He says it better than I can even if its hard to decifer

[DBowling]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

[RickD]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

So that would exclude NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...

[DBowling]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

So that would exclude NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...

I'm not following you...

[RickD]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

So that would exclude NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...

I'm not following you...

I can see why you're not understanding, because what I wrote didn't make sense.

What I meant, was that up until recently(this election), the govt has been run by liberals. And NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., are run by liberals.

An unbiased major news source went the way of the dodo.

[abelcainsbrother]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

So that would exclude NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...

I'm not following you...

James O'Keefe hints next big target CNN.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/james-okeefe ... arget-cnn/

[Kurieuo]

This is rather left of field, but it is so scary to me, the Borg-like collective that exists. And, many don't know they're apart of it.

[Philip]

News flash: A truly open and free press has scarcely existed. Many nations' media are still highly regulated through state media control. Up through the '50s and '60s, it was a lot easier for those in power to hide things. Now, technology, 24/7 news, a zillion small media outlets, leakers aided by technology, the net, hidden mikes, survellance cameras everywhere, all that - it's put the ability for small organizations to break major stories - but also has provided the ability to disseminate manufactured (false) news. But fake news and yellow journalism, calculated to sell newspapers or to manipulate opinions, have always been around. But the manpower to do investigative stories has greatly dimenished as ad income has plummeted. And the distorted perception that what we see in various media is reality, is widespread. It's why fake news is so effective. But also widespread is distrust of what we see in many media. Yep, media is free, but to do WHAT exactly? And the farther you go back before 1900, most media was either state controlled or highly partisan, often ineffective. Before the telegraph, it was mostly unconnected in reach. What went on outside of big cities often went unreported or was highly censored. Even today, the major news is mostly made in larger cities, with various outlets merely regurgitating the same stories. It's the same game - attract readers and consumers with the kinds of stores they find interesting - because they sell, and because advertisers want the largest possible readership. It's rarely about seeking truth or taking an honest, unbiased look at events.

[Kurieuo]

What exactly is the independent free press?

A Press that is independent from government control.

So that would exclude NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC...

I'm not following you...

You think you have a free media, you believe in a myth.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GObidI2LcY8

[Philip]

Every media that cost money to access - be it on cable tv, the internet, newspapers, magazines - those that can't afford the subscriptions - guess what, they won't get the news except by word of mouth - that's millions of people that aren't getting a well-rounded look at the news. Every time an editor decides what to cut out of a story - that's limiting access to the larger picture and context for all of their viewers/readers/listeners. Every time an editor or tv producer decides to not run a certain story, or some aspect of it - that's censorship. That's controlling information. And much of the media has an agenda, or a particular audience it cultivates and "plays" to. Vast news organizations are controlled by people like the Murdochs, agenda-group investors, division heads, all that. Been that way forever. Hearst papers - infamous for yellow journalism. Much media has a certain brand of advocacy or activism. They tend to run stories that match their particular self-identification and worldview. So, Trump controlling that a few media he views as seriously biased won't have access - I really don't see the problem AS LONG AS the rest have considerable numbers and a diversity, and there is no attempt to control what they print or say. Perhaps Trump's calling some out will make them far more careful and accurate than they have historically been. Maybe more will go back to reporting facts as opposed to spin. Of not obsessing over the small ridiculous stuff, and instead keep the focus on the far bigger issues.

[abelcainsbrother]

Every media that cost money to access - be it on cable tv, the internet, newspapers, magazines - those that can't afford the subscriptions - guess what, they won't get the news except by word of mouth - that's millions of people that aren't getting a well-rounded look at the news. Every time an editor decides what to cut out of a story - that's limiting access to the larger picture and context for all of their viewers/readers/listeners. Every time an editor or tv producer decides to not run a certain story, or some aspect of it - that's censorship. That's controlling information. And much of the media has an agenda, or a particular audience it cultivates and "plays" to. Vast news organizations are controlled by people like the Murdochs, agenda-group investors, division heads, all that. Been that way forever. Hearst papers - infamous for yellow journalism. Much media has a certain brand of advocacy or activism. They tend to run stories that match their particular self-identification and worldview. So, Trump controlling that a few media he views as seriously biased won't have access - I really don't see the problem AS LONG AS the rest have considerable numbers and a diversity, and there is no attempt to control what they print or say. Perhaps Trump's calling some out will make them far more careful and accurate than they have historically been. Maybe more will go back to reporting facts as opposed to spin. Of not obsessing over the small ridiculous stuff, and instead keep the focus on the far bigger issues.

