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
I was outraged.
It mattered not a whit.
Obama continued his attacks on Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc.
The GOP was, as usual, irrelevant.
So here we are, having decided in actual practice that attacking opposition media is a-ok.
Hence, I am quite fine with Trump attacking and threatening enemy media organizations.
They’ve worked hard to earn that treatment. I say we should give it to them- and with interest.
…and Trump is acting like a leader. In contrast to Omega, who blames Orlando on the fact that Omar had a gun, and also on us:”we” have to change our attitudes toward gays. Additionally, I don’t think a good leader has to countenance outright lies published about him. Beyond that, you have zero idea, zilch, nada, what I meant by my last comment.
Despite your condescension, I have quite a good understanding of what you said, thank you very much. Unfortunately for you we aren’t discussing Trump and his speech about the Orlando Shooting but rather whether a man seeking the highest political office in the land is acting properly when he excludes one of that nations largest newspapers because of his thin skin. I did not say he doesn’t have the right to do it, but rather whether he should do it.
Would that be “free” markets you are asking us to rely upon? OK. But media here does not operate as a free market. The media here is highly
regulatedprotected by government agencies via multiple inputs/access/regulations. It is not a market that operates freely. I’m pretty sure you know this. I think this truth is one of the many reasons some people feel they can no longer rely on the media as a source of facts/truth, objective reporting. The Press/Media has become very “colored” and unreliable. It would be more honest to admit it is solely a propaganda/marketing machine for ideas, agendas services, and products. Trustworthiness, Honesty, Reliability not requiredIt’s been going on a long time. I clearly remember in the 70’s (perhaps the early 80’s) when newspaper/media conglomerates “announced” they had decided they were no longer just a news organization, rather they were community “citizens and given their reach, had an obligation to actively guide people toward and foster acceptance/support of leadership determined “common community” goals. And, to do so by being selective in deciding which news to publish and how to present news. Scary then/scary now. The day newspapers stopped being “news” organizations, they forfeited their special status.
Let’s not deceive ourselves. The media is mostly protected from free market forces. If we truly had functioning free markets, I would agree with you.
Isn’t trump ejecting the gutter weasels the market working?
Seems like this is like trump putting a 1 star yelp review on the washington post.
Feisty laddie! Or is it lassie? Traipsin’ after the spirit o’ the law, that’s the way to arbitrary justice. No–thank YOU very much.
When the private citizen is running for president and shaping the policy platform of a major political party. That’s when the actions of a private citizen threaten the bill of rights.
This is the false appeal of a demagogue being regurgitated as an argument in his favor. The argument of “Trump alone” assume no one in the conservative movement has ever done a single thing to make the case for what conservtives believe. Until Trump.
This opinion is bereft of factual support and gives short shrift to the daily work of tens of thousands of good men and women who daily take action to provide news and opinion form a conservative perspective. You are currently commenting on a website run by some of those very people.
If this opinion is intended to limit its aim to only GOP elected officials, even then the opinion is wrong, as people like Ronald Reagan, Ted Cruz, New Gingrich, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio and on and on and on have taken it to the media time and time and time again.
The argument of “no one took x conservative position until Trump” is wrong on every front. The unique things about Trump’s positions are his blatant racism, xenophobia, and opposition to American defense strength and freedom at home. Hatred for freedom, love of tyrants, and racism are the things unique to Trump. Certainly not his overwrought disdain for the media. A passing observer of conservatives in office and conservatives in the media will quickly realize that they don’t like mainstream media. Our opposition is so passe we abbreviate MSM and expect people to know we mean mainstream media when we do it.
This “until Trump” fallacy is why conservatism is doomed. Ignorance of facts and cult of personality. Enjoy the tyranny y’all.
As someone who works at a place that had its head kicked in by market forces, I’d disagree.
And he did exactly that. Opened himself up and became the most media-available, scrutinized candidate in modern history. Hillary hides; Trump never seems more than 20 minutes from his next interview.
But you want to condemn him. Not Hillary The Hider, but the guy who no one can keep away from the media.
And why do you want to condemn him? Because from his exhaustive press availability he identified an egregious, tiny fraction that are Democrat operatives posing as journos; they are purposefully and blatantly biased. So he’s said “I’m no longer going to aid and abet your faux journalism; do that on your own time.”
There’s no serious issue here, be it 1A or anything else. You want the guy to lose, that’s all. You seem to think you can shame him into doing something stupid, like playing by rules the Left sets for him but doesn’t have to themselves abide.
Unfortunately for you Trump isn’t as stupid as Romney or McCain. He does not appear to be afraid of his own shadow, or to be taken in by the silly talking points so assiduously floated by you and other anti-Trump paraders. I really had no idea until now how much I would enjoy watching Trump drive your ilk crazy.
Care to expand on which market forces/circumstances? Not wanting sidetrack the post, just curious.
You seem to think I don’t condemn Hilary for her behavior or treatment of the press. Can you provide evidence of that? This thread isn’t about Hilary as much as you would like it to be.
Nice try though.
You want me to provide evidence of what you don’t do? Okay, just as soon as you prove you don’t want Trump to lose.
Note:
Denis Lee is EThompson, who was permanently banned for repeatedly violating Ricochet’s Code of Conduct. This account was created by EThompson in order to circumvent her ban, and therefore has been shut down as well.Our hometown newspaper just gets smaller and smaller. :(
You’re right, of course. That’s why media has been completely static for the last 25 years and there have been no new entrants to the market place or new forms of media.
My local paper is also shrinking.
I still subscribe because every now and then they send a reporter around to City Hall. That is the only reason I subscribe.
And they have been getting worse and worse.
Increasingly, any article on state or national politics (which all come from Tribune or Associated Press) have Leftist editorial content mixed up with the who what when and where, and if they bother to give a why it is a conjured-up Leftist spin version that attributes base motives to conservatives.
I really wish I could drop the subscription, but I keep it up because it appears that the price I pay is less than what it costs them to print and deliver it. They keep trying to move me to an e-subscription only, but I will not do that.