SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Donald Trump has threatened to shut down NBC and other American networks, saying that they peddle fake news.
"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!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet.
Mr Trump's tweet came in response to a story written by NBC, which said that Mr Trump had sought to increase America's nuclear arsenal tenfold after taking a look at a briefing slide that showed stead reduction of the US nuclear arsenal since the 1960s. The story cited three officials who were reportedly in the room when Mr Trump made the comments.
Source: Donald Trump threatens to shut down NBC and other TV news networks that criticise him
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Donald Trump Threatens to Shut Down NBC and Other TV News Networks That Criticize Him
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 103 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:02PM (36 children)
After almost thirty years of watching pretty much every Democrat at one time or another call for using the exact same weapon against the "hate" on talk radio (i.e. shut Limbaugh up!) I'm totally not understanding why I should care. Besides, Trump happens to be correct; broadcasters are licensed to operate in the public interest, blatant lying, inciting to riot and sedition really don't count do they? There is no 1st Amendment right to possess a broadcast license. Unlike printing presses, the Internet or even cable TV, there is a very limited spectrum allocated to TV broadcasting and everyone can't have a license.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:13PM (8 children)
Trump happens to be crazy.
You are correct. Blatant lying and inciting to riot and sedition do not count. So why does FoxNews still have a license.
Maybe there is nothing wrong with having a vewpoint, even if other people don't happen to like it.
Can it be in the public interest to promote orderly non violent protests? Isn't that one way in which people are supposed to express their grievances? (No matter what party is protesting which other party.) When any party tries to suppress peaceful protest, that should send a strong message about the party suppressing peaceful protest.
If there were one perfect political party, everyone would vote for it, and nobody would protest. So maybe protesters on all sides have some legitimate grievance?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:33PM (2 children)
We already have laws that cover spreading falsehoods that have served the republic well for a long while now. They're called libel and slander. In other words, fake news can be prosecuted under those.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:01PM
I've done some research at lunch hour for fun and to summarize public figures practically cannot be defamed in a purely legal sense. Also damages are hard to specify leading to certain failure. Ironically being biased propaganda infotainment from the D party protects the news media, if they claimed to be honest and not entertainment satire opinions they'd have much more legal trouble. You'd have to reverse a lot of the legal system to use it against fake news.
A lot of internet web 2.0 legal fun seems oriented around redefining who is a journalist and who is a public figure. Possibly in the future world there will be no more fake news or perhaps there will be no more libel and slander laws, or more likely we'll muddle thru.
An example of the excessive freedom provided to the press would be the incredible expense and time of destroying Gawker. Its hard to imagine a company faker and more in need of destruction.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @03:59PM
What is this 'republic' you speak of? You actually and honestly think that the USA is a republic? How old are you, 18?
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:56PM
You have some great networks. I must tell you, Fox has treated me fairly. Fox treated me fairly. They've treated me fairly. Hey, I'll let you know. You know what? Someday they might not treat me fairly, and I'll tell you about it, OK? But they've treated me fairly, and I don't mean all good. I get plenty of bad on Fox, too. But at least it's within reason. And Hannity. How good is Hannity, right? How good is Hannity? And he's a great guy, and he's an honest guy. And "Fox and Friends in the Morning" is the best show, and it's the absolute, most honest show, and it's the show I watch. They're very nervous to have me on live television, because I'm a person that wants to tell the truth. I'm an honest person, and what I'm saying, you know is EXACTLY right. Exactly, exactly! Not only does the media give a platform to hate groups, but the media turns a blind eye to the gang violence on our streets, the failures of our public schools, the destruction of our wealth at the hands of the terrible, terrible trade deals made by politicians that should've never been allowed to be politicians.
And the unaccountable hostility against our incredible police, who work so hard at such a dangerous job. My administration is committed to the idea that all Americans have the right to live in safety, security and peace. We believe in the rule of law, because we know that freedom cannot exist if our people are not safe. And how safe are you at a Trump rally? It's a safe space. The most sacred duty of government is to protect the lives of its citizens, and that includes securing our borders, and enforcing our immigration laws. Creating a safe space for law-abiding Americans. #MAGA 🇺🇸
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:26PM (3 children)
Citation needed. Because there isn't one and we both know it. False Equivalence Fallacy -will- be called out.
Because they don't need one, idiot. Try to keep up with the discussion. Fox News Channel is a cable channel, not a broadcaster. With a couple of rare exceptions where FNC provides material to broadcast on the FOX network such as Fox News Sunday and coverage of the political debates.
BLM and Antifa are violent, it is the basic nature of them. Their events don't accidentally become violent, they are planned as violent riots. Pretending they are something they aren't doesn't change reality.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:46PM
The KKK just has "many sides" but BLM and Antifa are literally hitler. Yer dumb, but hey nothing new there!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday October 20 2017, @03:28PM (1 child)
You probably missed elsewhere here where I had pointed out that NBC doesn't have a license.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:14PM
Yes but you are an idiot so I ignored that. The networks do own affiliates, ever noticed KNBC and WNBC? They aren't the only directly owned NBC stations, there used to be regulatory limits on how many stations a single entity could own which mandated the affiliate model but as the limits have been relaxed over the decades they have expanded direct ownership.
