CNN Anchor crying about "Trump Putting Journalists In Danger by Declaration Of War"

Fucking pussies claim that violent rhetoric against conservatives doesn't put them in danger, but then claim that Trumps anti-press rhetoric puts journalists in danger?

Unreal. At least their double standards are consistent.


CNN Anchor: Trump Putting Journalists In Danger; "Declaration Of War On Media" Has "Emboldened" War Zones

It's the other way, the Worldwide MSM declared war on Donald Trump as soon as he was the candidate against Hillary, they then went into full-on hostile mode as soon as he beat Hillary and since he was Inaugurated have been all but encouraging some mentally ill maniac to murder him.

Why should Donald Trump play nice with the MSM when they hate him with an organic fanaticism.
 
deal with it, snowflakes.

3 wks after GOP Congressmen were shot at, whining, liberal media peeps complain that their lives are in danger.
 
I could put the credibility of the lamestream media on the lefthand side of a sesame seed with room to spare. They have been carrying water for the Deep State/ robber barons since they bought up 25 of the most influential newspapers in the country and then put in their own editors and this started in the early 1920's. Control the information flow and you control the narrative.
 
I could put the credibility of the lamestream media on the lefthand side of a sesame seed with room to spare. They have been carrying water for the Deep State/ robber barons since they bought up 25 of the most influential newspapers in the country and then put in their own editors and this started in the early 1920's. Control the information flow and you control the narrative.

^ This is why the MSM should be broken up, a handful of people should not have a monopoly like this.

Also anyone with any connection to the Intelligence Community should not be allowed to be a journalist, how many journalists are on the payroll of the Intelligence Community and how many articles are planted, a lot I would think.

I think 98% of the Russia articles have been planted, one example is the ridiculous Golden Showers with the prostitutes in the hotel that all the Leftists were orgasmic about, which turned out to be complete horsecrap and effectively just part of the vicious smear campaign against The Donald.
 
Last edited:
I could put the credibility of the lamestream media on the lefthand side of a sesame seed with room to spare. They have been carrying water for the Deep State/ robber barons since they bought up 25 of the most influential newspapers in the country and then put in their own editors and this started in the early 1920's. Control the information flow and you control the narrative.

You should've heard the begging and pleading when I canceled my subscription i'd had with the Houston Chronicle for 35 years.
It was absolutely pathetic. The best part was when they asked me why I was canceling..they hung up on me after about 30 seconds.
 
Last edited:
Kathy Griffin doesn't encourage violence with her photo shoot, but Trump calling out CNN for their retracted stories, deleted stories, and fired journalists makes life dangerous for journalists?

Holy shit.
 
No POTUS is keen on the scrutiny they receive from the MSM. Trump's merely made a bigger deal about it than did those before him....
...presumably because he's more desirous of being more secretive than his recent predecessors.
...And here are some specific lack of transparency examples:
So what to make of Spicer's comments about the visitor log? Though Obama didn't release all entries in the visitor long, Spicer, thus Trump, think that no visibility to them is somehow preferable to and an improvement upon some visibility to them.​

Then there's Trump's criticism that Obama must have been hiding something when he wrongly, claimed that Obama was "sealing" his college records because he was hiding something. That Trump is now unwilling to match Obama's record of transparency -- which was far from stellar -- would suggest, under Trump's logic, that he must be hiding something, right? But, of course not -- at least in the mind of Trump. He is not a believer in the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. His life motto is more like: "What's good for Donald Trump is good for Donald Trump."


Returning to the matter of media scrutiny, people seem to have conveniently forgotten all the pressure Obama received over "Benghazi," Reagan over "arms for hostages," Bush over "weapons of mass destruction," or Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The difference between those presidents and Trump is that they and their staffs didn't daily say something that was abjectly false, ambiguous, or vague.
Also, they at least adhered to the traditional expectations about personal disclosure of information about their financial dealings and position so that it was crystal clear to all that they had no direct and personal conflicts of interest in executing the duties of the office of the president.

I think one can credibly argue that Trump gives more interviews than have past presidents. That's good. What he says during those interviews, however, is what's fake/inaccurate, not the news reporting of what he says.
 
No POTUS is keen on the scrutiny they receive from the MSM. Trump's merely made a bigger deal about it than did those before him....
...presumably because he's more desirous of being more secretive than his recent predecessors.
...And here are some specific lack of transparency examples:
So what to make of Spicer's comments about the visitor log? Though Obama didn't release all entries in the visitor long, Spicer, thus Trump, think that no visibility to them is somehow preferable to and an improvement upon some visibility to them.​

Then there's Trump's criticism that Obama must have been hiding something when he wrongly, claimed that Obama was "sealing" his college records because he was hiding something. That Trump is now unwilling to match Obama's record of transparency -- which was far from stellar -- would suggest, under Trump's logic, that he must be hiding something, right? But, of course not -- at least in the mind of Trump. He is not a believer in the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. His life motto is more like: "What's good for Donald Trump is good for Donald Trump."


