Encouraging News Media to be MAGA-PAF Should Be a Top Priority for Trump Admin 2025-2029.

Sunday, November 10, 2024

During last week's historic nationwide elections, Americans chose to Make America Great Again by Putting Americans First (MAGA-PAF).

The majority of adult Americans voted to make MAGA Republican Leader Donald J. Trump our President, put Republicans in charge of the U.S. House, Republicans in charge of the U.S. Senate, and most America's states with Republican governors.

We are the majority whom President JOE BIDEN referred to last month as "garbage" and before that as,"the dregs of society".

Ref: www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Unfortunately, 90% of the U.S. News Media is owned and/or controlled by powerful individuals who feel the same way Joe Biden does.

As a result, the U.S. News almost always finds or invents something NEGATIVE to say about everything Republican leadership says, or does.

Ever since Trump first rode down the escalator in June 2015, the main objective of Trump news coverage was to prevent the real estate mogul from winning the presidency.

For those keeping score, anti-Trump journalists have now lost two out of three. The journalistic establishment should ponder what all that might mean.

For nine years, the media have reveled in their role as leaders of the anti-Trump resistance.

But the public has shown it doesn’t want the news industry to engage in activist push-journalism. Numerous surveys demonstrate that public trust in the news media is in steep decline.

The Media Research Center has consistently reported the negative tone of news coverage throughout Trump’s political years — and the coverage of this fall’s presidential campaign between Trump and Kamala Harris was particularly disproportionate. The organization reported that 85 percent of Trump coverage on the big three broadcast networks was negative, whereas 78 percent of Harris coverage was positive.

Continued at: thehill.com...

President-elect Trump made an important phone-call to Russia's President Vladimir Putin today, urging him not to escalate the war against Ukraine. What does much of the Democrat-owned news media report? That Donald Trump jr. told Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, his "allowance" is being terminated soon.

Source: www.newsweek.com...

-----------

MAIN POINT: The MAGA-PAF Red-Wave chosen by the majority of Americans last week, should be able to proceed without 90% news media working against us. It it were 30% or even 40% of the major U.S. News Media, their attempted sabotage could be mitigated over time.

But you don't want the MAGA-PAF White House and Congress coming out of the gate 52 days from now with 90% of what the public sees and hears and reads from the U.S. News Media being mostly against what President Trump and Congress are implementing for America and Americans.

------------

POTENTIAl FIX: The White House could appoint a CZAR to encourage large media outlets to report MAGA-PAF news and developments HONESTLY, BALANCED, and WITHOUT HIDING POSITVES.

This would be "Civilized" way to attempt correction. If it fails, Investigations and Audits would be the next logical step. Hopefully, those extreme remedies will not be needed. Think positive. MAGA-PAF! 😊

P.S. To this thread I will add examples of Anti-MAGA efforts & articles from the nation's major outlets, as long as this remains a significant problem.

-WeMustCare 😎

a reply to: WeMustCare

Nope. Free speech must be kept free, no infringement on first Amendment rights.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

Nope. Free speech must be kept free, no infringement on first Amendment rights.

Here's a new article detailing how NEWS MEDIA being against the majority of Americans is NOT SMART.

Source: thehill.com...

a reply to: WeMustCare

The hold that Mainstream Media had over the average American ended Nov 6th.

As proven by Nov 5th.

They don't matter anymore.

Let capitalism deal with them accordingly.

The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Are you suggesting that the government should control the narrative broadcast by MSM?

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WeMustCare

Nope. Free speech must be kept free, no infringement on first Amendment rights.

Here's a new article detailing how NEWS MEDIA being against the majority of Americans is NOT SMART.

Source: thehill.com...

Don't care.

1st Amendment.

Free speech.

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The current administration inhibited free speech on several levels over years.

Including the entire Obama administration before that.

Care to link for me to where on ATS you were not OK with that?

a reply to: WeMustCare

Media is this close 🤏 to being the fourth branch of government and that relationship must be divorced for optimal journalist integrity. Appointing a "czar" to coordinate policy implies the censorship department is under new management as opposed to being eliminated as we hoped.

a reply to: Lumenari

Allowing "free speech" is good and appropriate. What if 90% of that "free speech" emanates from outlets who don't like you?

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The current administration did on several levels over years.

Care to link to that claim?

I know they requested twitter voluntarily shut down extreme right-wing speech at one point. But twitter (x or whatever) is owned by MAGA now, so that kind of backfired.

Traditional MSM is all but dead at this point anyway, it’s basically irrelevant. Social media is where people are getting there information from these days and the right have been far quicker to catch on to that fact than the left.

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Lumenari

Allowing "free speech" is good and appropriate. What if 90% of that "free speech" emanates from outlets who don't like you?

It's the speech you don't like that needs protecting. Let's not pretend there's some kind of moral superiority involved in policing media that offends you.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: WeMustCare

Are you suggesting that the government should control the narrative broadcast by MSM?

As long as (due to owners being anti-Trump) 90% of the U.S. news media is against what the majority of Americans voted for last week, the incoming administration should encourage them to stop making most of their news about Trump/MAGA/Republicans NEGATIVE, and STOP avoiding publishing good news from Trump/Republicans/MAGA.

As long as Americans are given what we want from the big news outlets, we're satisfied.

Call that whatever you want to call it, Freeborn.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The party in power does what it wants to do, unless the Supreme Court puts a stop to it.

So long as Trump/Congress are doing what they think is best for Americans, and the majority of Americans aren't complaining, Trump/Congress is in good shape!

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The DNC Covert Operations Committee won't let them. They have a lock on the methods and sources. ☠️

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The current administration did on several levels over years.

Care to link to that claim?

I know they requested twitter voluntarily shut down extreme right-wing speech at one point. But twitter (x or whatever) is owned by MAGA now, so that kind of backfired.

Traditional MSM is all but dead at this point anyway, it’s basically irrelevant. Social media is where people are getting there information from these days and the right have been far quicker to catch on to that fact than the left.

You were first supposed to link for me where you are all butthurt on ATS about all the censoring of the right over the years.

Guess you got nothing there... hypocrisy much?

Ironic that you don't know anything about Google or Facebook censoring stuff.

Twitter was bleeding money and bought by Musk, who fired half the employees and it is now making a profit because... free speech for Americans in that case cost 44 billion dollars.

But you don't know anything about free speech being throttled down for Americans in America because they were not leftists.

Or anything that Obama did.

Or the current administration.

What is even more ironic is that you are from Canadastan but posting in a thread about American politics where I am simply pointing out that free speech is a good thing for all citizens.

You don't even have that where you live.

We are not the same...

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Lumenari

Allowing "free speech" is good and appropriate. What if 90% of that "free speech" emanates from outlets who don't like you?

I'm confused as to why I would care if a news outlet "didn't like me."

I'm a firm believer in my personal life of the rules of the three Fs.

If you are not financing me, feeding me or f***ing me, then your opinion doesn't matter to me.

I'm pretty positive a news outlet isn't doing any of those.

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: JadedGhost

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: WeMustCare
The upcoming administration certainly should not inhibit free speech in any way, shape or form.

They certainly shouldn’t. It’s almost certainly not going to stop them from trying though.

The current administration did on several levels over years.

Care to link to that claim?

I know they requested twitter voluntarily shut down extreme right-wing speech at one point. But twitter (x or whatever) is owned by MAGA now, so that kind of backfired.

Traditional MSM is all but dead at this point anyway, it’s basically irrelevant. Social media is where people are getting there information from these days and the right have been far quicker to catch on to that fact than the left.

You first with your claim. After you prove your negative to yourself that is.

In the meantime here's one example of 40.....

Government Censorship of Social Media Demands Bright-Line Rule

. . . This term, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to bring clarity to this state of affairs and defend free speech when it hears Murthy v. Missouri. The plaintiffs in Murthy allege that attempts by the Biden administration to pressure social media companies to remove speech, often under the guise of stopping “misinformation,” violate the First Amendment.

The lower courts, which ruled against the Biden administration, found these efforts covered such topics as the origins of the Covid-19 virus, the wisdom of climate change policy, and even jokes about Jill Biden.

For cases involving lawful speech—especially speech about public policy, government officials, and other matters of public concern—courts should abandon this focus on policing the line between “persuasion” and “coercion.” A request from a government official is inherently intimidating, particularly to any regulated industry or taxpaying individual.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: WeMustCare

Are you suggesting that the government should control the narrative broadcast by MSM?

As long as (due to owners being anti-Trump) 90% of the U.S. news media is against what the majority of Americans voted for last week, the incoming administration should encourage them to stop making most of their news about Trump/MAGA/Republicans NEGATIVE, and STOP avoiding publishing good news from Trump/Republicans/MAGA.

As long as Americans are given what we want from the big news outlets, we're satisfied.

Call that whatever you want to call it, Freeborn.

Where is that function outlined in the parameters of the executive branch as described by the constitution?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: WeMustCare

Media is this close 🤏 to being the fourth branch of government and that relationship must be divorced for optimal journalist integrity. Appointing a "czar" to coordinate policy implies the censorship department is under new management as opposed to being removed.

Czars can have many roles. The Trump Admin "media czar" will have a 2-way conduit between him/her self, and the person in charge of content at ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, NYTimes, WaPost...the BIGGEST outlets with the most influence in America.

Example: Today's front page of CNN.com (www.cnn.com... ) contains at least 2 anti-Trump statements which are lies. The Media Czar would contact the CNN programming director about them. If those lies are removed, all is well. If not, CNN would be closer to having the IRS-DOJ-FCC-DOL and other federal agencies knocking on their door for big $$$$ draining audits and investigations.