45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2

[turbobloke]

Mr Snrub said:

turbobloke said:

jsf said:

Eric Mc said:

I think the "press" will fight back with proper quality and investigative journalism. There will definitely be a "Watergate" moment in this administration's life - it may even have happened.

He has riled up the press and they will fight back.

Will enough public care if they do? There is no trust in them anymore. This isn't the Nixon era where such a scandal will matter as much.

Enough of Trump's supporters already don't give a damn about the press, if they did then given what was printed in the election campaign he'd never have been elected in a month of Sundays. The fact that Democrats will lap it up and shout more names and wear even more shocked expressions won't change a thing, after all it didn't win the election for Hillary. Trump's opponents really need to wake up and smell the next defeat, unless they change tack Trump will have an option on the next 4 years as well as the current 4.

I think a part of it is the mainstream media are in decline, and Trump's use of Twitter to communicate has made them even less relevant.

Agreed, the increasing irrelevance of MSM outlets is a factor.

[gadgetmac]

Eric Mc said:

danllama said:

I'm very, very pleased the BBC is banned. The bias has been running at disturbing levels for a good couple of years now, and they need to know it's not ok. Their anti-brexit agenda is appalling and only serves to damage this country. Balance the output, or be called out on it. Seems fair to me.

Whether you think they are biased is absolutely missing the point.[b] If you are a brave leader with conviction and have the courage of your convictions - you don't try to shut your opponents out or up - you say to them. "let me have your arguments and I will argue my side back with belief and strength".

Banning is a tool usually reserved for despots and a bullies.[/b]

Too true But whilst slapping ourselves on the back for stating what should be obvious to all lets not forget the ultra-liberal Uni Campus stalinista. See Milo for details.

[Leithen]

Mr Snrub said:

I think a part of it is the mainstream media are in decline, and Trump's use of Twitter to communicate has made them even less relevant.

He's doing wonders for their circulation and subscriptions at the moment. He's the gift that just keeps giving.

[cqueen]

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

[danllama]

cqueen said:

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

Exactly.

It's quite simple.

Balance your reporting, and you'll be unbanned.

But they won't. Wonder why.

[danllama]

///ajd said:

NRS said:

danllama said:

I'm very, very pleased the BBC is banned. The bias has been running at disturbing levels for a good couple of years now, and they need to know it's not ok. Their anti-brexit agenda is appalling and only serves to damage this country. Balance the output, or be called out on it. Seems fair to me.

Would you say the same thing if it was "your" news source banned by Obama/ Cameron/ Corbyn etc?

He'd probably blame the BBC.

What are they teaching kids in school these days? Not much common sense it seems.

What is "MY" news source?

I'm British and i'm forced to pay for that biased tripe or face court. The BBC should be "MY" news source.

[rscott]

cqueen said:

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

They've reported on his claims of job creation - that's a positive?

As for the negatives, what other positive things has he actually achieved yet? The EO on the wall is meaningless until Congress passed a bill to fund it. The EO on restricting travel was thrown out.

[danllama]

Eric Mc said:

Whether you think they are biased is absolutely missing the point. If you are a brave leader with conviction and have the courage of your convictions - you don't try to shut your opponents out or up - you say to them. "let me have your arguments and I will argue my side back with belief and strength".

Banning is a tool usually reserved for despots and a bullies.

So, tell me, where do I go to respond to the BBC's bias? They have the entire country in reach. How do I respond?

Exactly. I can't. They have free reign to report whatever biased st they want to support their agenda. They've been crying since we voted against them on the EU.

[ou sont les biscuits]

rscott said:

They've reported on his claims of job creation - that's a positive?

As for the negatives, what other positive things has he actually achieved yet? The EO on the wall is meaningless until Congress passed a bill to fund it. The EO on restricting travel was thrown out.

Well, he's made the cover of Private Eye for 3 editions in a row. And the way he's going at the moment probably the next three as well......

[Europa1]

Greg66 said:

Dimski said:

This Fake News thing.

(Articles based on 'expert' opinions/anecdotally collected observations like the BBC one above, or anything the Daily Mail has said in the last 10 years that could be linked with cancer, for example, do not help...)

However, it seems that people really, REALLY do not understand what fake news is.

Newspapers and journalists have to have a legitimate source but can then write an article in a cosmopolitan way to evoke an emotive response in the reader; it is why we have the Daily Mail and the Guardian. They both do the same thing from fairly opposite ends of the political spectrum.

