Trump-Russia Probe: Criminal Investigation...

[Cow Poke]

The reason you have corrupt government is because you let folks like the oil industry and the gun lobby govern for you. They are Big Brother.

Besides, you forgot the Union lobby and the Abortion lobby.

[rogue06]

You are astonishingly uninformed.

When it comes to being anti-media, Trump only talks a big game. And, boy, does he talk. Obama, on the other hand, is a man of action. As president, he did much more than complain about Fox News. His administration spent eight long years curbing the press freedoms of journalists of every stripe. Obama was a pro at this.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...zing-newsrooms

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...-and-hostility

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion...304-story.html

I'm tired of quoting. Read these for yourself:

https://www.longislandpress.com/2017...histleblowers/

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/o...ank-obama.html

We've been through this multiple times.

I've seen nothing to suggest that Trump has any intent of adopting Obama's policy of actively punishing any reporter and news organization who displeases him. And by "punishing", I mean that Obama did more than simply call them names on Twitter. A lot more, including spying on them, using the IRS to harass them, and even threatening them with jail.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/enterta...304-story.html

It's disingenuous to pretend that Assange is just an average, everyday news reporter.

Trump did kick reporters out of specific events but that hardly compares to trying to ban an entire network from all Administration events.

Anywho... For a little background so a comparison can be made:

Just to put things into perspective...

Source: Trump's war on press no match for Obama's

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertai...304-story.html

© Copyright Original Source

And from the reliably right-winger The Huffington Post:

Source: Obama�s Escalating War on Freedom of the Press

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/norma...b_3635370.html

© Copyright Original Source

So those of you clucking your tongues at Trump, where were you when Obama was literally threatening reporters with jail time for asking the "wrong" questions?

Source: WHY IT'LL BE HARD FOR TRUMP TO SURPASS OBAMA'S RECORD OF CHILLING PRESS FREEDOM

Many in the mainstream media are reacting with righteous indignation over comments from a senior Trump adviser suggesting the administration views the traditional media as an opponent. But if we're to take these apostles of press freedom seriously, they should first explain why the Trump Administration is worse than the Obama Administration.

After all, the Obama Administration literally tried imprisoning an uncooperative journalist, monitored journalists' every digital move, and "hammered" at least one challenging reporter with IRS audits.

Let's rewind the tape.

The Obama Administration began with lofty promises of being "the most transparent administration in history." Instead it ended up setting a record, by the Associated Press's count, for denying the most Freedom of Information Act requests.

As the administration's popularity began tumbling early into its first year, the Obama White House declared war on Fox News. The White House director of communications, Anita Dunn, warned they would henceforth treat Fox News "like an opponentthe administration sought to deny Fox News' participation in executive branch news-making events -- which only failed after other networks admirably refused to participate if Fox News were excluded.

As you'll see in the montage above, President Obama blamed Fox News and talk radio for virtually every problem his administration encountered, warning in his waning days that these "domestic propagandists" were far more damaging to America than any interference from hostile powers like Russia.

When Fox News's State Department correspondent, James Rosen, reported accurate information about North Korea leaked by a member of the Obama State Department, Eric Holder ordered his movements to be tracked, his phone records seized, and went "judge shoppingthe Washington Post wrotethe Freedom of the Press Foundation reported. After the Supreme Court rejected Risen's appeal of an earlier order mandating he testify about the source of information he reported, Risen faced jail time.

After an outcry, Holder finally backed down.

The Associated Press experienced similar surveillance. For two months, the Department of Justice tracked 20 AP reporters' calls, ostensibly over their reporting into a Libyan terrorist's failed plot. Why was reporting on a failed plot so threatening? The AP said it was because the administration wanted to announce the news itself.

Obama himself was notorious for granting interviews with journalists whom he knew would treat him gently -- like Steve Kroft. When Obama accidentally exposed himself to a mildly challenging interview with a local reporter in Saint Louis, that reporter was later "hammered" with IRS audits.

With the Obama Administration, the message to the media was always clear: Report negatively about us, and we'll use the powers at our disposal to make you suffer consequences.

If those journalists currently complaining about the Trump Administration found no such fault with the Obama Administration, perhaps it's because they were all too willing to toe the line.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Now imagine if Trump started tracking a bunch of reporters phone calls, not because they were publishing classified information, but merely because they had published a story that Trump wanted to be the first to release. Or sicced the IRS after reporters who asked tough questions. The howls of outrage would be heard far and wide and those would be the lead stories for days on end as scowling left-wing pundits and politicians would be calling for impeachment.



And a couple pieces by the rabidly anti-Trump New York Times:

Source: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama

labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.



Source

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Only Nixon Harmed a Free Press More

Source

© Copyright Original Source

[*Both stories continues at the above links*]

[Juvenal]

Those two concepts are not connected, and they are not being murdered "all the time". That's a bit of an exaggeration, Jim.

Just stop, preacher.

[Cow Poke]

Just stop, preacher.

