Here's what I would do re: the media if I were Trump

[OldLady]

So the govt will control the media as in totalitarian societies. That is kinda what america is all about anyway, might as well.

um, have yu not being paying attention? that is essentially what has been happening already

free press does not mean guaranteed access to the president

seriously, where the hell is your outrage over the collusion from the press with the DNC?

and part of the reason for this thread is humor, but I'm guessing you know that

but I am dead serious about revoking press pool privileges for folks that have been caught working with the democrat party, I would do that in a heartbeat

I would only be tempted to let Milo be press secretary, would not really do it. But Laura? She'd be my girl...

Then I am dead serious that it's a good thing you have no say whatever in who has access to the President of our country.
Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors. Did you check each of those articles and see what changes, if any, were actually made to the stories when published, at the request of the DNC? If there were significant changes in those 65 instances, I will be surprised. I had certainly not heard that.
There is no reason to fire them. Only the personnel involved in leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign should be fired--and WERE fired, promptly, already.
The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

 

[whitehall]

CNN even made a disgusting freaking joke about Trump's plane crashing. The 1st Amendment right of the press is absolute so it's up to the public to show their displeasure with these arrogant jerks.

 

[dcbl]

The conservatives under Adams tried to abolish the First Amendment and that party died. Now we have Trump making the same noises, and it should worry the Republicans more than the Democrats.

except, no one is talking about "abolishing the 1st amendment" or even limiting it for that matter

I am saying that the people in the media that we know are agents of the democrat party should not be treated as journalist & given press passes in the WH press pool

they could still write "news" articles to their hearts content; but I would shame them for their, what's the word I am looking for? - DEPLORABLE - that's it!

I would shame them for their deplorable conduct; what are they gonna do? say bad things about Trump?

 

[Kosh]

So the govt will control the media as in totalitarian societies. That is kinda what america is all about anyway, might as well.

um, have yu not being paying attention? that is essentially what has been happening already

free press does not mean guaranteed access to the president

seriously, where the hell is your outrage over the collusion from the press with the DNC?

and part of the reason for this thread is humor, but I'm guessing you know that

but I am dead serious about revoking press pool privileges for folks that have been caught working with the democrat party, I would do that in a heartbeat

I would only be tempted to let Milo be press secretary, would not really do it. But Laura? She'd be my girl...

Then I am dead serious that it's a good thing you have no say whatever in who has access to the President of our country.
Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors. Did you check each of those articles and see what changes, if any, were actually made to the stories when published, at the request of the DNC? If there were significant changes in those 65 instances, I will be surprised. I had certainly not heard that.
There is no reason to fire them. Only the personnel involved in leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign should be fired--and WERE fired, promptly, already.
The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

And you prove why you are a far left drone..

 

[owebo]

First thing I would do would be to revoke CNN's White House access & not allow them to have a representative in the White House press pool. We know for a fact that CNN colluded with the Democrat Party & the Clinton campaign; so that network no longer has any journalistic credibility.

I would follow up by letting the media know that ALL 65 "journalists" that were on the wikileaks list, the ones we know colluded with the Clinton campaign & could be trusted to help shape the democrat narrative, would be banned from the WGite House. No exceptions.

Lastly - I would have THREE press secretaries; Kellyanne Conway (and have her be in charge); Laura Ingraham and Milo Yiannopoulos.

On good days, when the media was behaving, they would get Kellyanne.

On Normal day, when they are just sniping and telling minor lies, Laura would come out (this would be 70 - 80% of the time.

And on REALLY bad days when they are being outrageous with their lies, they would have to deal with the dangerous faggot...

We shouldn't let tabloid fake news agencies like CNN anywhere near the White House....

 

[dcbl]

Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors.

they never did that for Trump, so I call bullshit

 

[OldLady]

CNN even made a disgusting freaking joke about Trump's plane crashing. The 1st Amendment right of the press is absolute so it's up to the public to show their displeasure with these arrogant jerks.

That was a producer NOT ON THE AIR. Let's not forget some of Trump's disgusting "jokes," while you're at it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

So the govt will control the media as in totalitarian societies. That is kinda what america is all about anyway, might as well.

um, have yu not being paying attention? that is essentially what has been happening already

free press does not mean guaranteed access to the president

seriously, where the hell is your outrage over the collusion from the press with the DNC?

and part of the reason for this thread is humor, but I'm guessing you know that

but I am dead serious about revoking press pool privileges for folks that have been caught working with the democrat party, I would do that in a heartbeat

I would only be tempted to let Milo be press secretary, would not really do it. But Laura? She'd be my girl...

