In that same press conference he flat out stated that a black reporter was straight up racist because of a question she asked and another reporter was "dumb". He doesn't handle difficult questions well ever. He is a confrontational toddler.
@BigDog63 Hard to follow your response (either the site or you messed up with the quoting). But if I read correctly: Reporters are human and will always have human reaction. But sorry, I don't believe the media on the whole treats trump unfairly. From the get-go, trump talked about the media being the enemy of the people. And from the beginning trump was telling lies. So hard to report on trump without reflecting that. trump has fostered and seems to enjoy the animosity between him and the press. CNN and fox news report similarly, one reports favorably to the left, the other favorably to the right. CNN should not be banned, nor should fox news. CNN and most other reporters will report "trump's side". The will include "trump said this" or "trump's spokesman said that". That provides trump's "side". What more do you want them to report?
I don't even know what makes CNN left? They love foreign military intervention. They love to **** on single payer health care advocates. Criticizing Trump doesn't make one left .
That's fine. Although I think Acosta didn't do anything wrong, I don't want to talk about it and defend that because it's not important. Free speech is a right with some very narrow limits, and the government can't block free speech if it's rude, disgusting and whatever else. The free press isn't to that level to me, but it's close. The press has always respected the office of the presidency, but that's not a requirement dictated by the Constitution. It's a norm, one that I hope continue. And frankly, those professional have held back, IMO to continue to be professional in the face of completely unprofessional behaviors. But even if it doesn't, it's not an immediate valid reason for banning members of the press. Your other point isn't valid to me. The free press isn't free if certain member (or class of member - such as those the admin disagree with) is banned. You cannot ever guarantee or prove that others will ask the same questions. In the case of free speech, there is no such thing as banning a single individual is ok because others might have the same speech expressed (however the likelihood of that). I expand that to the free press. Banning one isn't ok because others might have the same tough questions.
On the latter point, I hear you. But, in my view, there must be some level of non-physical conduct that I imagine most people would agree justifies a ban. I threw out the example of a reporter fillibustering. Another example could be if a reporter used racist or bigoted terms in his/her comments/questions. I could be dead wrong, but if some reporter started spouting hate, most folks wouldn't question revoking the credentials. If I'm right, that means there is a line. I just wonder where the line is and who should define it.
The reporters behavior wasn't out of line. The President threw a tantrum and attacked the Reporter - who only just kept asking questions. Seems that Trump should have banned himself
That was a lot of text... You didn't address my proposal of tax breaks to allow for the less biased outlets to get into the news field. You didn't address the fact that you could join the journalist ranks on the side of the conservative outlets making the industry lean liberal 97% instead of "98%". (maybe the reason it is 98% is because conservatives are not into news all that much - why are liberals to blame for that?) AND you didn't address the most important FACT i brought up about a conservative outlet bashing a conservative politician, invalidating your claim that news is all about bias. How do you even make that claim - do you have facts of any sorts? I asked you to show me Trump being right at claiming the whole FAKE news angle. Address it instead of empty soliloquy you seem to have going. I can give you a fun FACT - Trump's lawyers want to use Acosta's incident to prove in court that Trump can deny access to all and any journalist for whatever reason he deems fit on white house;s ground. I'm sure you will find a way to rationalize this intention as a leverage at making the press "truthful" again, when in fact this is a much more direct way to influence press' into a more favorable coverage of the administration if said press wants to have access to news (as they desperately need news to do their work). I'm pretty sure it's YOU who is being naive here.
1. Not have an agenda outside of reporting the news. 2. Report ALL the news. Bias can be extreme just in choosing which things you report. How much time does CNN spend on the economy, for example? And when it does, how much of what it says is positive? 3. Simply including quotes doesn't make a piece objective. Fox does this all the time. Do you think Fox is completely objective? 4. Don't intentionally try to sway debates by providing your questions in advance to one side. CNN has had numerous leaks about how their coverage is very directed, and has a specific agenda. Fox has not. CNN is actually MORE biased than Fox now. Which would be fine if but everyone were aware of and admitted the bias. But it is insidious when wrapped in the cloak of MSM and 'representing truth and the ideals of American democracy'.
1. "Don't have an agenda". An agenda? I believe CNN's "agenda" is to report the news. You believe that since they report all the bad things trump says and does that they have an "agenda". I don't. 2. What "news" haven't they reported? Do you watch every minute and track their coverage? I don't. I really don't watch TV news, I get my news from listening to the local NPR radio station (FM88.7) and POTUS on Sirius. I also get lots of news off twitter. 3. Simply including quotes... the actual words that trump or others use, isn't enough?? Seriously? You really want your news to tell you what to think it appears. And your real desire is that tell you what you want them to tell you. You are better off getting your "news" off talk radio. 4. Going back to the story of Donna Brazille giving Clinton questions in advance of a primary debate? Oh yea, that is a pervasive problem. btw, I laugh at fox news. But they can be pro republican and pro trump as much as they want. Heck, they scored another exclusive interview with trump.
CNN is not news. Neither is MSMBC or Fox. They are opinionated talk shows sprinkled with other programming...and some news.
Hence the problem. Pretty much without exception whenever somebody says 'you think'...they're completely wrong. The trend continues. LOTS of it. Look, if you don't believe me when I say they have an agenda....do you think all their employees saying the same thing are lying? Yes, seriously. If you don't understand why...that's on you. I can't educate everyone. See above regarding 'you think'. That depends on whether their analysis is objective. Glad we agree on something! ...and again see above regarding 'you think', and apply it to 'your real desire'. I would laugh at CNN as well, BUT everyone, including you, doesn't see the bias they have. Making them very dangerous.
Wow, that was a compelling set of points. You have convinced me. And as soon as I figure out what you were arguing I will understand what you convinced me.
CNN THINKS and ACTS like they are, though. Opinion shows don't get press passes, for example. FWIW...Fox News (not their opinion pieces) is actually pretty good. For a long time FOX was more biased than CNN. Since Trump got elected, that's no longer true. Which should worry CNN.
I would laugh at CNN as well, BUT everyone, including you, doesn't see the bias they have. Making them very dangerous.[/QUOTE] LOL wow that's so funny did you feel the same way when Fox was treating President Obama that way.