Yeah I love it in the Press conferences when Trump calls on the reporters for CBN(Pat Robertson),Breitbart,and people from less known Right Wing Blogs,etc to ask questions and does not call on CNN and a few others to ask questions or he calls on them last.It makes them angry and they whine about it.

[edwardmurphy]

Attacks on the courts? I don't understand.

If you mean the 9th Circuit Court trying to prevent Trump keeping his promise people who voted him in on immigration policies, well, it says to be he's trying to be a loyal as possible to the people who voted him in at keeping his promises.

[nonsense], K.

I don't know how the government is set up in Australia, but here the Courts are a coequal branch of government tasked with keeping the Executive and Legislative branches in check by ensuring that their executive orders and laws do not violate the Constitution. The 9th Circuit Court didn't give a thought to "trying to prevent Trump keeping his promise," they looked at the constitutionality of his order, saw that it didn't pass muster, and put the clamps on it. If he doesn't like it he can take it up with the Supreme Court. That's how things are supposed to work.

A country where Trump could just make promises and then keep them with no regard to their constitutionality would be a dictatorship. Some, like ACB, are desperate for a strongman, but last I looked the majority of Americans still prefer representative democracy, warts and all.

And frankly, Trump losing that case is his own damned fault - he should have taken the time to write the order competently and get it properly vetted before rolling it out, but he's inexperienced, impetuous, profoundly ignorant of how government works, and surrounded by sycophantic yes-men so he screwed it up and got his ass handed to him. Maybe he'll do better next time.

[Kurieuo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXwnlsNFXIY

The main difference as I see it, is with how the media ran the narrative for each president.

[edwardmurphy]

Are you telling me that for decades you've been sitting in Australia seething over the American media coverage of our various presidents' various plans to secure our southern border? That seems strange to me. Why would you possibly care?

Anyway, I see what you're getting at but I don't think the coverage has been unfair. Here are my reasons:

1) Trump prefaced his comments on illegal immigration with the claim that nothing whatsoever was being done by the Obama Administration to secure the border or deport criminal aliens. Everything about that was a lie, and now Trump is essentially copying Obama's immigration policy. It's fair for the media to notice that.

2) The areas where Trump is NOT copying Obama's immigration policy are stupid and alarming.

First off, he insists that he's going to build this huge, tall, massively costly, pretty much pointless wall, despite the facts that illegal immigration from Mexico has actually been down in recent years and that half of our illegal immigrants come in on visas and just never leave. So the wall is a 20+ billion dollar (plus annual maintenance forever) boondoggle that's aimed at ineffectively addressing a nonexistent problem. And this is the plan from the party that claims to be fiscally conservative.

Second, Trump uses all of this over-the-top, alarmist rhetoric that scares the Hell out of people, whether they're illegals, American business owners who count on undocumented labor, international students, American universities that count on international students, anyone who does business in Mexico, and so forth. No-Drama Obama set records for number of people deported, but he did it calmly and quietly so nobody freaked out. It's not reasonable for Sideshow Don to think he can use his America-first, White nationalist rhetoric to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment without the media pointing out what he's doing and noting who else used that same strategy. If the comparisons aren't flattering to Trump then maybe he should start acting more like a 21st century American politician than one from, say, mid-20th century Spain, Italy, or Germany.

3) Trump's cluster[love] of a Muslim ban was poorly drafted, chaotically rolled out, and almost definitely unconstitutional, and when the courts called him on it he had a giant hissy fit and questioned the legitimacy of the American Judiciary. These are not things that Clinton, Obama, or any other American President ever did. That's the behavior of a wannabe tinpot dictator and it needs to be reported as such.

4) Trump is a reality TV star who's trying to work the media to his advantage by doing and saying stupid, outrageous things and then howling about the injustice of it all when the press calls him out for his behavior. It's a game and the press is - very slowly - catching on.

