Trump threatens to target licenses of 'NBC and the Networks' after nuclear arsenal report

[DiogenesLamp]

What outlet have you founded?

You are making this about me?   Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless,  and turn our attention back to the problem that great forces are at work to censor the internet.   


I don't see attacking me for not solving the problem all by my lonesome as a relevant point in this discussion.   

[driftdiver]

What outlet have you founded?

@Suppressed
That is a bizarre statement.   

[RoosGirl]

Yeah? So?  Everyone's a hypocrite except for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

No one seems to want to address this.  It seem to me a worse problem than the current situation.

The media already serves as the mouthpiece of the left.  You somehow think they could do more of this than they already do?   


Looking at your theoretical argument,  If the right gains power and forces the media to spew propaganda for the right,  then that would be a change from what they are doing now.   When the left resumes power,  they would simply return to what they were doing before the right gained power.   


One of the things I have suggested is that we simply use the power of government to force media corporations to refrain from discriminating against conservatives in their hiring and promotion practices.


They accept this idea when it comes to blacks,  I'm just saying we can make them institute an affirmative action hiring policy for conservatives.   


Conservatives make up something like 45%  of the nation,  so the media corporation's employment should reflect numbers that represent a staff made up of similar percentages.   

Not having the "correct"  quota of conservatives on your staff can constitute a violation of anti-discrimination laws.    Big fines for discrimination can be imposed.   


What's wrong with this approach?  (Other than that we are using a Liberal principle to achieve this result.) 

[Free Vulcan]

This statement overlooks what I have become aware is a real problem;  Too many GOP are Democrats in disguise.   


We actually have only a small number of people in Congress that are actually GOP.

This is true. Yet the GOP is a winning brand, and there is a golden opportunity to pick up a number of seats in '18. At least a dozen are argueably on the table. 

That means getting good people in primaries who are conservative and either beating the incumbent or getting the nomination and winning the general.

If we walk in next year with 60+ seats, then it's going to require 10 or more defectors rather than 3 (McCain, Collins, Murkowski). That's a great deal harder to make excuses for when bills don't get enough votes.

[txradioguy]

So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?

Excellent point and the answer to your two questions is yes.

People don't seem to grasp the law of unintended consequences.

[DCPatriot]

So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?

Why should the only recourse be, for a willfully damaging news story based upon lies and innuendos from anonymous sources, to force them to rebut it on their own networks?

How does one reach the audience of the affected with sinister lies, meant to keep their viewers from knowing the TRUTH?

Do you force them to cover previously ignored stories?  NO!

You charge them with willful intent to deceive the People of the USA and then you prove it in a public trial.

President Trump is merely snapping his fingers to bring everyone's attention to the matter.

[aligncare]

Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.

NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?

NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?

In whose interest is that?

Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?

[txradioguy]

Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.

NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?

NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?

In whose interest is that?

Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?

AP spiked stories about Russian genocide in the 1930's in Siberia and the NYT downplayed the NAZI Holocaust for all of WWII.

This is nothing new.  Just like media having a Liberal bent is as predictable as the sun coming up.

If this was Obama threatening Fox your attitude would be completely different...in fact it probably was every time he badmouthed FNC.

You're all about revenge. 

The First Amendment protects NBC even when they are acting the way the are.  It doesn't just protect speech you agree with...but that with which you disagree with as well.

[Concerned]

Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.

NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?

NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?

In whose interest is that?

Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?

Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or otherwise “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.

[musiclady]

Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or other “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.

That's the bottom line.

Revenge, getting even, censorship, and "fairness" are not conservative principles.

[aligncare]

Reminds me of the young woman who knows her boyfriend is a dirty rotten scoundrel. He cheats on her, treats her like dirt, humiliates her in front of her friends. But, she just can’t let go and stays with him through all the abuse.

“Lie to me again, Johnny.”

[kevindavis007]

Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or other “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.

 


The constitution is a suicide pact.

[musiclady]

Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.

NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?

NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?

In whose interest is that?

Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?

Fascinating how you twist what others have said into a "you-hate-Trump-so-you-love-NBC-and-defend-their-lies" tommyrot.

I guess those ridiculous false ad hominems are all you've got when you have to defend a direct violation of the First Amendment. 

[musiclady]

Reminds me of the young woman who knows her boyfriend is a dirty rotten scoundrel. He cheats on her, treats her like dirt, humiliates her in front of her friends. But, she just can’t let go and stays with him through all the abuse.

“Lie to me again, Johnny.”

While what you are advocating is that the young woman go in direct violation of the law to stop her boyfriend.

SOME of us actually believe in the law, and want it upheld.

@aligncare

[jpsb]

Open up the market and allow anyone to play who wants to.

