be bias and varying points of view, BUT in essence, no one is above being scrutinized. No one.

And no one is above the law…and the press is protected by the 1st amendment - free speech.

February 20, 2019
New York Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger responded to President Trump’s continued attacks on a free press

America’s founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, “The only security of all is in a free press.” John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to “free society without a very, very active press.” Ronald Reagan said, “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success.”

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It’s a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase “enemy of the people” is not just false, it’s dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation’s enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

https://www.nytco.com/press/new-york-times-publisher-a-g-sulzberger-responded-to-president-trumps-continued-attacks-on-a-free-press/


#122

No American President has ever branded a newspaper the “ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE” (all caps are Trump’s). Just a few months ago Trump was claiming that technically he never called the media the “enemy of the people,” saying he only called “fake news” the enemy of the people" – a typical weaselly defense. However, he can no longer make that claim since he has now been very specific with his attack and his use of that phrase. His rationalization from last October:

As Trump amps up his use of the slur “enemy of the people,” it’s interesting to consider its sinister history:


#123

Clearly the US Press is not being accommodated to be present at the same hotel where T and Kim Jong-Un will be staying and having their meetings. CNN reporter Jim Acosta reports that they are being moved.

Of course that would work for T, and Kim Jong-Un. And it comes with the territory, press is not particularly welcome. :unamused:


#124

T and Kim keeping a tight leash on press at the Kim Jong-Un/T meeting in Vietnam.

After loud pushback, including from photojournalists who protested, Sanders allowed a single reporter in the pool for the dinner: Vivian Salama of the Wall Street Journal, who was serving as the print pooler and did not ask a question at the dinner. In addition, at least two members of the North Korean media contingent, a photographer and cameraman, were seen covering the dinner.

Reporters for the three wire services, as well as a second print pooler, were excluded. They included two journalists who had asked Trump questions in the earlier appearances: Jonathan Lemire of the AP and Jeff Mason of Reuters. Also excluded were Justin Sink of Bloomberg and Eli Stokols of the Los Angeles Times.


#125

From the perspective of a political news reporter for NBC Garrett Haake.
Every day and particularly Wednesday, with Cohen’s testimony and the N. Korean Summit makes it difficult to get any real perspective.

Chaos results because of multitudes of jaw-dropping facts. :exploding_head:


#126

From Jane Mayer, of The New Yorker who has done great investigative journalism on Kavanaugh and others writes on Fox News, the T Admin and where the Fox messaging starts and ends. And “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.”

From T’s pre-occupation with mimicking the Fox messages, daily discussions with Sean Hannity, the appointment of Bill Shine, formerly of Fox and now Head of Communications, it is a WH driven by an Conservative, Alternative Facts news source, not to mention heavy on conspiracies with regard to the ‘deep state,’ and Mueller’s work.

In fairness, some Fox reporters Chris Wallace and Shep Smith will question the T Admin’s premises, and will grill the T Administration over what really is the truth. However, these are reporters are the exception.

Long article, read on.

Nicole Hemmer, an assistant professor of Presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center and the author of “Messengers of the Right,” a history of the conservative media’s impact on American politics, says of Fox, “It’s the closest we’ve come to having state TV.

Hemmer argues that Fox—which, as the most watched cable news network, generates about $2.7 billion a year for its parent company, 21st Century Fox—acts as a force multiplier for Trump, solidifying his hold over the Republican Party and intensifying his support. “Fox is not just taking the temperature of the base—it’s raising the temperature,” she says. “It’s a radicalization model.” For both Trump and Fox, “fear is a business strategy—it keeps people watching.” As the President has been beset by scandals, congressional hearings, and even talk of impeachment, Fox has been both his shield and his sword. The White House and Fox interact so seamlessly that it can be hard to determine, during a particular news cycle, which one is following the other’s lead. All day long, Trump retweets claims made on the network; his press secretary, Sarah Sanders, has largely stopped holding press conferences, but she has made some thirty appearances on such shows as “Fox & Friends” and “Hannity.” Trump, Hemmer says, has “almost become a programmer.”

Fox’s defenders view such criticism as unfounded and politically biased. Ken LaCorte, who was in senior management at Fox News for nearly twenty years, until 2016, and recently started his own news service, told me, “The people at Fox said the same thing about the press and Obama.” Fox’s public-relations department offers numerous examples of its reporters and talk-show hosts challenging the Administration. Chris Wallace, a tough-minded and ecumenical interviewer, recently grilled Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser, on the need for a border wall, given that virtually all drugs seized at the border are discovered at checkpoints. Trump is not the first President to have a favorite media organization; James Madison and Andrew Jackson were each boosted by partisan newspapers. But many people who have watched and worked with Fox over the years, including some leading conservatives, regard Fox’s deepening Trump orthodoxy with alarm. Bill Kristol, who was a paid contributor to Fox News until 2012 and is a prominent Never Trumper, said of the network, “It’s changed a lot. Before, it was conservative, but it wasn’t crazy. Now it’s just propaganda.” Joe Peyronnin, a professor of journalism at N.Y.U., was an early president of Fox News, in the mid-nineties. “I’ve never seen anything like it before,” he says of Fox. “It’s as if the President had his own press organization. It’s not healthy.

This article appears in the print edition of the March 11, 2019, issue, with the headline “Trump TV.”




#127

It’s well worth the time to read it. My conclusion is that FOX has become the National Enquirer of cable. With any luck they will start having stories about alien babies…:roll_eyes:


#128

I am including this here…and will make a link for the Immigration section.

It is about the fact that journalists, lawyers and ‘instigators’ names are being collected at the San Diego border to do a ‘secondary screening.’ Obviously, to control the story, make sure what’s being said publicly can or will be curtails that story is definitely a form of hampering the free press and creates more autocracy.

It sends a deep chill to know that those who want to defend incoming immigrants or who want to report on how the influx of asylum seekers are being handled. (answer: badly)

The list, dated Jan. 9, 2019, is titled “San Diego Sector Foreign Operations Branch: Migrant Caravan FY-2019 Suspected Organizers, Coordinators, Instigators, and Media” and includes pictures of the 59 individuals who are to be stopped. The people on the list were to be pulled aside by Customs and Border Protection agents for questioning when they crossed the U.S.-Mexico border to meet with or aid migrants from the Honduran caravan waiting on the Mexican side of the border.

The list includes 10 journalists, seven of them U.S. citizens, a U.S.-based attorney and others labeled as organizers and "instigators," 31 of whom are American. Symbols on the list show that by the time it was compiled 12 of the individuals had already been through additional questioning during border crossings and nine had been arrested.


Immigration: issues and policy
(perry lee) #129

this is the thing that blows my mind on a regular basis; self-described informed, lucid citizens of the united states presenting the idea that cooperating with and enabling russian foreign policy is somehow good.


(system) closed #130

This topic was automatically closed 15 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.