So anyway, fair is fair.

[abelcainsbrother]

Are you telling me that for decades you've been sitting in Australia seething over the American media coverage of our various presidents' various plans to secure our southern border? That seems strange to me. Why would you possibly care?

Anyway, I see what you're getting at but I don't think the coverage has been unfair. Here are my reasons:

1) Trump prefaced his comments on illegal immigration with the claim that nothing whatsoever was being done by the Obama Administration to secure the border or deport criminal aliens. Everything about that was a lie, and now Trump is essentially copying Obama's immigration policy. It's fair for the media to notice that.

2) The areas where Trump is NOT copying Obama's immigration policy are stupid and alarming.

First off, he insists that he's going to build this huge, tall, massively costly, pretty much pointless wall, despite the facts that illegal immigration from Mexico has actually been down in recent years and that half of our illegal immigrants come in on visas and just never leave. So the wall is a 20+ billion dollar (plus annual maintenance forever) boondoggle that's aimed at ineffectively addressing a nonexistent problem. And this is the plan from the party that claims to be fiscally conservative.

Second, Trump uses all of this over-the-top, alarmist rhetoric that scares the Hell out of people, whether they're illegals, American business owners who count on undocumented labor, international students, American universities that count on international students, anyone who does business in Mexico, and so forth. No-Drama Obama set records for number of people deported, but he did it calmly and quietly so nobody freaked out. It's not reasonable for Sideshow Don to think he can use his America-first, White nationalist rhetoric to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment without the media pointing out what he's doing and noting who else used that same strategy. If the comparisons aren't flattering to Trump then maybe he should start acting more like a 21st century American politician than one from, say, mid-20th century Spain, Italy, or Germany.

3) Trump's cluster[love] of a Muslim ban was poorly drafted, chaotically rolled out, and almost definitely unconstitutional, and when the courts called him on it he had a giant hissy fit and questioned the legitimacy of the American Judiciary. These are not things that Clinton, Obama, or any other American President ever did. That's the behavior of a wannabe tinpot dictator and it needs to be reported as such.

4) Trump is a reality TV star who's trying to work the media to his advantage by doing and saying stupid, outrageous things and then howling about the injustice of it all when the press calls him out for his behavior. It's a game and the press is - very slowly - catching on.

So anyway, fair is fair.

1. Wrong! The left look at mexican illegal immigrants as future voters if they allow them to break our laws and they have been allowing them to break our laws.Trump is right about nothing being done about illegal immigration.Congress along with Democrats already passed a bill funding a barrier at the border,yet nothing was ever done.It was'nt until Trump got into politics that it became important to enforce our immigration laws like Mexico,Australia,Canada and many other countries do.Now the wall will be built and mexicans can come in legally.Mexico will pay for it too,because they owe America more than the wall costs to build(Something you liberals intentionally overlook).Obama did nothing to decrease illegal immigration.It is a lie Trump is following Obama's immigration policies.

Trump has never used white nationalism rhetoric(This is a left wing lie) he has always been about putting ALL Americans first regardless of race.By enforcing our immigration it will save the US alot of money that can go towards improving the lives of the American people of all races.Trump has appointed Ben Carson to HUD to improve the infrastructure in the black communities and he will.

3.The President has the power to control immigration at anytime he deems it a threat.It was these left wing judges that are in the wrong and they will be held accountable if we have Islamic terrorist attacks.A Federal judge cannot control immigration.

4.Wrong! Trump just defends himself and fights back like he has this whole election. The bullies are the ones who start it with Trump whether reporting fake news,etc. Trump will hit you back if you hit him so tell the real bullies who start it with him to not dish it out if they can't take it. Trump will not be controlled by political correctness like usually with Republicans.Any other Republican would have already caved to political correctness,but it will not work on Trump.He has not called all of the press fake news either,this is another fake news story where the media took out the word fake and claimed Trump was talking about all of the media,which he was not.He was specifically calling out CNN,The New York Times,Washington Post,etc.

[edwardmurphy]

Pretty much everything you wrote was demonstrably false, but your ignorance is a bulwark I've never managed to surmount and I'm not currently inclined to make another assault.