Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WorthyNewsBot

WorthyNews:Trump suggests revoking credentials over ‘negative’ reporting

Recommended Posts

I guess I'm not clear on exactly what the issue is here.  Pres. Trump said "credentials."  Is he referring to WH Press Corps credentials?  (I assume he is).  That, then, is slightly different than a strictly 1st Amendment issue.  

I think we can all agree that access to the WH Press room must be restricted and limited - the sheer number of "press organizations" make that imperative.  But then - one may ask - what constitutes a legitimate press organization?  Is the Podunk High School student newspaper to be provided the same credentials as CNN or FNC (wait, that might not be a bad idea!)

So obviously credentials exist for a purpose, but then that begs the next question - who determines what is or is not a "valid" press organization?

Theoretically, a press organization COULD be denied its WH press credentials based on its perceived biases.  And, as much as some of us would like to see CNN (for an example) banned, I hope we can in our saner moments agree it is not a good idea.  For if a president (or his WH staff) we agree with can do this, so can a POTUS we do not agree with.

I have to plead ignorance on exactly what is the procedure for one to attain WH press credentials - perhaps it is some sort of lottery system.  That would - for me - be a fair system.  One that does not take into account biases.

All of us are frustrated with the state of the media in our country today.  But the solution (I believe) does not exist in tinkering around with the 1st Amendment.  And even though denying credentials is not technically denying one's 1st A rights, it's a start to what is perhaps a slippery slope.

I consider myself a 1st Amendment absolutist - it should be as unrestricted as possible.  The solution to "fake news" (negative news is a different matter) is not to limit the 1st A.  Rather, it's to get valid news out there.  

In the parable of the wheat and the tares, the solution was to let both grow to fruition, then it would be easier to distinguish between the two.  Fake news will eventually be exposed by the reporting of truth.

Blessings,

-Ed

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Cletus said:

yes he is.    if trump acts its governmental restraint on press... on being able to say what you want.  its a restriction.  

That is not what he is suggesting.   He is not suggesting that they cannot say what they want to say.   He suggests that some of them not have press credentials in the daily briefing.

Quote

its a restraint.  its stopping someone from saying what they want.  it is indeed a violation.  it is indeed not within the scope of what government entities are supposed to be able to do.  

Wrong.   He is not stopping them from saying what they want.  He didn't even suggest that all.  Pulling press credentials on a press that lies, puts out false information, spins what the White House says and misrepresent isn't stopping free speech.   Slandering the president and his family, lying about he president isn't protected speech.  And frankly, they should just not have the press briefing.   

 

Quote

the problem with your point of view is that when another globalist or muslim empathizer gets in office, well pat said it better than i can.... "shutup anyone who dares report against what is considered the moral good."

that is an invalid comparison.   Trump isn't saying that they cannot say what they want, but simply lose the privilege of press credentials needed to participate in the daily briefings.  That does not restrict them from saying and printing what they want.  Press credentials are not a first amendment right.  They are privilege granted by the White House. There is no obligation by the White House to grant them and they can be taken away at the pleasure of the White House.

 

Quote

i do not like it one bit and i wish they would shut down media like cnn and never hear of them again.  but the first amendment is clear.   finding loop holes will not make this country great again.  and doing one thing and calling it another... thats no better than what globalists and muslim empathizers do while in office.  how great is that for america? 

The problem is that you are trying to refute an argument that wasn't raised.   You need to slow down and read what was actually said instead of trying argue against a point that was never made.

 

Quote

besides that trump does not have to shut down the press (your words) to violate the first amendment.  simply restricting them is a violation. 

He isn't restricting them at all.  They can say whatever they want.  

And by the way, ALL freedoms come with restrictions.   Not all speech is protected by the first Amendment, such as slander which is what comes out of the media most of the time, when it comes to this president.    If he was not a sitting president and was being slandered like this, he could sue the media outlets for slander and libel.

Edited by shiloh357

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

That is not what he is suggesting.   He is not suggesting that they cannot say what they want to say.   He suggests that some of them not have press credentials in the daily briefing.

Wrong.   He is not stopping them from saying what they want.  He didn't even suggest that all.  Pulling press credentials on a press that lies, puts out false information, spins what the White House says and misrepresent isn't stopping free speech.   Slandering the president and his family, lying about he president isn't protected speech.  And frankly, they should just not have the press briefing.   

 

that is an invalid comparison.   Trump isn't saying that they cannot say what they want, but simply lose the privilege of press credentials needed to participate in the daily briefings.  That does not restrict them from saying and printing what they want.  Press credentials are not a first amendment right.  They are privilege granted by the White House. There is no obligation by the White House to grant them and they can be taken away at the pleasure of the White House.

 

The problem is that you are trying to refute an argument that wasn't raised.   You need to slow down and read what was actually said instead of trying argue against a point that was never made.

 

He isn't restricting them at all.  They can say whatever they want.  

And by the way, ALL freedoms come with restrictions.   Not all speech is protected by the first Amendment, such as slander which is what comes out of the media most of the time, when it comes to this president.    If he was not a sitting president and was being slandered like this, he could sue the media outlets for slander and libel.

Ok.  so i read about press credentials.  I didnt really know about that previously.  so thank you for sharing that with me.  if what i read is correct its just saying you cant come into the little meeting where they listen and then maybe get to ask questions.  

Slander would be hard to get a conviction on though because you must prove they had malicious intent and thats really an issue of the heart.  its not just they said something. 

since i understand now about credentials i am more for it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×