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’ve never rooted for both sides to lose so much.
I don’t understand why these news organizations are so upset. They already have their narratives in place and their stories written. So Trump is savvy enough to deny them their gotcha quote and now the First Amendment is compromised? Hardly.
The headline was dishonest. No reasonable person could have so interpreted Trump’s statements that way. I am not on his bandwagon either, but the intentional deception in that headline stinks.
There is some responsibility that goes with First Amendment protections for the press/media, so when the rag is consistently irresponsible, I have no problem with this decision.
It may well deflect other media from their inevitable demands that Trump react to every piece of nuance the Post throws in his direction.
The headline mischaracterized his statement, but wasn’t Trump insinuating the possibility that Obama might be sympathetic to Islamic terrorist attacks? That’s the other half of the either/or statement.
In a way, this makes him look worse than the Post, as he isn’t brave enough to own up to his own idea– which, if he came out and said it straight, would be considered pretty disgusting.
It’s totally fair play. I assume all campaigns give press credentials to some media organizations and not others, based on size, professionalism, editorial slant, bias, etc. Media can report on which outlets campaigns allow/deny, and the public can decide. I don’t expect campaigns to give “Lazy Millennial press service” any credentials, and I don’t expect Republican campaigns to give credentials to Russia Today, for example. If The Washington Post starts sounding like Russia Today, they can say goodbye.
Trump talks trash about the media, and his supporters love it. After a several-month break in talking to reporters, Clinton finally answered questions for 8 minutes, and the press only asked softball questions. Her voters remained unperturbed. Neither side cares about press access for their side.
I wonder what the Trump apologists thought when Obama tried to delegitimize Fox.
Note:
Assumption of bad faith in ascribing racism, xenophobia, and hatred of freedom as the motivations of fellow Ricochetti without grounds.From Trump it threatens the First Amendment because it is part of his strategy to seek legal changes that allow him to sue his press detractors. If you like racists, like xenophobes, and hate freedom, Trump is your man.
Or, if you hate Hillary that much, you can defend Trump’s racist actions since the beginning of his business career, his strong-arm approach to crushing press opposition, and his tendency to ban the entry of adherents of major religions without being discriminate enough to announce policies actually designed to reduce and eliminate terrorist threats. The rest of conservatives will oppose him at every turn because he’s a tyrant in waiting, and a racist and xenophobe to boot.
So the answer, of course, is retribution. First Amendment? Freedom of the press? Who cares!
What Trump was insulting is not clear. That Obama is soft on terrorism, maybe. Obama may be soft on the immigration issue, but he had no hesitation to use drones to take out terrorists on foreign soil. I would never suggest that Obama approves of any terrorist act. No. I would agree that he has not reacted effectively or aggressively to the Orlando attack, possibly (and I speculate here) for fear of offending domestic Muslims.
That said, overall, Trump is coming across as someone serious about protecting America domestically. His fight with the Post strengthens the image that he will not bow to intimidation by the press.
I don’t read WaPo, except the occasional linked piece. But I do get the impression that its liberal bias has, if anything, slightly moderated since it was taken over by Bezos. Of course, that’s quite aside from its anti-Trump views. [Edit for typo]
Well, at least he’s not the Republican nominee … Oh, wait…
[*sarcasm*] Y’all are aware that the uber-liberal, crazy left-wing kook Robert Costa works for the Washington Post? We should totally get behind Trump’s plan to revoke Robert Costa’s credentials, because we only want the fair journalists to get to ask Trump questions. [*sarcasm*]
At least no one will grab WaPo reporters’ arms now when they ask Trump about his affirmative action positions.
Correct. And it was wrong of the Post to jump past the worst possible interpretation to a conclusion that is even more detestable. However, it’s also gutless of Trump to consider out-loud this “something else” — which he knows his worst supporters will interpret just like the Post did — but not own up to the implications.
As for whether he should ban the Post, what’s taken him so long? If only he had banned most of the press a year ago, maybe we’d have a better candidate by now.
Wow, this is hilarious. I think the appetite for Trump’s steam of nonsense, prejudice and hatred is so large that banning would have not done a lick of good.
Now he just needs to ban Too Much Candy for Crowley from the debates.
The Credible Hulk has his eye on her.
Can’t say I blame Trump; The Washington Post deliberately lied about what he said. And their “replacement” headline is just as deliberately misleading.
This is disappointing even for the Post.
Eric Hines
Good on Trump for treating the crumb snatching gutter weasels appropriately.
First Amendment, no one cares? Fantastic. Do you include Robert Costa in your hatred of the Washington Post, or is he excluded?
Why are press credentials important to journalism (as opposed to journalists)? Why are they important to the Washington Post or any newspaper (as opposed to their reporter)? How does this, in any way, hobble the Post’s ability to cover Donald Trump’s campaign?
What does it say about a reporters objectivity if s/he accepts this higher level of “access” provided by the subject of their reporting?
I’ll put it another way. Wouldn’t the Post have looked a lot better if they had said, “We don’t care? We can still cover his campaign without them?”
I view this as a positive move. It may not make it as a coherent strategy, but the GOP desperately needs, but seems to have no interest in, a strong strategy to fight Leftist mass media. Ever since Eisenhower the mass media have favored the Democrat. They have gotten worse and worse over time. Now they brazenly serve as an extension of the never-ending Democrat campaign. The GOP has been in a two-front war, but have historically neglected the media front.
I hope Trump sticks to this. It is high time a Republican took the fight to Leftist mass media.
Perhaps what we need is a non-Republican Republican.
Clinton wants to repeal the first amendment and put people in jail for movies. Sorry, did put someone in jail over Be gazing.
But Trump is more evil than Clinton, I guess.
The point is that Trump is targeting a major news organization for what they are writing. Conservatives rightly called out Obama for his attacks on Fox News, conservatives should consistently apply the principle and say that Trump is wrong here to attack a publication and threaten to open it up to lawsuits because of the viewpoints the publication takes. Pretty simple to say Trump is wrong here, I think.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with the First Amendment. As others have pointed out, the Post can continue writing whatever they want about Trump.
Did Clinton ever threaten to change libel laws to make it easier to sue press outlets? Are you aware of what kind of chilling effect that would have on the freedom of the press? Trump has advocated that very policy as a way to bluster his way into a wanna-be legal confrontation with the Washington Post and other outlets he is targeting.
Unless the reporters are recognized and removed from the event.
The headline was BS. Trump’s dog-whistle was more of a duck call. And then there’s the NYT now:
Blaming Muslims After Attack, Donald Trump Tosses Pluralism Aside
That’s a hed on a news story. Run that as “analysis,” sure, but it’s an editorial masquerading as a straight news story. A selection:
The NYT is concerned about a traditions of respect for religious diversity. That’s just precious.
I call dead horseradish.
It has everything to do with the First Amendment when Trump decides who his AG is and then says to whoever is listening to start targeting specific press outlets. When there’s an act of Congress behind it, this is called “viewpoint discrimination” and is blatantly unconstitutional. Revoking credentials is step one down the long, slippery slope to killing free speech in this country. Obama made it OK, Trump, as he does with most Obama policies, is just taking it to another level.
Conservatives cry bloody murder over Fox, but somehow don’t bat an eye when Trump does the exact same thing to an outlet conservatives disagree with.
Do we have any principles left at all? Or is the conservative movement just transmogrifying into a Donald Trump fan club before our very eyes? I don’t want to be a groupie for that act, the pictures would be too embarrassing for my grandchildren to see.