Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump vs. Washington Post
Donald Trump took to Facebook Monday to announce that he’s revoking the Washington Post’s press access at his campaign events. “Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign,” he said, “we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.”
Trump apparently made the decision based on a Monday WaPo story originally headlined “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting.”
“Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump said in a lengthy interview on Fox News early Monday morning. “And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”
In that same interview, Trump was asked to explain why he called for Obama to resign in light of the shooting and he answered, in part: “He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.”
For months, Trump has slyly suggested that the president is not Christian and has questioned his compassion toward Muslims. Years ago, Trump was a major force in calls for the president to release his birth certificate and prove that he was born in the United States. On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly stated as fact conspiracy theories about the president, his rivals and Muslims, often refusing to back down from his assertions even when they are proven to be false.
The Washington Post’s executive editor Marty Baron responded to Trump:
Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.
The Trump campaign shot back with a press release that quickly turned conspiratorial:
They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest. The fact is, The Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they don’t have to pay taxes and don’t get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry.
Trump has repeatedly refused to credential major news outlets when he disagrees with their coverage. Past targets have included BuzzFeed, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, Politico, and Univision.
Many media outlets and journalistic associations were quick to condemn Trump’s latest move, saying it chilled speech and was authoritarian in nature. What do you think: Is revoking a reporters’ credentials fair play or does it threaten the First Amendment?
Published in General
Okay someone needs to nip this. The First Amandment says Congress shall make no law…. Now when did Trump become Congress? When did revoking press credentials become a congressional act abridging freedom of the press? You can be deranged with hate all you want but stop conflating the First Amendment into something it’s not to satisfy your derangement.
Being from New York, the NYT will keep their credentials because Trump shares their values.
I am making a slippery slope argument here. Obama started this credentials nonsense, now Trump is coupling it with threats of expanding libel liability through changing the Court or the First Amendment.
I think not. WaPo is a “news” publication, publishing a “statement” not an opinion. I don’t recall hearing the “headline” in question was the title of an oped article on the opinion page.
I am glad you are free to call me deranged. Just understand, after a few more election cycles, name-calling may be illegal incitement of violence once our freedom of speech has been attacked from all sides. Enjoy your free speech while you have it, because it sure looks like both major parties don’t want you to have much more of it for very long.
Ok, so threatening to change libel laws and banning major press outlets from having access is no problem for you? Duly noted. I bet anything if Trump was a D and the publication was The Blaze or NRO you would not say this was “no problem.”
No you are making a shrill statement based on your hatred of Trump. Don’t like the guy, fine. But don’t start conflating press credential revocation with 1A violations.
As Trump is not Congress, your hyperbole fails on strict constructionist grounds.
As Obama has not been impeached (nay, even investigated) regarding his attempts at press intimidation, your hyperventilation fails Hanlon’s Razor.
Again, I am not saying this is a violation, I am saying this is threatening the freedom of the press. These are two different things. I did say, if you read my comments, that if Congress had enacted a ban for press credentials based on what the press outlets had to say about a sitting president, that ban on credentials would be clear viewpoint discrimination. However, what Trump is doing does not violate that principle, but it does weaken the first amendment by calcifying the normality of attacking the press from the bully pulpit, just as Obama did to Fox.
You mean like making a damned video and then having some trumped up charge of parole violations landing you in the slammer for a year? One candidate was involved in putting a man behind bars for speaking his mind. You care to guess which one?
I don’t think there were any Trump apologists back then; I certainly wasn’t. But I remember what I was thinking: Obama is President; he’s actually a sworn-in President. He took an oath to uphold the Constitution as the Chief Executive of our federal government. What an amazing betrayal of that oath. This really is a 1st Amendment issue—the federal government attempting to suppress political speech. It’s exactly why we have the 1st Amendment. This Harvard Law graduate and Con Law lecturer for one of our most prestigious law schools cannot possibly be unaware of the magnitude of his transgression. He deserves credit: once an Alinskyite, always an Alinskyite. At the very core of his being Obama believes in undermining this Constitutional Republic.
