• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump threatening NBC?

NoahFence said:
"Should be"

Thank you.

You can make your argument that his voice shouldn't have more weight all you want. Just understand that today that is simply not reality. Trumps words can and probably will start wars. His words DO carry more weight.

I personally think the presidents words should rightfully carry far more weight than some random internet dude.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. I said you are choosing to place weight on influence to distinguish opinions. Whether we should do that to distinguish opinions is a choice, not a fact.
 
The Big Dog said:
Of course the President has more power than a message board poster. Hell just look back a couple of years to Obama siccing the IRS on conservative groups!

How silly to claim otherwise.
Click to expand...

How silly to claim so. Particularly since this has been in the news in the last two weeks.

It was known three years ago that this was just grist for the conservative hate industry and that Obama did no such thing. Did you miss the Times and WaPo coverage last week that confirmed what others had reported years ago - that the IRS went after all sorts of nebulous politicized organizations: liberal, libertarian, GOP leaning, harsh conservative, greens, whatever....

Non-profits are used for all sorts of nefarious deeds. The one the IRS cares about is the burying money dealie. They don't care if it's liberal or conservative money. They're just after money; money of any political persuasion.

Repeat a lie often enough and people believe it. Worked on the Hillary Trashing!
 
BobTheCoward said:
I don't think it is a fallacy. The largest group of Democrats is not leadership, but random bozos. The random bozos significantly outnumber party leadership.
Click to expand...

Sorry bro but calling folks you disagree with "random bozos" is childish beyond even you.
 
Hercules56 said:
Sorry bro but calling folks you disagree with "random bozos" is childish beyond even you.
Click to expand...

It is germane. Varwoche used it in post 5 to reference a group of Democrats I described. Skeptic ginger affirmed the term's use. I was mirroring the term. Also, it isn't a true statement that I necessarily disagree with them.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
The President of the USA can select heads of the FCC that will crack down on news stations that offend him. He can also threaten their budget and personnel if they don't shut down CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and other non-RW media.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, only three of the five commissioners can be from the same party and they serve five year terms. As for licenses, it's not that simple. NBC owns very few licenses. Most of their affiliates aren't owned by NBC and have their own licenses. The FCC would have to revoke the licenses of every affiliate in every market. There are rules as to why a license can be revoked and NBC and the affiliates can always seek judicial relief. I'm liking their chances with a First Amendment argument on this one.
 
Tony Stark said:
For publishing "fake news"?

Can anyone remember when a president was so anti First Amendment?

Of course most "conservatives" won't care. Because they are authoritarian slime and Trump is their leader.

Imagine if Obama threatened this. Republicans would be talking about impeachment.

For those that don't know what I'm talking about:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/us/politics/trump-nbc-fcc-broadcast-license.html?_r=0
Click to expand...
Trump eats big ones!!!!!!!!!! Boisterously and flagrantly!!!!!!!!
 
Craig4 said:
Tony Stark said:
For publishing "fake news"?

Can anyone remember when a president was so anti First Amendment?
Click to expand...


Nixon and Johnson.
Click to expand...


That's possible, but it doesn't match my recollection. Could you provide some examples of things Johnson said or did to support your claim? Johnson certainly wasn't happy that he and his administration were criticized in editorials and that many news stories of the time did not make him or his administration look good, but I don't recall any time he threatened, explicitly or implicitly, to use government powers to close down media outlets which were critical of him.

Nixon comes closer. According to the Washington Post, some of Nixon's allies tried to compete for the licenses of local tv stations. That's certainly something worth mentioning as part of a discussion about Trump's statements in relation to the media, but it's not the same. Nixon's chief media problem was with the Washington Post. If Nixon had attempted to sabotage, close down, take over, prosecute, or take other (overt or covert) government action against the Washington Post, or any other national news media outlet of the time, that would be comparable to Trump's implicit threat to take government action against NBC. Nixon may have made such threats (publicly or privately) but I don't recall them. So if you could provide examples to support your claim it would be helpful.

