A Dangerous Time for the Press and the Presidency

[homersapien 11,367]

This is a thoughtful article on the importance of the press in our democracy, with recent examples.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-dangerous-time-for-the-press-and-the-presidency/517260/

At the dawn of a turbulent era in American history, an inexperienced but media-savvy President, early in his first term, was obsessing about negative press.

John F. Kennedy, who had grown accustomed to compliant coverage, was running up against the limits of his power to control the public narrative when neither the world nor the press would read from his script. Halfway around the globe, a small band of foreign correspondents were undercutting the White House with stories that showed the United States becoming more deeply involved (and less successfully) than the government acknowledged in what would become the Vietnam War.

Relations between the Saigon press corps and the United States Embassy had deteriorated into "a mutual standoff of cold fury and hot shouts––Liar! Traitor! Scoundrel! Fool!––with an American foreign policy teetering precariously in the void between," wrote William Prochnau in Once Upon a Distant War, an under-appreciated account of fraught relations between the government and the press.

At his wit's end one day in 1962, Kennedy dialed up his long-time friend James Reston, the legendary columnist and New York Times Washington Bureau Chief with an urgent request, in the interest of national security: fire war reporter David Halberstam. Reston declined. Halberstam persevered, the war proving every bit the disaster he had foreseen. And even the President eventually lamented, upon reading the Times one morning, "why can I get this stuff from Halberstam when I can't get it from my own people?"

I read Prochnau on the advice of my editor at The Washington Post, just before I flew to Kuwait in early 2003, to cover the invasion of Iraq, embedded with a U.S. Marine infantry unit. I spent the better part of the succeeding three years living in, and writing about, Iraq, and clashing occasionally, though never spectacularly, with the U.S. Embassy there.

More recently, from 2009 to 2017, I was on the other side of those clashes, working on foreign policy in the Obama White House and State Department, dealing frequently with my former journalism colleagues along the way, who were covering our efforts.

I have thought a lot about both experiences since Donald Trump's Friday night tweet labeling the media "enemies of the American people," and about why his repeated assaults feel so different from those of his predecessors. The Founding Fathers set a course for such collisions by both recognizing the need for the government to keep secrets, and codifying the right of the press to ferret them out.

The relationship between the government and the press should be adversarial, as their missions are often at odds. As those seeking to downplay the current confrontation have rightly pointed out, this has resulted in a power struggle between that is as old as the Republic itself.

But Trump’s relationship with the media represents something new and potentially dangerous to both. He is the first President to publicly question the place of the media in American society itself And his branding of the press as an "enemy" seems less an attempt to influence coverage than an invitation to repression and even violence.

Read the rest at:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/a-dangerous-time-for-the-press-and-the-presidency/517260/

[autigeremt 6,600]

The press deserves a big slap across the face for slanting "news" for so many years. They are part of the reason a Trump is in the White House. I'm just sitting back and watching two foolish "organizations" go at it. 

[homersapien 11,367]

44 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

The press deserves a big slap across the face for slanting "news" for so many years. They are part of the reason a Trump is in the White House. I'm just sitting back and watching two foolish "organizations" go at it. 

"Slanting news for so many years"?  

How about expanding on that?

 

[AU64 10,122]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Slanting news for so many years"?  

How about expanding on that?

 

Watch ten minutes of MSNBC and you you should get the picture.

[Grumps 3,704]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

"Slanting news for so many years"?  

How about expanding on that?

 

You KNOW it is true. Why not pick a different battle?

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

You KNOW it is true. Why not pick a different battle?

You realize this is all a game.....even homer is not as obtuse as he would like you to think....but I could be wrong about that? 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

Watch ten minutes of MSNBC and you you should get the picture.

Sheer ideological ignorance IF,,,,,you do not include, Fox in your "picture".  Any "news" that includes an obvious, overt bias is tainted.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Remember when,

the MSM reported on the crowd size at the inauguration and Trump straightened them out?

the MSM said there was very, very limited voter fraud and, Trump provided substantial, documented evidence to the contrary and proved he actually won the popular vote?

Trump proved that Cruz's father was linked to the Kennedy assassination?

Trump demanded Obama's birth certificate but, would not reveal his own tax returns?

Trump proved that the MSM was wrong and, that crime rates are historically high?

Trump proved that the IC and the MSM were wrong about Russia attempting to influence the election?

 

Who is fooling who?

 

 

[AU64 10,122]

1 minute ago, icanthearyou said:

Remember when,

the MSM reported on the crowd size at the inauguration and Trump straightened them out?

the MSM said there was very, very limited voter fraud and, Trump provided substantial, documented evidence to the contrary and proved he actually won the popular vote?