This does not mean it is fake news. You could claim it may be misleading, but it is not necessarily fake. Frankly, and perhaps ironically, Beirtbart and Fox are arguably FAR worse than CNN, the New York Times and the BBC with regards to this sort of news, but Trump protaganists seem to be happy to ignore this.

What concerns me about Trump is that he appears to be deliberately misleading the American public to blur this distinction, and it is a pretty big threat to free speech and the freedom of the Press. Overall I think that, with both left and right leaning news services the press are able to do a fairly decent job of holding Policians, public figures and so on to account (In the US and UK, at least). As Eric alludes to above, Trump seems to be seeking to deliberately destroy this for his own ends, which I find quite scary.

I think this is backed up further by his comment this morning that Journalists should not be ALLOWED to print a story without an actual NAMED source. For obvious fking good reasons journalists sources are protected, and yet it is another example of Trump trying to silence or bully those who dare to voice criticism, or god forbid leak anything negative about Team Trump!

That's without even considering the irony in calling everything 'fake News' while repeatedly misleading and lying.

I agree. Well said.

Ditto.

Let's not forget that Watergate was a newspaper story made possible by an unnamed source.

I'm not the biggest fan of the BBC, but I am surprised at the complacency/vindictive joy with which this news is being greeted by some. To me a government which is less than 3 months in banning news outlets whose reporting or questionning they don't like is a cause for concern.

[Eric Mc]

Danilama - I'm not talking about what YOU feel about the BBC, As somebody has already said, there is a massive thread for discussing that elsewhere on PH.

What I am asking is why should the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful individual in the world. feel so cowed by certain media outlets that he feels that he can't handle their questions.

Is he scared?

Is he a coward?

Is he a bully who only likes to be surrounded by those who see the world the way he does?

Of course, if I was in a press room asking him these questions I'm sure I'd find myself banned too.

It's a very worrying trend and one he will live to regret.

[Eric Mc]

What's that got to do with banning news outlets from attending White House briefings?

[citizensm1th]

i cant wait for Donald to come on his state visit to the uk i can just see it now.

May: your majesty the americans dont want the bbc to cover his visit to buck house

Queenie: tell the american tt to fk orf one likes the bbc they let me broadcast my Christmas message

May: but your majesty we need a trade dreal

Queenie: either you tell him to fk orf or i will tell Phillip to have a word

[turbobloke]

Eric Mc said:

What I am asking is why should the President of the USA, arguably the most powerful individual in the world. feel so cowed by certain media outlets that he feels that he can't handle their questions.

Saying that Trump feels cowed and unable to handle their questions is one interpretation of events (yours). Equally possible is that he holds the view that certain media outlets portray an even less accurate version of events than others, and sees no benefit in feeding them directly. Even so it's obvious to everyone that the BBC and the Mail etc will get the information in the end, so this could equally be seen as a more assertive marking of cards. If somebody has an agenda that involves putting Trump down when possible, they'll go for your interpretation, I can't claim to get inside Trump's head so don't have a view one way or the other, but can still note that there's more than one explanation for what he did.

[Eric Mc]

So, you think Trump is out just to feed news to those he approves?

[anonymous-user]

cqueen said:

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

Wow, what a compelling argument. I'm totally convinced it's "fake news" because you told people to 'shove the science'.

[chrispmartha]

danllama said:

cqueen said:

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

Exactly.

It's quite simple.

Balance your reporting, and you'll be unbanned.

But they won't. Wonder why.

You really think Trump did this becsuse he likes 'fair' and 'balanced'? It's quite obvious he's done it because he like the exact opposite.

[KrissKross]

La Liga said:

cqueen said:

The BBC ONLY EVER reports about Trump in a negative light. So take your 'scientific research' and shove it. Until the BBC and the rest of the media starts being more balanced, I'll not have a word of it.

Wow, what a compelling argument. I'm totally convinced it's "fake news" because you told people to 'shove the science'.

The science of news?

[Alpinestars]

danllama said:

Exactly.

It's quite simple.

Balance your reporting, and you'll be unbanned.

But they won't. Wonder why.

It's funny how PHers never see bias when a story suits their own world view.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Saying that Trump feels cowed and unable to handle their questions is one interpretation of events (yours). Equally possible is that he holds the view that certain media outlets portray an even less accurate version of events than others,

As said above, Trump has a very weak, at best, understanding of what "true" means.