Craig4 said:
Wartime presidents tend to be adversarial with the press. Roosevelt and Wilson had their moments too. Wilson pushed through the Sedition Act which essentially criminalized publishing anything against the war. FDR issued an executive order creating a Censorship Board during the war.
Click to expand...


Yes, Wilson is a very good example of a president taking as strong an action against the first amendment as Trump is threatening. The Sedition Act of 1918 was used to prosecute (and imprison) people for speaking out against the war and the draft. (As I recall, that's where the oft-quoted line in a supreme court decision about shouting fire in a crowded theater comes from. The justice was equating opposing the draft during wartime with shouting fire in a crowded theater.)

Roosevelt I'm not so clear on. I think censorship of news stories during active war time to prevent classified information relevant to the war effort from being made public can be justifiable, and that government action to make sure secret information stays secret is different than government action to prevent media from saying things critical of the government and government policies. Wilson's actions (and Trump's threats) are aimed at silencing criticism; it's possible Roosevelt's actions had a similar purpose but if so it's not something I'm aware of.

For example, I'm familiar with government checking into some comic book and science fiction stories which related to atomic weapons and requesting these be altered or not published, because they didn't want attention called to the real-world work the US was doing then on developing atomic weapons; I'm not familiar with any government actions aimed at suppressing media criticism of the internment of the Japanese.

As I recall Roosevelt was quite tolerant of the media criticism he received, such as the weekly anti-Roosevelt broadcasts of Charles Coughlin. No government action that I can recall was taken against Coughlin even though he routinely attacked Roosevelt and defended Nazi actions; it was the Catholic Church which finally cracked down on Coughlin after war had been declared and they could no longer overlook his actions. So if you could provide examples of Roosevelt taking or threatening actions to shut down media criticism of him that would be helpful in seeing if he really is comparable to Trump in this regard. (But whether Roosevelt actually is or not, I do agree with you that Wilson is.)
 
Last edited:
The Big Dog said:
Of course the President has more power than a message board poster. Hell just look back a couple of years to Obama siccing the IRS on conservative groups!
Click to expand...


If you'd like to discuss that, it would be good to start a separate thread. As Roger Ramjets pointed out, that claim has been debunked (many times) already, but there are a number of people who still believe and repeat it so another thread discussing it might not be a bad idea.

But that's not the topic of this thread, so this is not the right place to be discussing echo-chamber stories about Barack Obama. This thread is the place to be discussing Donald Trump and his recent statements indicating an interest in using government actions to suppress media which are critical of him.
 
phiwum said:
This observation isn't really relevant, unless the difference between the two would explain why shutting one down isn't a violation of the First, while shutting the other down is.
Click to expand...

This is not really accurate. The OP is about the president of the United States threatening to close down TV networks.
The president doubled-down on the threat Wednesday night, saying on Twitter that “Network news has become so partisan, distorted and fake that licenses must be challenged and, if appropriate, revoked. Not fair to public!” Link
Click to expand...

I don't know of, and can't find any, similar threats by Democrats serving in powerful positions to shut down Infowars. In fact, the post you seem to be responding to was about people posting on forums saying Infowars should be shutdown.

At the same time, it seems mindboggling that we have arrived at the point where seemingly reasonable and objective people see no difference between NBC News and Infowars.
 
newyorkguy said:
At the same time, it seems mindboggling that we have arrived at the point where seemingly reasonable and objective people see no difference between NBC News and Infowars.
Click to expand...

It isn't that people see no difference. The issue is that almost everyone sees one as real news and the other as nothing but lies. Which one depends on the person.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I object to this being a conservative thing. I can go on to liberal forums and find talk of wanting to shut down Infowars. It is the same accusation.
Click to expand...
Does Infowars have an FCC license to revoke in a politically targeted way?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom