President Trump Says that Anti-America TV Networks Could Lose Their Broadcast License.

The news was created to report the news. No op eds or opinion pieces. The news was originally intended to be just a vessel to relay important current events and the people at those event's reactions. That's it.

If there was a way to scale back these news outlets to just reporting news. I would be good with it.

The news were never involved in political talk and so on. It was a different time back in the old days.

a reply to: neo96

All Trump really has to do is get a bunch of people and blockade access to the stations.

The only choice he has is to do what the people calling the shots tell him to.

Come on people, all he does is Tweet.

Obama read a telepromter...

Only difference between the two...

The amount of golf they play is debatable.

LOL It's sad to see a site like ATS constantly fall for this bs.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Why ?

I am not the boss of them.

Nor do I own them.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: intrepid

Did it hurt rolling your eyes like that??

Because they disagree with the slant, they want to shut 'em down. ...and in three plus years, if Trump doesn't get re-elected...

I don't think he'll go for a second term. He isn't stupid. He's got to know he has zero chance at reelection.

...and someone in office wants to shut down their news sites, or sites, like this one, that carry opinions differing from that administration...I'm sure they'll be OK with that, too.

Bwahahahaha....

a reply to: Nik0laTesla

The news was created to report the news. No op eds or opinion pieces. The news was originally intended to be just a vessel to relay important current events and the people at those event's reactions. That's it.

Intended?

The First Amendment protects op-eds and opinion pieces, as well, which was one of the primary reasons for its adoption and the inclusion of a free press: protecting the speech (unpopular opinions) from punishment from the state that found it undesirable.

originally posted by: Nik0laTesla
The news was created to report the news. No op eds or opinion pieces. The news was originally intended to be just a vessel to relay important current events and the people at those event's reactions. That's it.

If there was a way to scale back these news outlets to just reporting news. I would be good with it.

The news were never involved in political talk and so on. It was a different time back in the old days.

It's become quite obvious that you and many others have no clue what the freedom of the press is.

No just no!

There are some lines in this country we can never cross, or we risk becoming the very evil we fought so hard to liberate ourselves from.

We don't have to like what they say, we might not agree, it may or may not be true but we have to respect their right to do it. There are legal avenues for false or libellous claims.

Silenced dissent, expression or protest goes against everything we should all stand for regardless of which side you're standing on.

imo

The champions of free speech strike again.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

What's third on your list, send me and people like me to re-education camps?

Third? Room 101 for you. Then you go to the front of The Wall building line, proclaiming love of The Donald as you dig.

originally posted by: carewemust
Because CNN is on TV's all over the world, President Trump should direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to go after that Anti-America FAKE NEWS network first. Go get em Mr. President!

-CareWeMust

Didn't FOX News win a lawsuit where it fought for the right to knowingly lie on air? How does that fit in with your concept of FAKE NEWS?
And do you really want to establish a precedent whereby opposition to a particular politician is deemed "Anti-American"?
My...you have been well-programmed, haven't you?

a reply to: intrepid

They're considering a Hillary / Trump rematch and I would not place bets on Hillary winning that one either. Shoot I didn't vote for Trump but I would next time if he was up against Hillary again.

Then again maybe that's why they are considering her and I might simply be a fool who's hatred for Hillary has blinded them. Then again my whole reason for opposing Hillary has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with standing opposed to her and people like her.

a reply to: Nik0laTesla

None of that is true and I'm really not sure what you're basing that on. The first President to try to silence the media was actually John Adams who signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798.

They used an undeclared war with France as the pretense for what was really an attempt to silence pro-Jefferson critics of Adams and the Federalist Party and skew the outcome of the election by increasing the residency requirement for immigrants from 5 years to 14 because Jefferson was popular among immigrants.

Google "Benjamin Franklin Bache" or hell, just read up the Alien and Sedition Acts.

a reply to: carewemust

Blame the Presider.

Meanwhile, repress sources of truth on the internet, spend trillions on defense.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: loam

So you're cool with pulling broadcast licenses of media organizations that are critical of the President but you'd prefer he do *something* to social media platforms first?

I am not cool with pulling licenses of media organizations merely because they are critical of ANY President.

But while everyone is hyperventilating over the current President's tweet, where was the battle cry against Obama when he decided to exclude FOX news, or set the record for thwarting FOIA requests, or go after dozens of journalists criminally or even wiretapping them because they wouldn't reveal their sources?

What about when he excluded the journalists from physically reporting or taking pictures on beaches during the BP Oil spill?

Or this: Nearly 40 news outlets accuse Obama administration of limiting access

So the world goes mad because Trump sent a tweet?

I remain unimpressed.

What's third on your list, send me and people like me to re-education camps?

If there was such a thing as honest-broker camp, I might get behind that. But I doubt it would really help you.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Nik0laTesla
The news was created to report the news. No op eds or opinion pieces. The news was originally intended to be just a vessel to relay important current events and the people at those event's reactions. That's it.

If there was a way to scale back these news outlets to just reporting news. I would be good with it.

The news were never involved in political talk and so on. It was a different time back in the old days.

It's become quite obvious that you and many others have no clue what the freedom of the press is.

Nope.

Americans have always known just exactly what the press has always been.

The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and pretends to believe it himself. Part 2, chapter 4

en.wikiquote.org...

Most people choose poorly.

...I have given my whole life to newspapers. I am convinced that they have abandoned their functions, and in an abject and ignominious manner, in the present war. Nine-tenths of them, and even more than nine-tenths, print the official blather without any attempt to scrutinize it... It is a disgraceful spectacle, but I do not believe that anything can be done about it. Roosevelt has taken the press into camp as certainly has he has taken the Supreme Court. It has ceased altogether to be independent and has become docilely official. June 10, 1944

How does so much [false news] get into the American newspapers, even the good ones? Is it because journalists, as a class, are habitual liars, and prefer what is not true to what is true? I don't think it is. Rather, it is because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental and credulous fellows -- because nothing is easier than to fool them -- because the majority of them lack the sharp intelligence that the proper discharge of their duties demands. Prejudices: A Selection, p. 220

en.wikiquote.org...

Take your pick.

a reply to: Puppylove

She had he kick at the can and lost. If the Dems put her forward for the next election they are downright stupid. Or the fix is in. Time will tell.

As to this I'd like to see the opposite. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

a reply to: carewemust

I can only imagine the uproar that would of occurred if Obama would of said something similar about FOX News.

The crapstorm would of been of epic proportions.

Trump is just showing how much of a triggered snowflake he is.

And the worst part here is that if he does this he's going to be violating the first amendment to the constitution.

And guess who foots the bill for that long ass trial. Us.

a reply to: carewemust



Is he going to ban Twitter as well? How many FALSE tweets has he put out there? The liar and chief is the pot calling the kettle black.


He was wrong about Weinstein, its all over the news. Such a big baby! The White House truly is an "adult day care" these days. Its called Freedom of the press trump!!! Also What out there right now is "fake news" What big story right now being reported by the press is "fake news"?

Any report that shows trump in a negative light is "fake" That is old people. Its not fake. Did you people here him while throwing people paper towels while there homes were destroyed and had no electricity say...."Have fun" "flashlights, you don't need those anymore" while the people still had no power. He acted like it was business as usual. What an IDIOT!!!!

a reply to: kurthall

Hey. Are you using "alternate facts"?

a reply to: grey580

can only imagine the uproar that would of occurred if Obama would of said something similar about FOX News.

He whined quite a lot bout Fox News.

For YEARS Trump haters whined quite alot bout Fox News.