3 ms·

Curious what HN makes of this statement from Trump: > He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all th

Curious what HN makes of this statement from Trump: > He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.” On the one hand, it sounds like a massive violation of civil liberties to revoke licenses based on journalistic criticism. On the other hand, if there is one-sided coverage, when does that cross the line into something resembling campaign financing, where the rules are different? And leaving out licensed situations like TV, what about online journalism. Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending?

quantified 1y ago
Wtf. You ever watch Fox or Newsmax? Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.
klaff 1y ago
Fox "News"?
bediger4000 1y ago
Thank you for the opportunity to reply. With all due respect and civility, it sounds like Trump is really thin skinned, and does not remember last year, when we saw nothing but news media hammering on Biden's Age Problem. That's an example falsifying his premise, and therefore by the laws of logic, falsifying his conclusion. I believe Washington Post did do 1 (one) Trump's Age Problem, as did the Philadelphia Inquirer. I acknowledge the coverage wasn't precisely 100% anti-Biden. Now that we know Trump started with false premises, we have to ask why? We also have an obligation to point out the falsehoods politely.
- quantified 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - bediger4000 1y ago
    Regrettably, I was unclear. You're certainly correct, thank you for noting this. Yes, Trump can hammer away, although Biden ultimately withdrew from the race, and politics in general, so this seems uncivil and unnecessary. My point was that news media as a whole was thorough about covering Biden's Age Problem, and almost completely ignored similar problems in Trump's appearance and behavior, thus falsifying Trump's premise that news media only denigrates Trump. Some have gone so far as to say that a lot of mass media was very charitable towards Trump during his 2024 campaign, and very hard on Biden.
    - quantified 1y ago
      I concur. There continues to be a distortion of the expectations and interpretations for candidates of different parties. The media expects Republican candidates to say the most outlandish things, while Democrats are usually held to standards.
      - bediger4000 1y ago
        Your observation is very common. Some vulgarians use the most uncivil phrase "Republicans can be lawless, while Democrats must be flawless" to uncharitably paraphrase the press' treatment of the two main political parties. To be entirely honest, there's a great deal of truth in the uncharitable paraphrase.
JohnFen 1y ago
> they’re not allowed to do that. While I don't think they actually do that, if they did it would be legal. Before 1987, when Republicans successfully got the fairness doctrine revoked, it wouldn't have been.
bigyabai 1y ago
> Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending? Truth? You seem to act like the only consequences of fraud, sexual assault and associating with pedophiles is the detriment to one's identity. Have you considered that there are victims to crimes like fraud, rape and pedophilia? That, perhaps, the perpetrators aren't victims in this scenario?

quantified 1y ago

Wtf. You ever watch Fox or Newsmax? Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.

klaff 1y ago

Fox "News"?

bediger4000 1y ago

Thank you for the opportunity to reply. With all due respect and civility, it sounds like Trump is really thin skinned, and does not remember last year, when we saw nothing but news media hammering on Biden's Age Problem. That's an example falsifying his premise, and therefore by the laws of logic, falsifying his conclusion. I believe Washington Post did do 1 (one) Trump's Age Problem, as did the Philadelphia Inquirer. I acknowledge the coverage wasn't precisely 100% anti-Biden. Now that we know Trump started with false premises, we have to ask why? We also have an obligation to point out the falsehoods politely.

quantified 1y ago
[flagged]
- bediger4000 1y ago
  Regrettably, I was unclear. You're certainly correct, thank you for noting this. Yes, Trump can hammer away, although Biden ultimately withdrew from the race, and politics in general, so this seems uncivil and unnecessary. My point was that news media as a whole was thorough about covering Biden's Age Problem, and almost completely ignored similar problems in Trump's appearance and behavior, thus falsifying Trump's premise that news media only denigrates Trump. Some have gone so far as to say that a lot of mass media was very charitable towards Trump during his 2024 campaign, and very hard on Biden.
  - quantified 1y ago
    I concur. There continues to be a distortion of the expectations and interpretations for candidates of different parties. The media expects Republican candidates to say the most outlandish things, while Democrats are usually held to standards.
    - bediger4000 1y ago
      Your observation is very common. Some vulgarians use the most uncivil phrase "Republicans can be lawless, while Democrats must be flawless" to uncharitably paraphrase the press' treatment of the two main political parties. To be entirely honest, there's a great deal of truth in the uncharitable paraphrase.

JohnFen 1y ago

> they’re not allowed to do that. While I don't think they actually do that, if they did it would be legal. Before 1987, when Republicans successfully got the fairness doctrine revoked, it wouldn't have been.

bigyabai 1y ago

> Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending? Truth? You seem to act like the only consequences of fraud, sexual assault and associating with pedophiles is the detriment to one's identity. Have you considered that there are victims to crimes like fraud, rape and pedophilia? That, perhaps, the perpetrators aren't victims in this scenario?