What were others thinking?
Is now the time for … Boring, tense, and repetitive?
Or, now?
So Obama does it, that makes it ok for Trump? Wow.
Clinton:
Trump:
Gosh, Josh, I don’t know. Who is more Evil on this one?
Again, most comments on this site are treating this man’s embrace of Obama’s tyranny as “ho-hum.” If facts spoken once don’t wake people up, repeating them until people realize that we need to defend our liberty seems to be the only option left.
Or does targeting major newspapers with threats of lawsuits and bans from press access not bother you?
Almost nobody ever mentions this when discussing Benghazi. It is one of the things I shout most loudly about. Even though Nakoula Nakoula was a hack, he was still an artist. This administration imprisoned an artist for political expedience. Never, never forget that.
– Convicted of four counts of lying to probation officers after being convicted of fraud of over $800K. Never convicted in the U.S. regarding the content of the Innocence of Muslims video.
– Trump and Clinton agree that Super PACS have to go, I am not sure if Trump understand enough about the Constitution to agree/disagree with the Dems’ attempt to repeal the 1A.
– This has nothing to do with Hillary, presumably, but maybe she agrees with this ridiculous comment
Trump now threatens to change libel laws to chill the freedom of the press and freezes out a major newspaper. I am more concerned about Trump because he is doubling down on Obama’s targeting of outlets that don’t favor him. I think this kind of action is reprehensible and puts us on the road to banana republic perdition where our leader decides what we hear and what we don’t hear.
Pretty sure his lying to probation officers was a key element of why he saw jail time. Just saying.
Agreed.
Yeah, they nailed him on a process crime because they needed something to nail him on to make their story stick. Sorry, what they did is disgraceful.
Again, pretty sure if he hadn’t been on probation, they couldn’t have touched him. Just saying.
I find your faith in these people reassuring. Count me out.
I am saying there is a world of difference between throwing the book at someone and convicting them of saying something you don’t like.
They only went after him because of the video. They went looking for something on him and found something to lock him up for. His arrest was not going to happen otherwise.
Trump sure has not called for the repeal. And lots of American’s don’t like the SuperPACS. I’d say that one is a wash, since they are both for it, and you cannot just assume he is out to repeal the 1A out of thin air.
Right. She had nothing to do with her Husband’s career, and nothing to do with statements like “Vast, right wing etc”. Anything her Husband has done that she has not denounced, she is OK with. It is fair to assume that.
Besides, she helped him cover up rape. Brutal Rape, and she appears to be OK with him flying to pedophile island, so I think she is OK with him blaming terror on free speech.
So, you think Trump’s speech is more dangerous than Clinton’s actions because of Obama’s actions.
So you think Trump is more likely to follow Obama in lockstep than Clinton. Interesting.
They only could go after him because of the prior conviction and the subsequent violations of parole. The video exposed him to scrutiny, it did not make him steal and lie.
Trump said Super PACs have got to go in a debate. Like I said, he doesn’t understand the constitution well enough to know that the way to accomplish this is through a change in the court or a change in the constitution. Hillary, although equally wrong, is not this dense.
The Trump Campaign is a political organization and can do whatever it wants. Its not an attack on Free Speech to deny press access. It might be foolish. But its not an attack on free speech.
The President of the United States of America is bound by different rules than a Presidential candidate. Thats pretty elementary. Anyone who cant tell the difference, is arguing based on personal axe to grind.
Yes, because rather than pointing out, as Paul Ryan and others have, that growing executive power is a problem, Trump promises to expand it and continue Obama’s assault on our constitution. And he’ll still be a racist.
Nope.
Pointing out that Trump isn’t Congress (without mentioning that denying press credentials is hardly a violation of the first amendment).
However, since YOU bring it up, there is a major political party in the US that seems to be remarkably unconcerned about P. Obama’s attempts at suppressing political speech. (However, as you seem to feel the same way, I am probably off base).
And the Clinton’s aren’t? Heh.