Tragic as that is, it's simply not "all the time", teacher. And these are hard journalists who were going up against oppressive regimes, none of which was in the US.

[One Bad Pig]

Just stop, preacher.

A whopping 31 this year, worldwide?

While 1 is too many, that hardly qualifies as "all the time" - but you knew that, Jerk.

[Cow Poke]

A whopping 31 this year, worldwide?

While 1 is too many, that hardly qualifies as "all the time" - but you knew that, Jerk.

Actually, before I posted, I had done my homework and found 38.

[JimL]

Tragic as that is, it's simply not "all the time", teacher. And these are hard journalists who were going up against oppressive regimes,

39 murdered, a total of 426 murdered or imprisoned this year alone. Forget James Foley already, Khashoggi, what a joke they were, eh? And the U.S has many more out there facing the same danger.

none of which was in the US.

Not the point, the point is that journalism isn't a joke and without it, you got nothing. Don't let the Trumps of the world fool you into believing journalist are peddlers of fake news and that "what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening."

[Cow Poke]

39 murdered, a total of 426 murdered or imprisoned this year alone. Forget James Foley already, Khashoggi, what a joke they were, eh? And the U.S has many more out there facing the same danger.

They were not a joke, Jim - and I note your attempt to step away from your "all the time" claim. I was clearly talking about "journalism" in the US, particularly in the context of all this political crap.

Not the point,...

It is EXACTLY the point. I wasn't referring to "hard journalism" outside the US -- the context here has been US politics, and reporting thereon.

[firstfloor]

firstfloor also offers dispute resolution, hostage negotiation and crisis management services, to all his chums.

[JimL]

They were not a joke, Jim - and I note your attempt to step away from your "all the time" claim. I was clearly talking about "journalism" in the US, particularly in the context of all this political crap.



It is EXACTLY the point. I wasn't referring to "hard journalism" outside the US -- the context here has been US politics, and reporting thereon.

So, you think political journalists here in the U.S. are a joke? So, if you don't mind my asking, from whom do you get your news, CP?

[Cow Poke]

So, you think political journalists here in the U.S. are a joke? So, if you don't mind my asking, from whom do you get your news, CP?

First, let's clear up your previous error, about the journalists being "murdered all the time", which is happening outside the US, and has ZERO to do with my comment about US "journalism".

Here's the context - note that there's not a single reference to journalism outside the US....

I think you have to be careful to understand the difference between print media, TV/cable news, and 24/7 cable opinion shows. Shows like Rachael Maddow or Hannity to name 2 on opposite ends of the spectrum are OPINION shows that may or may not be objective in their evaluation and/or presentation of the evidence supporting their opinions.

The OPINION sides of many of these networks have abandoned any attempt to remain 'objective'. But that is very different from what is reported as news and how the news itself is handled. Sources that hold to the standards Juvenal describes still exist, perhaps even are the majority still of the serious news outlets (e.g. AP) or major newspapers (e.g WP or NYT) and the primary reason they are viewed as being so biased, especially from the conservative side (more on this in a minute), has more to do with the mindset of the observers than the actual bias or lack standards related to their reporting.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40508[/ATTACH]

Remember the charts I put up a week or so ago? At how difference audiences perceived the bias in the news. Republican observers (reposted above) were much more likely to see bias from ALL sources - including their own. Only fox and Wall Street Journal showed up on the blue (more unbiassed) side of the chart.

Another key take-away here is that ALL sources recognize the bias in the conservative rags (e.g. breitbart) so often quote here in support of Trump et al.


Jim

So, NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the deaths of journalists - to whom I refer as "hard journalists", because they are literally risking their lives opposing oppressive regimes.

That was the context to which I responded...

Jim, it's the loudest frog in the pond that gets the attention. "Journalism" has become a joke.

[JimL]

First, let's clear up your previous error, about the journalists being "murdered all the time", which is happening outside the US, and has ZERO to do with my comment about US "journalism".

Here's the context - note that there's not a single reference to journalism outside the US....



So, NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the deaths of journalists - to whom I refer as "hard journalists", because they are literally risking their lives opposing oppressive regimes.

That was the context to which I responded...

With 6 murdered, the U.S was among the top 5 deadliest countries for journalists last year, CP.

[Cow Poke]

With 6 murdered, the U.S was among the top 5 deadliest countries for journalists last year, CP.

Nothing whatsoever to do with the "journalism" involved in politics, Jim.

[JimL]

Nothing whatsoever to do with the "journalism" involved in politics, Jim.

Oh, I see, so it's just the journalists, and the journalism that disagrees with your politics that you're describing as a joke.

Okay, so, if political journalism is a joke, then from whom do you get your news, CP.

[Cow Poke]

Oh, I see, so it's just the journalists, and the journalism that disagrees with your politics that you're describing as a joke.

Okay, so, if political journalism is a joke, then from whom do you get your news, CP.

I'm not playing your games, Jim.