Posted on 07/03/2017 4:05:01 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The media is the democrats.
No because its truth vs lies.
Hey Himes, you leftist POS.
I guess you don’t really know what “attack means.” Dictators jail, torture, and murder REAL journalists.
President Trump says mean things about leftist, anti-Constitutional propagandists, and that hurts their feelings. They’re having tantrums, and crying about how mean the President is, all the while gnashing their teeth and screaming that he’s a bad man.
This congress-critter is an idiot.
Mark
Being real journalists is hard and dangerous work. What passes for the media here in the USA has been seduced by the leftists, and they long for a dictatorship of which they can be a part.
The last thing they want is to have to report the news honestly, instead they want to go back to the last 8 years where they were cheerleaders for a fascist, anti-Constitutional regime.
Mark
The Democrats are so used to Republicans bending over and asking to be raped again that they are horrified to find a Republican president fighting back. No, lefties, neither Trump nor any of us have to take your media lapdogs’ slanders and lies without fighting back. We have been the patient victims for far too long as it is.
And for God’s sake, quit pretending that your DNC spokesmen and Goebbels-like propagandists that make up the majority of the MSM are in any way actual “journalists” who report on the “news.” If the president were attacking actual journalists for reporting actual news, then this really would be a problem. But fighting outrageous propaganda from thoroughly partisan entities that make their livings lying to and manipulating the American people is only a public service. We need to let Trump know how grateful we are for fighting these unethical, dangerous people on our behalf.
No, Pravda was not “essential to the liberty” of the Soviets; neither are out Pravda imitators “essential to our liberty.” These propagandists with their extreme contempt for regular Americans and their non-stop attempts to overturn the presidential election by crooked means (voters be damned!) are arguably the biggest threat to our democracy that exists.
And some, like Joe Biden, lock them in closets.
“Pretty much every president before this one has understood that the media is absolutely essential to our liberty...Dictators attack the media,” Himes said.”
An impartial media, yes.
I think you’re right on.
Dictators control journalists; Saddam Hussain controlled CNN and Eason Jordan admitted it:The News We (CNN) Kept To Ourselves [must read]
An impartial media, yes.Pretty much every president before this one has understood that the media is absolutely essential to our liberty...Dictators attack the media,” Himes said.
“Media” is a plural noun. “An” is a singular indefinite article. Not being a grammar Nazi, I am pointing out unclear thought.The First Amendment, admittedly, refers to “the freedom . . . of the press” in singular fashion. But the First Amendment does not contemplate a single, unified, nationwide press with scant diversity of opinion. Freedom of the press is the right of the people to print our opinions - and to read the opinions of others (on mutually satisfactory terms). The First Amendment does not create “press” as a title of nobility, and it certainly does not establish “reporter” as a priestly office which is above criticism.
Although the Constitution does not refer to “internet” (and would be marked as a fraudulent anachronism if it did), the Constitution does contemplate - explicitly and positively - "the progress of science and useful arts.” The principle of liberty is clear - if anyone is allowed to print, everyone is allowed to print. And if anyone is allowed to post a web site, everyone is allowed to post a web site.
The problem of “the media” is not that it is “impartial,” it is that “the media” is unified. We need a free choice of multiple outlooks to choose from, and we have no right to demand that any - let alone all - published outlooks will be “impartial.” Or objective. We need a mechanism whereby we can sue “the media” - but that is a general term, you can’t name “the media” in a civil complaint. The answer to that, IMHO, is to sue the Associated Press and its membership, joint and several liability. And name the FCC while you are at it. Because the “fairness” doctrine was, and never could be, anything more than the consensus of the AP and its membership.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890) is a one-page law, so it does not define its targets with much specificity (which is why its opponents thought it unconstitutionally vague). But that makes Adam Smith’s definition relevant:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsThe AP newswire is a virtual meeting of all major US journalism outlets. It has been going on for over a century and a half, and has long since become "a conspiracy against the public.” A conspiracy to do what? A conspiracy to promote the natural interests of journalists against the interests of the public. No one doubts that bad news interests the public - but to suggest that bad news is in the public interest is laughable. Bad news is - bad. And the worst news of all is untrustworthiness of society.AP journalism monopoly conspires to libel American society. This comes naturally to journalists; it is the air they breathe. It comes as naturally as claiming objectivity while knowingly emphasizing real, or simply imaginary, scandals in the functioning of society. This is cynicism, neat. I challenge the reader to improve on “the claim that negativity is objectivity” as a definition of “cynicism.”
As Thomas Paine pointed out in the second paragraph of Common Sense, skepticism about society is the reason for people to want a government. It follows that the more skepticism about society, the less skepticism there will be about government&mdashand cynicism about society is a rationalization for tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.