Then I am dead serious that it's a good thing you have no say whatever in who has access to the President of our country.
Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors. Did you check each of those articles and see what changes, if any, were actually made to the stories when published, at the request of the DNC? If there were significant changes in those 65 instances, I will be surprised. I had certainly not heard that.
There is no reason to fire them. Only the personnel involved in leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign should be fired--and WERE fired, promptly, already.
The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

That's the problem right there, many do not think, they just believe.

 

[OldLady]

So the govt will control the media as in totalitarian societies. That is kinda what america is all about anyway, might as well.

um, have yu not being paying attention? that is essentially what has been happening already

free press does not mean guaranteed access to the president

seriously, where the hell is your outrage over the collusion from the press with the DNC?

and part of the reason for this thread is humor, but I'm guessing you know that

but I am dead serious about revoking press pool privileges for folks that have been caught working with the democrat party, I would do that in a heartbeat

I would only be tempted to let Milo be press secretary, would not really do it. But Laura? She'd be my girl...

Then I am dead serious that it's a good thing you have no say whatever in who has access to the President of our country.
Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors. Did you check each of those articles and see what changes, if any, were actually made to the stories when published, at the request of the DNC? If there were significant changes in those 65 instances, I will be surprised. I had certainly not heard that.
There is no reason to fire them. Only the personnel involved in leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign should be fired--and WERE fired, promptly, already.
The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

And you prove why you are a far left drone..

And you prove with each new post that you are a fucking moron.

 

[OldLady]

Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors.

they never did that for Trump, so I call bullshit

How do you know that, since the RNC's emails weren't hacked? that's part of the point.

 

[Fenton Lum]

CNN even made a disgusting freaking joke about Trump's plane crashing. The 1st Amendment right of the press is absolute so it's up to the public to show their displeasure with these arrogant jerks.

The best way to do that would be to not watch, cut off the eyeballs. 'Course, americans won't do that, we'll continue to participate and caterwaul about it.

 

[OldLady]

So the govt will control the media as in totalitarian societies. That is kinda what america is all about anyway, might as well.

um, have yu not being paying attention? that is essentially what has been happening already

free press does not mean guaranteed access to the president

seriously, where the hell is your outrage over the collusion from the press with the DNC?

and part of the reason for this thread is humor, but I'm guessing you know that

but I am dead serious about revoking press pool privileges for folks that have been caught working with the democrat party, I would do that in a heartbeat

I would only be tempted to let Milo be press secretary, would not really do it. But Laura? She'd be my girl...

Then I am dead serious that it's a good thing you have no say whatever in who has access to the President of our country.
Most of those reporters were doing the thing frequently done by journalists in showing the story to the pol prior to publication to check for errors. Did you check each of those articles and see what changes, if any, were actually made to the stories when published, at the request of the DNC? If there were significant changes in those 65 instances, I will be surprised. I had certainly not heard that.
There is no reason to fire them. Only the personnel involved in leaking debate questions to Hillary's campaign should be fired--and WERE fired, promptly, already.
The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

That's the problem right there, many do not think, they just believe.

All kinds of stuff, seemingly. Sometimes it gets frustrating.

 

[occupied]

The conservatives under Adams tried to abolish the First Amendment and that party died. Now we have Trump making the same noises, and it should worry the Republicans more than the Democrats.

except, no one is talking about "abolishing the 1st amendment" or even limiting it for that matter

I am saying that the people in the media that we know are agents of the democrat party should not be treated as journalist & given press passes in the WH press pool

they could still write "news" articles to their hearts content; but I would shame them for their, what's the word I am looking for? - DEPLORABLE - that's it!

I would shame them for their deplorable conduct; what are they gonna do? say bad things about Trump?

What about journalists that are clearly agents of the republican party? Are they somehow better? If Trump attempts to use access as a weapon against the media that does not kiss his ass he will not like the media's reaction. We still have a free press and it usually takes a dim view of attempts to manipulate it.

 

[dcbl]

The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

that is a fair point & I will acknowledge that you are correct on this one

again, I was partly trying to be funny in OP; but I really do not see a problem with shutting off access to reporters that we know were distorting the truth & colluding with the other party, do you think that Obama would have allowed Sean Hannity in the press pool?

I respect you from what I have seen on this forum so far, so I will be respectful and not "troll" you & your posts.

Having said that, here is a serious question; how is denying access to folks that have acted as political operatives a threat to the 1st amendment? There is no obligation to grant interviews or access. The 1st amendment merely gives the press the right to say what they want and restricts the government from shutting them down & denying them the right to present their views - so why do you think I am mistaken here?