That will never happen. A few years back 1999 ish, Congress told the FCC to
allow low power broadcasters (under 100 watts) to operate without a license.
I immediately bought all the equipment I would need to operate a 40 watt
station. I also bought a beer joint to put it in. I was going to be rich radio
station/beer joint. Well guess what, the BIG broadcasters flipped out. No way
they could complete against 10,000 jpsbs broadcast original content.  They
lobbied Congress and the ban on anything over a 1/4 watt was restored. I got
stuck with 5,000 in useless equipment and a run down beer joint. Thanks a lot
Congress.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe
If it weren't for the media we would have 'won' the war in Vietnam.

Precisely.

[Emjay]

You are not a moron.  You just say moron things like this. 

Trump is exactly right to do this.  I have been trying to get people to threaten these propaganda bastards for years,  and Trump is finally the man with enough guts to do it! 


The media corporations are our enemy.  They are the propaganda corps for the left in this nation,  and they have been manipulating elections with their lies,  their omissions,  and their spin,  and it's way past time we did a frontal assault on their legitimacy and their continued lawful operation in this country. 

Yes,  pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with.   I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me.   I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them,   I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them,   I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats. 


These are our enemies,  and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election,  and probably a lot longer than that.   

We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.

I would like to quote your post a hundred times on this thread because it is absolutely true.

The media has way too much power to lie, to slant, to ignore and to shape our perception of reality.

They have to be curtailed from lying.  I would make the ability to sue the media easier to do.  Right now, it's almost impossible because one has to prove intent to harm and that is a nebulous thing to try and prove.

But it's totally obvious that there is both intent to harm and harm done.

[roamer_1]

This is true. Yet the GOP is a winning brand, and there is a golden opportunity to pick up a number of seats in '18. At least a dozen are argueably on the table. 

That means getting good people in primaries who are conservative and either beating the incumbent or getting the nomination and winning the general.

If we walk in next year with 60+ seats, then it's going to require 10 or more defectors rather than 3 (McCain, Collins, Murkowski). That's a great deal harder to make excuses for when bills don't get enough votes.

As long as people continue to be 'pragmatic' and vote party, we will continue to get politicians. The ENTIRE reason the congress is paralyzed right now is because of pragmatism being the word, rather than Conservatism. Vote for men who will undoubtedly stand for Conservative principles, and you will begin to tip the balance the other way.

We NEED tried and true, true-blue, rock-ribbed, Conservative statesmen, and literally nothing else will do.

Until the American people understand that, nothing will change.
this current government is a symptom (including Tump).

[Emjay]

AP spiked stories about Russian genocide in the 1930's in Siberia and the NYT downplayed the NAZI Holocaust for all of WWII.

This is nothing new.  Just like media having a Liberal bent is as predictable as the sun coming up.

If this was Obama threatening Fox your attitude would be completely different...in fact it probably was every time he badmouthed FNC.

You're all about revenge. 

The First Amendment protects NBC even when they are acting the way the are.  It doesn't just protect speech you agree with...but that with which you disagree with as well.

Yes!!  Revenge.  I want revenge against a slanted media which has lied to us for years, covered up for Hillary and Obama and trashed Trump with every breath.

What do we know about Obama after 9 years in the public eye?  Zip, zero, nada.  His secrets (and I know they are many) are still safe in the closet behind the coats and boots.  Why?  Because this media loves and protects him.  Yes, I want to hurt them.

And what about that beloved couple, The Clinton's.  Murderers, rapists, cheaters, liars or just lovable good old boys and girls.  Depends on the media, of course.

Yes, I would LOVE some revenge.  Make them prove the truth of what they print.  Make them give equal time to people who want to refute their stories.  Grind them into dust and salt the ground.

[Suppressed]

You are making this about me?   Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless,  and turn our attention back to the problem that great forces are at work to censor the internet.   


I don't see attacking me for not solving the problem all by my lonesome as a relevant point in this discussion.

Nice try to weasel out.

You were the one whining about how a high percentage of the media is left-wing, yet you've done nothing to change that.  Rather than lift a finger, your first reaction is to try to tear down America's Constitution. 

Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless

No.  Because attacking America's foundation is worse than worthless.

I encourage you to rethink your position.

[Suppressed]

During the election, we were told to ignore the odors of fascism that seemed to be wafting from some corners of the Trump campaign.

Now, we're told to breathe deeply and inhale the full-fledged stench of government-controlled media.

[roamer_1]

I would like to quote your post a hundred times on this thread because it is absolutely true.

The media has way too much power to lie, to slant, to ignore and to shape our perception of reality.

They have to be curtailed from lying.  I would make the ability to sue the media easier to do.  Right now, it's almost impossible because one has to prove intent to harm and that is a nebulous thing to try and prove.

But it's totally obvious that there is both intent to harm and harm done.