Returning to the matter of media scrutiny, people seem to have conveniently forgotten all the pressure Obama received over "Benghazi," Reagan over "arms for hostages," Bush over "weapons of mass destruction," or Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The difference between those presidents and Trump is that they and their staffs didn't daily say something that was abjectly false, ambiguous, or vague.
Also, they at least adhered to the traditional expectations about personal disclosure of information about their financial dealings and position so that it was crystal clear to all that they had no direct and personal conflicts of interest in executing the duties of the office of the president.

I think one can credibly argue that Trump gives more interviews than have past presidents. That's good. What he says during those interviews, however, is what's fake/inaccurate, not the news reporting of what he says.

Eh, the only media outlet that gave the Barrypuppet shit was the controlled opposition that is Fox News that is owned by one of the biggest globalists that there is. The rest of the media? Hell, they all gladly bent down to kiss his skinny shanks. GW Bush got favorable press after the false flag event that was 9/11/01 to sucker the people into invading the Middle East but once they needed a paradigm shift with the pendulum swinging the other way? They played their part and turned on him and we got the Barrypuppet that continued the plans of PNAC and put even more power behind the PATRIOT ACT while giving more intrusive power to the NSA....see how nothing ever changes??? We are just lulled into believing that it does...
16806701_10211532109569432_7445645893205274033_n.jpg
 
No POTUS is keen on the scrutiny they receive from the MSM. Trump's merely made a bigger deal about it than did those before him....
...presumably because he's more desirous of being more secretive than his recent predecessors.
...And here are some specific lack of transparency examples:
So what to make of Spicer's comments about the visitor log? Though Obama didn't release all entries in the visitor long, Spicer, thus Trump, think that no visibility to them is somehow preferable to and an improvement upon some visibility to them.​

Then there's Trump's criticism that Obama must have been hiding something when he wrongly, claimed that Obama was "sealing" his college records because he was hiding something. That Trump is now unwilling to match Obama's record of transparency -- which was far from stellar -- would suggest, under Trump's logic, that he must be hiding something, right? But, of course not -- at least in the mind of Trump. He is not a believer in the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. His life motto is more like: "What's good for Donald Trump is good for Donald Trump."


Returning to the matter of media scrutiny, people seem to have conveniently forgotten all the pressure Obama received over "Benghazi," Reagan over "arms for hostages," Bush over "weapons of mass destruction," or Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The difference between those presidents and Trump is that they and their staffs didn't daily say something that was abjectly false, ambiguous, or vague.
Also, they at least adhered to the traditional expectations about personal disclosure of information about their financial dealings and position so that it was crystal clear to all that they had no direct and personal conflicts of interest in executing the duties of the office of the president.

I think one can credibly argue that Trump gives more interviews than have past presidents. That's good. What he says during those interviews, however, is what's fake/inaccurate, not the news reporting of what he says.

Yea, the press was really tough on Obama.
 
No POTUS is keen on the scrutiny they receive from the MSM. Trump's merely made a bigger deal about it than did those before him....
...presumably because he's more desirous of being more secretive than his recent predecessors.
...And here are some specific lack of transparency examples:
So what to make of Spicer's comments about the visitor log? Though Obama didn't release all entries in the visitor long, Spicer, thus Trump, think that no visibility to them is somehow preferable to and an improvement upon some visibility to them.​

Then there's Trump's criticism that Obama must have been hiding something when he wrongly, claimed that Obama was "sealing" his college records because he was hiding something. That Trump is now unwilling to match Obama's record of transparency -- which was far from stellar -- would suggest, under Trump's logic, that he must be hiding something, right? But, of course not -- at least in the mind of Trump. He is not a believer in the old adage that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. His life motto is more like: "What's good for Donald Trump is good for Donald Trump."


Returning to the matter of media scrutiny, people seem to have conveniently forgotten all the pressure Obama received over "Benghazi," Reagan over "arms for hostages," Bush over "weapons of mass destruction," or Clinton over Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. The difference between those presidents and Trump is that they and their staffs didn't daily say something that was abjectly false, ambiguous, or vague.
Also, they at least adhered to the traditional expectations about personal disclosure of information about their financial dealings and position so that it was crystal clear to all that they had no direct and personal conflicts of interest in executing the duties of the office of the president.

I think one can credibly argue that Trump gives more interviews than have past presidents. That's good. What he says during those interviews, however, is what's fake/inaccurate, not the news reporting of what he says.

