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. NBC
So we’re just going to jump into it. Yesterday morning, the President Tweeted the following: “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!”
That comment was in response to an NBC news report about a July 20 meeting where the President said he wanted a 10-fold increase in the US nuclear arsenal, and everyone had to patiently explain the costs, the impracticality, and the international agreements that prevented such a thing. It was also after that meeting that Rex Tillerson allegedly called the President a “moron.” (Not only does the President dispute that report, but several other people, including Gen. Mattis, say the report is inaccurate.)
Okay, first things first, the President’s Tweets are (according to the White House) official statements by the President of the United States. Just to be clear: the President of the United States publicly threatened the broadcast license of a critical media outlet in an official statement.
Trump continued later, saying in a meeting with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, “It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should want to look into it.”
There are a few things wrong with this. As Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democratic member of the FCC, observed on Twitter, this is “not how it works.” She added a link to the FCC regulation guide that says, “The Constitution’s protection of free speech includes that of programming that may be objectionable to many viewer[s] or listeners. Thus, the FCC cannot prevent the broadcast of any particular point of view.” But also the FCC licenses local stations. So it’s not like NBC, the network, has an overarching license to pull.
So yeah, that happened. The reaction went far beyond Rosenworcel with criticism coming from both the left and right on First Amendment grounds. Either this will dominate the news for a while or it will blow over when something else comes along.
This is a preview from Thursday’s Daily Shot newsletter. Subscribe here free of charge.
Published in General
John McCain to Cumulus Radio chairman on Dixie Chicks ban: “It’s a strong argument about what media concentration has the possibility of doing.”
McCain spoke a number of times during the Bush presidency on the need for the FCC keep an eye on “media concentration”. That term was also used by many liberals who wanted the FCC to regulate Fox News.
“Does Howard Dean have it in for Fox News? First, arguing against excessive media concentration on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball,’ he joked that he’d like to break up Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News on ‘ideological’ grounds.”
Trump’s tweet was not good. But John McCain with his “media consolidation” arguments and his campaign-speech restrictions has been worse.
It’s clear why McCain does not get held to the same standard here.
Broadcasters get exclusive use of spectrum within their license area. There are dozens of stations on the same frequency but spread out across the country.
The licenses are not perpetual. It used to be 7 years but I think that’s changed.
There are conditions but some of them are vague, especially the “broadcasting in the public interest clause.” Every station has to keep a public file on what they do for the community. You can call any station and request an appointment to inspect it.
It’s not the same, but it’s close enough. Especially when the definition of #FakeNews is essentially “news the president doesn’t like.”
Which, in the instant case, it is not.
Tom, you really believe that any original public understanding of the 14th amendment or the INA grants due process rights to non-citizens?
Scalia never would. Ginsburg always will.
The rationale for overturning the order, based on Obama’s criteria, was simple: Trump.
Okay, Tom, then advance the arguments. When you hide the ball, I play the man a bit. Game-changing tax reform, Obamacare regulatory repeals, genuine this-for-that DACA bargaining, and the imminent approval of the finest set of appeals court judges in memory OR an ineffectual petulant tweet which riles up a pretty discreditable media organization?
Which is more significant?
Which should we throw our energies into?
Close enough for what?
I don’t think that’s the definition of #FakeNews. Even if it were, though, do you think we’re any closer to that being law simply because of President Trump’s tweet?
That sort of sounds interesting. And if I disagree with them about the public interest?
I’m not well-versed in the constitutional history of the matter, but permanent residents enjoy very nearly every privilege (and responsibility) of citizenship as citizens, including registration for the Selective Service.
So, yes.
I see absolutely no reason why it’s necessary to bring up all these other (good) things the president has promised in order to discuss this one. We can judge these individual actions on their own. I further object to the notion — which you’ve put forward twice now — that the only objections offered by the presidents’ critics regard his announcements/musings on Twitter.
Close enough to be criticized.
Yes, I think the president — any president — publicly musing on pulling the broadcasting license on a media group that’s criticizing him does move things, incrementally, in that direction. If he thinks they’re lying, he’s got plenty of other recourse.
Does a fair reading of this string reveal one phrase that might need to be struck through?
Apparently so to the moderators.
Using “Never” with any suffix is now verboten — to all non-podcasters — at Ricochet despite its being central to many things Trump, because it doesn’t contribute to meaningful, respectful dialog.
But “Fifth Avenue Caucus” is read with no issue.
Very telling.
That’s fair.
Such as? If they’re lying about him, he can publish heretofore classified data to prove them wrong. The old rule applies though, about picking fights with people who buy their ink by the barrel. It’s really hard to argue with a propaganda outfit.
How many times have we seen it where the left describes an incident wrong, gets completely contradicted, and then goes on and talks as if their original understanding was correct all along?
In a related comment, you just trivialized Trump’s objection to fake news as simply an objection to news he doesn’t like. In fact, his objection was to news that is false. There’s a difference.
Let’s talk about the Public Interest shall we? It’s a very vague phrase, and I’m leery of basing any policy whatsoever on it. But.
One can argue that responsible journalism, down-the-middle reporting of just-the-facts-ma’am is in the public interest. Can one also argue that “we’ll publish based off of one anonymous source because it confirms what we already don’t like about a public figure” is also in the public interest?
I’m pretty strong on Free Speech, but I can’t say I’m very happy with the way journalists treat it like a presumptuous Calvinist. I can sin all I like and in the end I’m still saved ’cause thems the rules.
Remember how the phrase was originally promulgated by the likes of CNN because they were worried that someone was stripping control of the narrative from them? And how Trump stole the phrase and applied it to the blatantly false journalism the likes of them were producing? Good times.
