Where are you getting that? Trump sure like to use that term, but it’s a common, if new, term used in many different contexts. I will continue to use it even when it’s not “specific to Trump”.
I’ll give your advise all the attention it is due.
If it were illegal that would already mean there is a law that Google is breaking. What Teump really wants are laws to force everyone to think he is as wonderful as he thinks he is.
The Business Insider ran an article reporting that regarding the claims the Google is censoring Trump’s speeches, Google is fighting back with evidence the claims are false. The article shows that Google did nothing different regarding streaming Trump’s speeches vs. other presidents and presents evidence the Trump administration is presenting doctored video evidence against them. Some brief highly-snipped highlights:
…why the fuck do you think people all-of-a-sudden started to use the phrase “fake news” in the last couple of years?
Trump doesn’t own the term “you’re fired.” But just google the phrase and see what you get. Its one of his catchphrases. Its forever linked to him. Just as the term “fake news” is now forever associated with Trump. Its more than just “he likes to use the term.”
And when you do use it outside of the context of Trump you will get the exact same push-back that you have so far gotten in this thread. Because you have used it in a way that it normally isn’t used, attributing it to an argument the poster never made.
It wasn’t specific advise to “just you.”
It was advice to the people of America.
How so? Once President Trump convinces everyone that CNN tells lies (which they do), what happens next to our democracy? Does that mean the 2020 elections get cancelled? Something else? How do you see it turning into “a direct threat to [our] democracy”?
ETA: let me put it this way - most of the political left is quite convinced that Fox News lies every day. Is this also a “direct threat to our democracy”?
One thing that is specific about it, though, is that its accepted definition is “true news that some lying shithead wishes to suppress or deny.”
That’s the definition that the term has been given, and the definition it will hold until Trump is forgotten (if, in fact, he ever is - we still remember Benedict Arnold).
So you should be wary of trying to use the term to refer to actually false information presented as factual news. It makes you look like you don’t know what you’re talking about.
First of all, the article you linked to does NOT show that CNN lies. It shows that Davis, their then-anonymous source, has since contradicted himself on whether or not he told CNN the truth. Maybe you can find a piece that has evidence that CNN, itself deliberately lied?
Furthermore, what we’re really concerned about here is journalistic ethics and the issue of yellow journalism and deliberately running highly biased or demonstrably inaccurate news stories. Both Fox and MSNBC are pretty unreliable news sources in this regard. And this is not a matter of people believing one source must be “lying” because the news they publish/air is something those folks don’t want to believe. Should a media entity be able to call itself a “news” source if it essentially functions as a propaganda machine–liberal or conservative–instead of providing verifiably accurate news that’s reliably fact-checked? THAT’S the question.
And you want to know how that’s a direct threat to democracy? Because accurate information is so fundamental to We the People making knowledgeable decisions that it’s protected by the First Amendment. So if most Americans aren’t getting the whole story from their chosen news source, and especially if that source is the most-watched “news” source in the country, that really is a direct threat to Democracy.
Cite please.
“Accurate reporting”? Please. Isn’t he best buds with the publisher of the National Enquirer? Well, OK, not anymore. But, still…
…do you think the statement “CNN tells lies” is fairly and accurately characterized by the article you chose to cite?
I don’t think it is.
Can you clarify: in this particular instance: what lie did CNN tell?
Here’s the thing.
I don’t fucking know.
I really fucking don’t.
Whats next for the United States of America?
What happens next when the stupidiest man on the planet becomes the most powerful person in the history of the world where he and his minions subject the populace to a constant stream of lies and propaganda?
I don’t know.
I’m hoping that at the next couple of elections the people of America figure out a way to vote these people out of office and also find a way to never ever let this ever happen again.
If that doesn’t happen though?
The daily lies have already become normalised. The line between “truth” and “lie” is so compromised right now.
Just look at your claim that “CNN tells lies”. I could have chosen to accept your claim on face value. I could believe that “CNN tells lies” because HurricaneDitka told me that “CNN tells lies.” Why would I have any reason to doubt something HurricaneDitka told me?