That cannot - CANNOT - be done with regulation. All you are doing is setting up the Office of Propaganda. If you find it so repugnant, then encourage libel and slander suits. That is what is supposed to keep them flying right and telling the truth.

[Emjay]

That cannot - CANNOT - be done with regulation. All you are doing is setting up the Office of Propaganda. If you find it so repugnant, then encourage libel and slander suits. That is what is supposed to keep them flying right and telling the truth.

Well, that's what I said, isn't it?

I suggested making the standard for suing low enough so that it is possible to do so.

And, you don't find it repugnant that the media has lied to us for years?  I do.  If you're from TOS, remember the joy in the land when Dan Rather was outed for blatantly lying about George W. Bush.  One of TOS's finest moments.

As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power.  What do we know about Obama?  Nothing.

What do we know about Sarah Palin?  Everything, including where she does her laundry.

If only the left put as much value on the right to bear arms as they do on free speech.

How many laws have been made abridging the right to bear arms in some ways?  Yeah, right.

And how many laws have been passed abridging some of the total rights of the media to lie, scam, slant and omit?

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes!!  Revenge.  I want revenge against a slanted media which has lied to us for years, covered up for Hillary and Obama and trashed Trump with every breath.

You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge?  Really?  That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.

[RoosGirl]

You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge?  Really?  That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.

It's all about the feels, baby.

[Cyber Liberty]

It's all about the feels, baby.

I'm appalled.  Just about everything the Never Trump people have been warning us about Trump, right there in that one little word, "revenge."  Government enforced revenge.   

[aligncare]

”As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power.  What do we know about Obama?  Nothing.

“What do we know about Sarah Palin?  Everything, including where she does her laundry.”

I love these two lines!

Any constitutionalist should be feeling their blood boil.

 The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.

[Suppressed]

I'm appalled.  Just about everything the Never Trump people have been warning us about Trump, right there in that one little word, "revenge."  Government enforced revenge.   

Chilling, isn't it?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.

There isn't one party rule over the media. Conservatives these days have as many or more choices than they have ever had.

[RoosGirl]

There isn't one party rule over the media. Conservatives these days have as many or more choices than they have ever had.

Yeah, but didn't you see that 36% of households get the MSM channels in their living rooms?  You know how you fix that?  The gov't should impose required watching/listening times over a variety of channels.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yeah, but didn't you see that 36% of households get the MSM channels in their living rooms?  You know how you fix that?  The gov't should impose required watching/listening times over a variety of channels.

We need to add visual sensors to TVs so we can monitor audience viewing for enforcement of the mandatory watching/listening.

[roamer_1]

Well, that's what I said, isn't it?

I suggested making the standard for suing low enough so that it is possible to do so.

It is possible to do so.

And, you don't find it repugnant that the media has lied to us for years?  I do.  If you're from TOS, remember the joy in the land when Dan Rather was outed for blatantly lying about George W. Bush.  One of TOS's finest moments.

OF COURSE it offends me. And yes, I was there. I was on the very thread when it happened. THAT is how you beat the press. Magnify that process and keep them honest.

As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power.  What do we know about Obama?  Nothing.

What do we know about Sarah Palin?  Everything, including where she does her laundry.

If only the left put as much value on the right to bear arms as they do on free speech.

How many laws have been made abridging the right to bear arms in some ways?  Yeah, right.

And how many laws have been passed abridging some of the total rights of the media to lie, scam, slant and omit?

But those laws are existing already. Letting government mess with the press is exactly the wrong thing to do.

What will come of it will be the Office of Propaganda, mark my words.

[RoosGirl]

We need to add visual sensors to TVs so we can monitor audience viewing for enforcement of the mandatory watching/listening.

Those sensors could be used for a lot of great things; making sure people are exercising enough, making sure they're eating the right things, reading the right books,etc.  The possibilities are endless!

[truth_seeker]

First amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It does NOT say that agencies of the FedGov have no role. The FCC was formed in 1934, and has regulated airwaves since then.

Under the current system, I just read that "White House staff says that Trump sometimes eats ice cream right from the container late at night....and leaves the spoon in the sink!!"

Could we go for a record number of posts, on that scandal?

FCC

"The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations."

[Cyber Liberty]

Those sensors could be used for a lot of great things; making sure people are exercising enough, making sure they're eating the right things, reading the right books,etc.  The possibilities are endless!

    

(Getting in the beer before the Well Being Gestapo bans it.)

[Emjay]

You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge?  Really?  That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.

Did I say that?  Show me where I said that.

I said I want revenge.

But government has passed a lot of laws regulating and abridging the right to bear arms.

So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?

[aligncare]

I am deeply offended by media lies, especially when those lies threaten my children’s future in an America which was handed down to us by the greatest generation relatively unchanged.