But I mostly ignored you because that is a distraction anyway; the idea has always been to force affiliates into long protracted station licensing battles they wouldn't have the legal resources for so they would simply do what the NGOs and their hordes of activists and lawyers wanted. All they needed was to get the FCC regs reset to make it easier to wage that lawfare than it was to defend against it. Talk radio stations are almost all tiny low power affairs operating on the dregs of the ad market already because of the constant organized boycotts.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:22PM (15 children)
I don't doubt many have called for such censorship, but they were rightly never able to act on it. There is a huge difference between political grandstanding and the president acting like a dictator. But hey, keep sucking each other off with your "antifa are terrorists and Trump is just a silly guy you know?", and work up the courage to admit that Trump is bad and the GOP is the devil. If it really makes you feel better you can lump the DNC in there too, but at the very least stop lying to yourself and equivocating away the worst political decision we've ever made as a country.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:55PM (14 children)
Random Douches on the Internet != The Actual President of the US
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:18PM (11 children)
Pardon, but I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS. Does HIM calling to get rid of the talk radio problem count? Does every single current member of the Democratic Leadership count? Not some random Internet shitpoaster.
And to grandparent, do we have to enumerate yet again the dozens of times NBC News has been caught outright lying? Not spinning, not shading the truth, outright lying. Going back way before Trump pushed them into outright insanity; From sticking dynamite on a truck to get it to explode in a crash, editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make him say almost exactly the opposite of what he actually said, and so on. Ask Google for the rest of their greatest hits, I'm tired of doing it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:20PM (8 children)
Pardon, but I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS. Does HIM calling to get rid of the talk radio problem count?
[CITATION NEEDED]
(Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:41PM (7 children)
President Bill Clinton [history.com]
Yes kids, Hillary's husband was really POTUS for eight long years.
p.s. Do yer own danged googling. Start with the OKC Bombing and Clinton's speech on the subject, then his attempt to reimpose the "Fairness Doctrine" (what an example of Orwellian language) with the express intent to silence talk radio.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:54PM
Welp, I wasted time on that video.
First 3+ minutes (of 3.5 total) were simple political feel good garbage "america yay, we're great, we can conquer our problems, blah blah, work until work is done, scripture lel blah dee blah". I dislike his "god wills it" bullshit, but aside from that there is NOTHING in there about putting back the Fairness Doctrine. "reimpose, Orwellian, intent to silence"
You're full of it as usual, stinky stupid shit.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:28PM (4 children)
p.s. Do yer own danged googling. Start with the OKC Bombing and Clinton's speech on the subject...
Ok, I will. Here's the transcript. [americanrhetoric.com]
You are lying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:02PM
so uh hey i waited a bit but where is jmorris's reply?
is there another link?
at first I thought he was just trying to prove the bill clinton WAS president, but it seems like that wasn't contested. that's all that there was in the link that matched what he wrote, so i was hoping maybe he picked the wrong president? was there another one that he had in mind--one that actually tried to do as he claimed?
i mean besides the current one. i think we're not arguing that right
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @10:06AM
Clinton's proposal to ban AM talk radio is in the footnotes: "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers." (my emphasis)
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @11:00AM (1 child)
( http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/washington/bill-clinton-talks-re-imposing-fairness-doctrine-or-least-more-balance-media/55678 [broadcastingcable.com] )
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday October 20 2017, @05:18PM
Thank you. I knew he had said it because I am old enough to remember him saying it, but Google has increasing difficulty finding things, especially that predate the widespread dump of all news onto the Net.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:09PM
If there is no greater proof that Jmorris is a shill just keep an eye on the sheer amount of lies he spews. That or he's just following the alt-right / GOP playbook of trying to lie his way to success. Jmorris care to explain all your lies? Or will silence be the only thing we ever get when you're called out on your bullshit?
Please tell us about the real you, or will you get fired? Do you consider yourself a US citizen?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday October 19 2017, @10:51PM
> I'm old enough to remember when Hillary's lying, cheating, philandering husband was actually POTUS
Me too.
I really long for the days when our biggest problem was whether he left sperm on not-his-wife's dress, while we all had jobs, the stock tickers showed us getting richer by the minute, and the US debt was shrinking. We also kicked some dictator's ass with some cool weapons and went home on schedule.