Yea, the press was really tough on Obama.
They were neither tough nor not tough. The press did what it is supposed to do: hold high President Obama and other high officials accountable for what they do and say.
  • Sept. 2013 -- "Media Doesn't Hold Back on Obama"
    • Politico -- "President Barack Obama is damaging his presidency, weakening America’s standing in the world, and displaying “inexplicable” incompetence."
    • Joe Klein of Time magazine -- "Obama has lost some serious altitude: In the world, with the Congress, and most importantly with the American people."
    • Politico -- "Klein isn’t alone: In recent months, and especially since the start of the Syria mess, Obama has been enduring some of the toughest and most widespread press criticism of his four-and-a-half years as president. It isn’t just coming from the usual suspects on the right. Increasingly, the skepticism is coming from the center and even from the left — from White House reporters, progressive editorial boards, foreign policy experts and MSNBC hosts."
  • Dec. 2013 -- "Obama's Year Of Disappointing The Liberal Base"
    • Drones:
      • Columnist Eugene Robinson of WaPo -- "I fear [historians] will see the drone war as a great moral failure."
      • ProPublica -- "The administration has not provided promised transparency about drone-related civilian deaths; it has not defined who can be targeted; and it has not provided a "precise legal rationale" for the strikes."
    • NSA/Spying:
      • Lawrence Lewis of Daily Kos -- "Failure to [reclaim credibility on the NSA/spying scandal] will continue to call into question what the president and the White House truly intend, and of even more critical importance, who is really in charge."
    • Syria:
      • Noam Schreiber of New Republic
        • "Obama Has a Foreign Policy Doctrine—And He's Ignoring It"
        • "[Obama's Tuesday night Syria] speech did not have the structure of an argument, but of a television drama in which the viewer’s anxiety is finally relieved by the promise of peaceful resolution....The problem with Obama’s speech, and really his entire case for action so far, is that Syria itself plays very little role in it. Each of his stated rationales have to do with something other than Syria per se....Obama says the action would be “targeted” rather than “open-ended.” But how can he know this—or at least persuade anyone of this—without grappling with the particulars of Syria itself?"
        • "Obama has resorted to non-Syria arguments for intervening in Syria because he can't justify an intervention on its own terms."
  • August 2014 -- Leaks
    • "James Risen [of the New York Times] calls Obama 'greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation'"
      • "The New York Times reporter James Risen, who faces jail over his refusal to reveal a source and testify against a former CIA agent accused of leaking secrets, has called President Barack Obama “the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation." Risen faces jail over his reporting of a botched intelligence operation that ended up spilling nuclear secrets to Iran. The Justice Department has long been seeking to force him to testify and name the confidential source of the account, which is contained in his 2006 book State of War."
  • Sept. 2016 -- James Warren writing for Vanity Fair about transparency in the Obama Administration:
    • "President Obama falls short of Hillary Clinton's visceral disdain for the press, but not by much..."
    • "[Obama's] exhibited the very same tendency of recent administrations, regardless of political party, to limit press access. He's been bad on the Freedom of Information Act and topped predecessors in not fulfilling FOIA requests, be it withholding or censoring them. (PBS) He's not been good on the so-called “open meetings” law. He's relied greatly on “secret law” memos and going after the press for alleged leaks. (Poynter) A coalition of 53 press and open government groups skewered him. (Poynter) The White House Correspondents’ Association complained of sharply decreased access and manipulation. (Poynter)"
    • "It was all of a piece with Obama's own deep suspicions of the media. He's often spoken in lofty terms about the importance of press freedom, especially when bashing the awful press and human rights records of others, notably China. (The Guardian) And, for sure, he's been at times unfairly diminished by unceasing media and political assaults during his presidency. But his record, say, on releasing government records is pretty awful, even after he initially promised the most open administration ever and made some clear advances, including improving the Presidential Records Act."
Conservatives didn't consider those comments "fake news," now did they? Now that the press is making similarly themed comments about Trump, however, it's "fake news." Ah, no. It is now as it was then, editorial content coming from the press. Oh, and guess what? Obama didn't at all care for the press coverage he was getting, but he also didn't run and hide from the press by not attending events like the Gridiron dinner or the White House Correspondents dinner, and he didn't refuse to allow video of the daily press briefing.

As I said, nobody who assumes high elected office cares for the scrutiny and inquisitiveness of the press. In that regard, Trump is no different than his predecessors. What makes Trump different is that he himself is often incoherent and intellectually lazy. Thus, in addition to his substantive policy initiatives coming under scrutiny, he personally does too because he routinely says things that no intelligent and honest person would say, and/or say in the puerile and incoherent way Trump does.

It's that while leaders, POTUSes, may have what appears to be ill advised and/or detrimental policy positions, they can't get away with having them and articulating them in the most absurd way imaginable. At some point, a POTUS, Congressperson, appointed official, etc. has to say "okay, I'm not a teenager and I can't comport myself as one." Most people in those roles come into office with that awareness. Trump's been in office for months now and still hasn't adopted it. It's no surprise, then, that he's getting scrutinized as would a teenager.
 
Last edited:
Was Obama colluding with Putin?

Odd that Obama would lie about Putin hacking the election.

What did Obama have to gain by lying.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top