But I decided to look further. And I clicked on your cite. And your cite doesn’t support your claim. Does that mean your claim isn’t true? Well I don’t think its fair to say that your claim “isn’t true”, not on the basis of a poorly chosen cite. Maybe you didn’t read it. Maybe “CNN tells lies” is supportable in some other ways that you didn’t cite.
But we are already in murky territory.
Now when an administration does the same thing you’ve just done. Made a claim that maybe doesn’t fit-the-facts or can’t immediately be supported. What do we do about that? I don’t have the resources to fact-check everything everybody says. I certainly don’t have the resources to fact-check the President every time he speaks. So I rely on the press a lot to do that work for me.
But what if the President tells everyone that the press are lying?
There will be people like me who don’t believe him.
And there are millions of people out there that will believe him. That will stop relying on the fact-checks. And when the President declares “I think we did a fantastic job in Puerto Rico” millions of people will believe him. Even while the people of Puerto Rico continue to suffer.
I think that this is problematic for democracy. And for a country like America: this is the biggest test you’ve had to face in the modern era.
Yep.
“…the strawberries… they made a wax impression of the key…”
Sarah Palin was the beta version with her “lamestream media”. Trump upped it about 100x during the election and another 100x since becoming President. Yes, he tried to spin “alternative facts” but even he couldn’t keep that up with a straight face.
What Trump is doing is spinning the 4th estate as propaganda that is out to get him. Mainstream news may be out to get him, but that is based on incompetence, lying, lack of transparency, filling the swamp, ad nauseum. That doesn’t even begin to address his adoration of Putin and Xi, and what the Mueller investigation is likely to turn up on real conspiracy with Russia and/or China, and laundering of what could be billions of dollars in Russian Oligarch money. It’s not propaganda, in fact a lot of it is damn fine investigative journalism (which is a shadow of scale it used to be). Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may is not propaganda, thanyouverymuch.
Trump is creating fake enemies. Of course rational people don’t believe what he’s saying, but irrational pearl clutching right wing tards do.
This is a culture war. And Trump is playing a game of scorched earth in order to save himself and his family.
The difference is that Trump has always been a thug and gangster. He has always been a con artist. Say what you will about Sarah Palin, but she’s not a snake oil saleswoman. In fact I don’t think she’s 100% as bad as the media makes her out to be – she actually tried to be a Ms Smith goes to Juneau kinda gal. Nobody on the left would have given a fuck about her had she not run for VP. Palin is annoying, fingernails on the chalkboard irritating, but she’s not Trump.
Trump is vile.
If the Democratic president elected in 2020 tries to shut down Fox News, let’s talk. Otherwise, what does this have to do with the OP?
When did President Trump try to shut down CNN / Google?
The administration is ‘taking a look’ at regulating Google. That’s the whole point of the thread.
You assume that the man who gets the most consequential Daily Intelligence Briefings in the world, but falls asleep in the middle of it, is sophisticated enough to conduct a Google search? :smack: He doesn’t even carry his reading glasses with him for heaven’s sake.
Trump gets all the info he needs (or can absorb) from watching FoxNews. And IIRC Fox did indeed run a show calling attention to Google’s “bias” shortly before Trump issued his Executive Fweet.
I’m not sure how they’d even go about regulating Google. It’s not a broadcast outlet, it’s not any kind of regulated utility, and it’s not even a monopoly.
You go to Google of your own volition, and they provide you a free service, albeit an information based one. If you don’t like their set of search results, go use Bing or one of the other search engines.
It’s not even free speech; Google’s not making editorial commentary about their search results, except possibly in the most indirect way. And that would be assuming they deliberately tweaked their algorithms specifially with Trump in mind, which I find a little bit hard to swallow; those algorithms aren’t probably something they fool around with lightly, since it’s the core of their business.
I imagine they could label it a monopoly and threaten it with anti-trust lawsuits if they don’t somehow make their algorithm more GOP-friendly. Because that’s what the party of free enterprise and smaller government does, right?