Even the sharpest and most moderate reporters are missing the point with respect to Donald Trump and the press. Only the extremely slow would not know by now that Trump is a counter-puncher. He does not seek media time to launch attacks unless the dishonest media fires the first round. A long time ago, let’s just say “the Kennedy” era, in high school, I took a year of journalism. Obviously the rules have changed but protocol then was that news and news only was on the front page and opinion had its own page. Headlines on the first page were carefully written. The New York Times and Washington Post now place anti-Trump opinion on the front page, disguised as news. And, documented, is some of the “news” is fabricated.
I don’t personally know of anyone who believes that press should be muzzled. I don’t. I jealously guard both my first two amendments. My wallet muzzles the press for me; I subscribe to nothing on paper any longer, nothing. Donald Trump has a perfect right to argue back against unfavorable press/media and I applaud him for not being a wimp. I watch Fox nearly most of the time. I would be quite happy to watch another channel for another take on a story, if the take is in good faith and not loaded with the hate we see on CNN and MSNBC. I have a relative who said I should watch Fareed Zakaria on CNN for a “balanced” report. I held my breath and tried. It took no longer than five minutes for him to bash Trump. So be it. McCain (for the life of me I do not know why Arizona is represented by McCain and Flake) declares it is beneficial to the nation to have, at times, an “adversarial” press. Nothing in that statement can be interpreted that Donald Trump does not have an equal right to take that adversarial press to task. I have no problem at all, so long as the print is civil, with any amount of disdain the press has for Trump; BUT in the case of print news, put it on the third page, not the first and if your TV shows headline it, I won’t watch it.
The president has taken some criticism from moderate reporters for his comment that the “press is the enemy of the American people.” I see nothing wrong with the statement. If the dishonest media tries to influence opinion in opposition to policy that is best for the country then they are the enemy. I fabricate an example. Let us say an Iranian fighter plane buzzes an American warship and the warship fires on the plane, knocking it out of the air. If the press says ONLY “American warship provokes Iran by shooting an Iranian plane out of the air,” the press, by omission of some of the facts and the addition of the word “provokes,” risks leaving (deliberately) the impression with the public that the U.S. is the aggressor. The people, in the idealistic eyes of the press, then push their legislators to reign in the military aggressiveness, yet all we did was defend ourselves. Truly the press, in this example, is the enemy of the people. I don’t care what the NYT says about this incident on its EDITORIAL PAGE but don’t print this misleading garbage as a “news” article.
I don’t know how the White House Press Corps works. I understand it is the press itself that chooses the press conference attendees. Sean Spicer, press secretary, has tried something unique and I applaud it; he is using Skype to allow lesser known news people a chance to ask questions folks local to the guest press member have an interest. The other thing I think Trump can do is invite favorable and critical but objective reporters into the oval office for “private” press conferences. The message is simple, “report objectively and honestly on the first page and you are invited. If your articles are opinion disguised as news, you are not invited.” So he ends up with, say, six reporters in the room. Quickly the garbage reporters will get the message and clean up their reporting. Reporters want to sell articles and the news media wants ratings, this is a win/win.
An energetic press (media) keeps government in line. There is not enough honest reporting if honesty discredits the Left and in any case, Trump’s presidency has an absolute right to fight back. Do not confuse that with stripping the press of the First Amendment. Censorship and counter-punching are not synonyms.
1 Comments:
-I agree that he does have the right to defend himself.
-I think that he attacks too much in his defense.
-Anything that is critical he automatically labels as "fake news."
-While he has the right to attack anything that is reported incorrectly, he deflects blame on anything that he says incorrectly as he was given the information. EX: size of inaugural crowd inaccuracy (which was a ridiculous argument to begin with), he blamed the #'s on info from DC transit auth. The "things going on last night in Sweden" he blamed on something he saw on FOX News.
-He attacks CNN/MSNBC & other liberal outlets, but praises FOX News, which has become his willing scapegoat.
-I think that as a country with a free press it is inappropriate for people in public office to lead the people toward the government's prefered media outlet(s). It has the feel of propaganda to me.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home