Today a 95 percent leftist media, plugged in to the democrat money machine, threatens that.

“Madam President Clinton” came close to being our reality. And that would have threatened the America that I inherited and love.

[Emjay]

It is possible to do so.

OF COURSE it offends me. And yes, I was there. I was on the very thread when it happened. THAT is how you beat the press. Magnify that process and keep them honest.

But those laws are existing already. Letting government mess with the press is exactly the wrong thing to do.

What will come of it will be the Office of Propaganda, mark my words.

Oh, come on.  We already have the Office of Propaganda.  It's called the New York Times.

I am not afraid of requiring the press to be both free and fair and not lie.  They lie every day.  Sometimes they do it blatantly and sometimes they are more subtle.  They can shape opinion so easily by totally ignoring some things, emphasizing others and shading the truth. 

How about requiring the press to print disclaimers ?  Would that hurt you?  Are you afraid that will throw us into the pit of evil?

[Emjay]

”As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power.  What do we know about Obama?  Nothing.

“What do we know about Sarah Palin?  Everything, including where she does her laundry.”

I love these two lines!

Any constitutionalist should be feeling their blood boil.

 The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.

Thank you.  Me, too.

[Cyber Liberty]

Did I say that?  Show me where I said that.

I said I want revenge.

But government has passed a lot of laws regulating and abridging the right to bear arms.

So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?

Where did I get that?  I quoted you.  If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up.  If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function?  If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge?  And, your last question...is that a serious question?  "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?" 

I can't even begin to answer that one.

[RoosGirl]

Where did I get that?  I quoted you.  If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up.  If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function?  If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge?  And, your last question...is that a serious question?  "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?" 

I can't even begin to answer that one.

Regulating bakers - bad.  Regulating newspapers - good.

[roamer_1]

I am not afraid of requiring the press to be both free and fair and not lie. 

That inevitably means a federally designated arbiter of truth. What happens when that 'Bureau of Truth' gets hijacked and bent to do the will of the Democrats next time?
You are literally advocating a Federal office of inquisition.

How about requiring the press to print disclaimers ?  Would that hurt you?  Are you afraid that will throw us into the pit of evil?

Knock yourself out. Probably just as useful as the disclaimers and warnings on a pack of cigarettes... Or the EULA you don't read when installing software.

[Emjay]

Where did I get that?  I quoted you.  If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up.  If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function?  If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge?  And, your last question...is that a serious question?  "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?" 

I can't even begin to answer that one.

Why not?  Why can't you begin to answer that one?

Laws and regulations are passed all the time.  A lot of them have been extremely harmful to the country.

Some of the environmental regulations have been a huge overreach and hurt people.

What about Obamacare?  Does that terrify you.

I'm not suggesting that government control the media.  I'm just suggesting that a few regulations regarding truth in media wouldn't hurt either one of us.

The truth shall set you free.

[aligncare]

I don’t eat baked goods. But, I consume news. Both affect me, but not in the same way.

What are we talking about here? A bakers dozen in Seattle? Your comparing that to the epidemic of propaganda and political lies tearing red and blue states apart?

I think a sense of proportion is called for here.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm not suggesting that government control the media.  I'm just suggesting that a few regulations regarding truth in media wouldn't hurt either one of us.

The truth shall set you free.

Wow.  Just wow.  Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?"  Who decides what the truth is?

[Emjay]

That inevitably means a federally designated arbiter of truth. What happens when that 'Bureau of Truth' gets hijacked and bent to do the will of the Democrats next time?
You are literally advocating a Federal office of inquisition.

Knock yourself out. Probably just as useful as the disclaimers and warnings on a pack of cigarettes... Or the EULA you don't read when installing software.

Well, duh.  How DID we kill cigarettes.  The media did help there.  They made it 'not cool' to smoke.

I'm not talking about that kind of disclaimer.  I'm talking about allowing feedback.  But, of course, the media would only print positive feedback ... I'll have to work on that.

But saying I want an 'arbiter of truth' is just another lie.  I want truth and I don't trust one arbiter.

Stop arguing with me.  I'm right and you know it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don’t eat baked goods. But, I consume news. Both affect me, but not in the same way.

What are we talking about here? A bakers dozen in Seattle? Your comparing that to the epidemic of propaganda and political lies tearing red and blue states apart?

I think a sense of proportion is called for here.

I agree.  This idea of crushing the freedom of the press is far, far more destructive than who can put what on a cake. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Stop arguing with me.  I'm right and you know it.

I know no such thing.  But, I do know you guys are scaring the crap out of me.  And, I highly doubt I will comply with your demand to not argue with you about this.  You will have many voices not willing to STFU at your command.

[roamer_1]

Wow.  Just wow.  Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?"  Who decides what the truth is?

Zackly.