Seems like another answer as to how he can fight back, but it does require the bully pulpit of @RealDonaldTrump.
Tom, my argument is that these issues far, far outweigh in significance and long-term consequences the latest petulant tweet.
But for the Daily Shot, this is the story of the day, and it’s Daily Shot that goes to the front page.
As regards those other objections, could you bulletpoint them? What are the cabinet and administration appointments and policies, preferred legislative initiatives, regulatory actions, judicial appointments and foreign policy moves which make Trump still so deplorable to “those who concluded last November that the election of Clinton or Sanders was preferable as they would never vote for Trump.”
Sorry to be long-winded but operating under a speech code is laborious for all involved.
Y’all said you’d praise him when he does good.
So where is this praise? All I see is criticism over something stupid that is overblown and prioritized over things of substance.
My definition of #FakeNews? Not only is it outright lies, but stories of ice cream scoops, every 1 out of 100s of tweets, and Melania’s heels make for meager offings in light of stuff the public has an interest in knowing about. Melania’s shoes aren’t newsworthy. Either is this.
Gotta disagree with you there. A politician making noises about restraining his critics is always worth worrying about. Whether or not he’s correct about the issue doesn’t change that.
If Anthony Weiner crashed his car right in front of me I’d stop to think before just handing him my cell phone to call 911.
You could always just take the picture yourself.
How has anything moved incrementally or otherwise? Seriously: in what way are we closer to the outcome you’re rightfully leery of?
Second, we license broadcasting rights. The civil authorities regulate this. Is it really so simple to delegitimize the regulators into inaction? Criticizing them is enough to make them hopelessly tainted in both private word or public exercise of authority?
Maybe because I see NBC as a compromised news-source, that I find a threat of license revocation not so triubling, especially if it means a more reliable media can benefit from that slot opening up.
And maybe NBC’s news coverage would be of better quality (all of them, really) if they knew their license wasn’t a guarantee of the last 30-50 years or however long these networks have maintained guatanteed status.
Competition makes for quality, right? NBC is now on notice that they aren’t safe from competition.
Some of you people just don’t get it.
Trump didn’t tweet, “I’m gonna yank yer license” just like he didn’t tweet to James Comey that he had tape recordings. He just threw out some useless words that he knew couldn’t be backed up. But I would bet dollars to donuts, and some of you TV folks can probably verify, that there are Editors and Producers at NBC, and likely at the other Networks, who are screaming at their people that there had better be SOLID sources for any stories that are negative on Trump, going forward. The last thing they want is for Trump to be able to point to another false story (see: James Comey) as his proof that they are lying again.
This Tweet was simply magnificent.
We will now see the end of the silly one-source “according to a source with inside information” stories. I believe it is the end of the two-source stories, and maybe the three-source stories. Editors and Producers are going to demand the names of the sources and THEY will decide if they are good enough sources to print.
I am going to be very happy with the outcome of this Tweet. The lying from the MSM is going to stop, at least for a while.
I am with you here
and here
Complete agreement to both. My caveat is that I disagree with
Because they cannot stop. The biggest reason I would suggest is that the process for making the news won’t change. Sure, the layers of editors and fact checkers may wail, but newsreaders have to have something to read and the stoopid fluff pieces about 2 scoops of ice cream and high heels will go on.
To the MSMs detriment.
The Daily Shot will follow right along with the snide comments and bellows – ready to fan the flames.
Just like it did earlier this week when they insisted that Congress hasn’t voted to authorize US support for the war waged against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Hint: Google “1209 program”
Then you can file an objection for license renewal. Here are the relevant links:
Goodness, still going on about our president’s verbal cholera? Why? Really why?
He’s a thin skinned narcissist who gets pissed off by a major news network overtly lying and covering it up.
Does anybody here really think Trump is a threat to free speech? Good God.
I don’t think he’s likely to follow through on his threat, but any politician threatening critical media is worth suspicion.
In fairness, you don’t need to be thin skinned or a narcissist to be PO’d about overt lying. Sounds justified to me, if true. And no, I don’t think President Trump is a threat to free speech.
A threat is a threat. When Iranian mullahs scream ‘Death to America’, I consider if they actually want death to America or if they’re just placating the crowds. I don’t doubt that Trump would like to shut down NBC. I’d like to shut down NBC, but he’s in a position where his opinion on that means something.
Point two (which Ricochet helpfully edited into a bullet point; thanks Timmy!) is almost certainly correct. Point three is also understood. There’s a difference between a critical and a libelous media. (Whether or not the things they’re saying about him are provably libelous, they are in fact lying about him in print with intent to do him harm.)
That’s a fair question. I’ve certainly been thinking about this in hypothetical context. “Is this bad” is a different question than “Is this worse than we have right now”. I’ll also say that “Is this bad”, doesn’t necessarily translate to “This is the wrong move”. I’ll have to think more about that.
Hank, I disagree that president Trump is in a position where his opinion means something. Rather, he’s in a position where he can act on his opinions in an impactful way. Just having an opinion, though, even for the president, is meaningless unless there is a move to affect law. Is he moving that way? Can he move that way on his own?
For a recent example we have bakers being forced to bake gay cakes. Would it have been a threat for President Obama to tweet “when does public accommodation outweigh free exercise or association rights”? I don’t think so. However, taking steps or announcing the desire to take steps to limit free exercise and association exceptions to public accommodation law would be a threat. It’s a fine line, sure, but I think it matters.
Also, more generally: when my old roommate found out I ate his leftover burrito and shouted at me “I’m gonna kill you!” – is that a threat? Doesn’t there need to be some real intent or capability?