 

[OldLady]

CNN even made a disgusting freaking joke about Trump's plane crashing. The 1st Amendment right of the press is absolute so it's up to the public to show their displeasure with these arrogant jerks.

The best way to do that would be to not watch, cut off the eyeballs. 'Course, americans won't do that, we'll continue to participate and caterwaul about it.

One of these days I want you to propose a solution instead of simply slamming the US press/media. I realize what you say is true, but it doesn't help solve the problem in the least. It is all we've got and some fringe-right types want to shut down most of that. This COULD get serious, if people keep this shit up. It may be too late already. It truly frightens me that so many Trump supporters refuse to believe anything that isn't polishing Trump's shine and they actually feel it deserves banning. I'll fight that forever.

 

[SavannahMann]

The first target of any fascist regime is to attempt to control the media and thus the public narrative.

So the collusion with the Press by the administration and the DNC was in fact a Fascist tactic? Odd that you would admit it. Refreshing but odd.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Preacher]

First thing I would do would be to revoke CNN's White House access & not allow them to have a representative in the White House press pool. We know for a fact that CNN colluded with the Democrat Party & the Clinton campaign; so that network no longer has any journalistic credibility.

I would follow up by letting the media know that ALL 65 "journalists" that were on the wikileaks list, the ones we know colluded with the Clinton campaign & could be trusted to help shape the democrat narrative, would be banned from the WGite House. No exceptions.

Lastly - I would have THREE press secretaries; Kellyanne Conway (and have her be in charge); Laura Ingraham and Milo Yiannopoulos.

On good days, when the media was behaving, they would get Kellyanne.

On Normal day, when they are just sniping and telling minor lies, Laura would come out (this would be 70 - 80% of the time.

And on REALLY bad days when they are being outrageous with their lies, they would have to deal with the dangerous faggot...

Can we swap Ingraham with Coulter?

 

[dcbl]

What about journalists that are clearly agents of the republican party? Are they somehow better? If Trump attempts to use access as a weapon against the media that does not kiss his ass he will not like the media's reaction. We still have a free press and it usually takes a dim view of attempts to manipulate it.

I addressed your 1st question already, but will answer again. Obama did not give them (newsf folks that are agents of rep party) access to his press pool; nor should he have.

I don't think that Trump should attempt to "manipulate" the media or demand that they "kiss his ass"; but individual journalists that allowed themselves to be used as agents for Hillary's campaign while they were pretending to behave with journalistic integrity & objectivity should not get WH press pool passes

I have already said that part of my OP was said in humor (or snark) - I will add to that; part of it is frustration...

 

[Preacher]

Ah, the dreams of the Alt-Right.
Better not happen, buddy. Not any of it. The press is all we've got to keep our leaders in line. Without them we wouldn't know shit, and if you think the Republican/Trump administration is going to be any more pristine than the last one, you are sorely mistaken.
Laura would be fine as press secretary--she's clear, precise and no bullshit. No one gets banned, though. They all get their chance to talk and share their perspective. I listened to Obama et al get bashed for 8 years and you guys can damned well tolerate the criticism, too.

LOL yeah I can see CNN keeping a President Clinton in line....DEFINITELY!

 

[OldLady]

The other thing you are ignoring is that Wikileaks only got the dirt on the DNC, not the RNC. If all the RNC's chair's e-mails from the same time period were investigated, do you really think there would be no concerns?

that is a fair point & I will acknowledge that you are correct on this one

again, I was partly trying to be funny in OP; but I really do not see a problem with shutting off access to reporters that we know were distorting the truth & colluding with the other party, do you think that Obama would have allowed Sean Hannity in the press pool?

I respect you from what I have seen on this forum so far, so I will be respectful and not "troll" you & your posts.

Having said that, here is a serious question; how is denying access to folks that have acted as political operatives a threat to the 1st amendment? There is no obligation to grant interviews or access. The 1st amendment merely gives the press the right to say what they want and restricts the government from shutting them down & denying them the right to present their views - so why do you think I am mistaken here?

First, the only "political operatives" they've proven existed were fired. By denying access to the White House, you effectively prevent that news outlet from covering the goings on in the administration. Yes, they can still spout opinions based on others' reports, but so can you, or I. That is not what news reporting is about. WaPo broke Watergate. Trump doesn't like WaPo. What might get missed if an equally big story about illegal goings on never got covered because the journalists who might sniff it out were all prevented from the White House press corps?
You can't cover the police beat without access to the police station. You can't cover the President without access to the WH.
Thanks for not being a dickwad like Kosh.