The Good Ole Days before W trashed the place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 20 2017, @04:05PM
You are aware that Google is an echo-chamber, aren't you? Not everyone gets the same results for a given query but everyone does just get "more of the same" of what they already know... confirming their world view and showing that 'the other guy must be nuts because look what truths I found through google'
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:20PM (1 child)
I fail to see how that is a relevant comment.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:24PM
The head of the FCC threatening to revoke FCC licenses carries a bit more weight that random internet posters.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:30PM (4 children)
In other words, the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of the press, but not to possess printing presses? It guarantees freedom of speech, but not to be heard? It guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, but not to a permit to do so?
Is that the crux of your argument?
I think if you stop and consider that a little further, such restrictions eviscerate the 1st Amendment and render it null and void.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:10PM (3 children)
Reading skills have deteriorated badly I see. Anyone can own a printing press, my owning one doesn't diminish the supply and restrict your also owning one. If nobody will sell you one a simple one can be built by anyone handy with power tools. This is entirely legal and owning, manufacturing or using a printing press is not regulated in any way by the State, although there are a few postal regs to consider. My owning a cable news channel doesn't really impact the ability of you to launch a competing one because the limit on most cable systems is how many channels they can bundle before subscribers revolt, not hitting the physical limit of their spectrum so we are free to compete for carriage. And as long as I can find a DNS registrar who won't cancel the domain I can of course do pretty much whatever I want on the Internet and not impact you in the slightest. I can't buy or wrangle a TV license in most of the country for any amount of money because the available slots are full and as a cis white guy I'm out of consideration anyway. There is a very limited supply of available broadcast slots; This is why they are licensed by the government and grant of a license is subject to restrictions, you do not have an absolute 1st Amendment Right to use a broadcast facility for any purpose you desire. Please consult the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended, if you do not believe me. The text is available online.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:11PM (2 children)
as a cis white guy I'm out of consideration anyway
I wonder what the portion of people who have broadcasting licenses (or spectrum usage licenses I guess) are "cis white guys"
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:18PM (1 child)
I'm thinking 0.1, or maybe as high as 0.25%. Totally underrepresented.
Also Trump and the Republicans are in power and we know that affirmative action is their favorite policy.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Friday October 20 2017, @05:54AM
I lived with it for a long time. And I've had great relationships with lots of people. I have great African-American friendships. I have just amazing relationships. And so many positive things have happened. So I'm fine with it. I don’t like what the late Justice Scalia said, no, I don’t like what he said. I heard him, I was like, "Let me read it again," because I actually read it in print, and I’m going, I read a lot of stuff, and I’m going, "Woah!" What he said was very tough to the African-American community.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:31PM (4 children)
A Real Man puts his principles over his team.
Do you support free speech or not?
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:39PM (3 children)
As you can see in a post further down on the thread I am against it regardless of who is pushing it. The problem I think a lot of Republicans have is that when the Dems do the same thing nobody cares (Rs same way) so you have an endless cycle of refusing to help the other side when they are only interested if it hurts you.
I would be fine with taking action against politicans stepping on free speech, that is if it doesnt mean it gets repealed as soon as the other side gets one of their guys in power.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:49PM (2 children)
Most of the time the Republicans complain about 'censorship' they're talking about private entities choosing what to publish on their own platforms. That's not prohibited by the constitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @08:28PM (1 child)
After being threatened with the loss of lucrative government contracts if they refuse...
All of these corporates that are happy for censorship are in bed with the CIA and Pentagon, and they started their censorship campaign after they got in bed with the CIA and Pentagon. Amazon ran in the red for a decade and a half until they got a lucrative data hosting contract with the CIA and now they love censoring Republicans. Google similarly started fucking with people after they got federal contracts. Twitter, same story except they got in bed with the Saudis and Qataris. Wikipedia, Reddit, Metafilter, Cracked.com, have friends in the CIA and State Department and Booz and they all have the same friends. The corporates that don't follow along get hacked by 0-days, hit by the largest DDOSes ever seen, have all of the sexual misbehavior of their officers exposed by the media, have rent-a-mobs threaten to riot and burn down their facilities over imagined grievances, and all of their investors cut them loose and refuse to explain why.
These are not private entities operating on their own.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:53PM
Lucrative government contracts? That's something media shouldn't have to begin with. You cannot lose what you do not have.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @07:48PM
As far as I know, nether NBC News, Fox News, CNN nor any other New channel actually has a "broadcast license" for Over the Air transmission.
Media companies who own the stations that do the broadcasting hold the licenses...they then choose to broadcast content from various sources which may include an affiliate network such as the aforementioned NBC News, etc.
Sorry Mr. Trump, you can't yank NBC New's license any more than you can yank Rush Limbaugh's license because they don't have licenses!
Also, I would challenge your contention that "pretty much Every Democrat at one time or another". There are probably a few, but "Every" is an exaggeration at best and a lie at worst....But then again, that is what Trump does best.
Finally, Mr. Trump must have been top of his class in the course despot 101....first shutdown the media you don't like.
I am waiting for him to suspend the constitution because congress won't pass the things he wants. Finally, start a really good war to divert attention from the other crap.