Trump proved that Cruz's father was linked to the Kennedy assassination?

Trump demanded Obama's birth certificate but, would not reveal his own tax returns?

Trump proved that the MSM was wrong and, that crime rates are historically high?

Trump proved that the IC and the MSM were wrong about Russia attempting to influence the election?

 

Who is fooling who?

 

 

Don't know but lots of folks fooling you....JMO

[icanthearyou 4,462]

3 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Don't know but lots of folks fooling you....JMO

Then you should be able to make a substantial argument.  Your inability is telling.

[homersapien 11,367]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

You realize this is all a game.....even homer is not as obtuse as he would like you to think....but I could be wrong about that? 

I can't help it if reality has a liberal bias.  

You guys are in complete denial. You are constantly proven wrong time after time and all you can do is whine about the coverage.

(And I've never watched MSNBC)

[AU64 10,122]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Then you should be able to make a substantial argument.  Your inability is telling.

I'm not defending Trump....I'm a registered Cynic.....but I also know when I see BS in the MSN ....especially when the are quoting ...and I use that term loosely ...their unnamed sources as if those sources (who are not held responsible for what they say) have no personal agenda are even being truthful.  

The major agencies of the US government are full of political appointees....maybe 4000 I hear and most currently holding those jobs were appointed by the Obama crew.....so it would be hard not to believe that at least 98% are Dems....could be a few Republicans slipped through....and those Dems are pretty likely solid party supporters or else they would not have those plush jobs. 

So ....as a registered Cynic....I'm saying that anyone who thinks that leaks coming from within the major government agencies are being put forth for the "good of the country" is living in la la land.  If that is you....go ahead and admit it.....otherwise, you might want to be more discerning about what you read and believe. Otherwise you might actually believe that all those governments contributing to the Clinton Foundation did not expect to get anything in return and maybe even that Saudi Arabia is really our friend.

[homersapien 11,367]

9 minutes ago, AU64 said:

I'm not defending Trump....I'm a registered Cynic.....but I also know when I see BS in the MSN ....especially when the are quoting ...and I use that term loosely ...their unnamed sources as if those sources (who are not held responsible for what they say) have no personal agenda are even being truthful.  

The major agencies of the US government are full of political appointees....maybe 4000 I hear and most currently holding those jobs were appointed by the Obama crew.....so it would be hard not to believe that at least 98% are Dems....could be a few Republicans slipped through....and those Dems are pretty likely solid party supporters or else they would not have those plush jobs. 

So ....as a registered Cynic....I'm saying that anyone who thinks that leaks coming from within the major government agencies are being put forth for the "good of the country" is living in la la land.  If that is you....go ahead and admit it.....otherwise, you might want to be more discerning about what you read and believe. Otherwise you might actually believe that all those governments contributing to the Clinton Foundation did not expect to get anything in return and maybe even that Saudi Arabia is really our friend.

I don't think you really understand the function of the press in our democracy.

"Leaks" are a critical part of that role, like it or not.

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

I'm not defending Trump....I'm a registered Cynic.....but I also know when I see BS in the MSN ....especially when the are quoting ...and I use that term loosely ...their unnamed sources as if those sources (who are not held responsible for what they say) have no personal agenda are even being truthful.  

The major agencies of the US government are full of political appointees....maybe 4000 I hear and most currently holding those jobs were appointed by the Obama crew.....so it would be hard not to believe that at least 98% are Dems....could be a few Republicans slipped through....and those Dems are pretty likely solid party supporters or else they would not have those plush jobs. 

So ....as a registered Cynic....I'm saying that anyone who thinks that leaks coming from within the major government agencies are being put forth for the "good of the country" is living in la la land.  If that is you....go ahead and admit it.....otherwise, you might want to be more discerning about what you read and believe. Otherwise you might actually believe that all those governments contributing to the Clinton Foundation did not expect to get anything in return and maybe even that Saudi Arabia is really our friend.

I don't care what you think.  It only matters what is true.  If you can not back up your claims, then obviously they are without basis.

You need to go to the other forum.

[WDavE 332]

First and foremost. We are not a democracy. The closest definition is representative republic but besides that.

How come no one can call out the press? First amendment rights? I don't see not being invited to a press conference as  an infringment of freedom of the press. They were there.....Some were excluded but nothing was said or done that they don't know about. It called a pool feed.

 

Next, since the press claims that they help keep politicians and government in check. I would ask who has the rights to do the same to them?  Does anybody? They print and report things that are not true all the time. They also slant stories the way they want them to be interpreted.

 

Before you go off on that. I have worked with them since the early 70's and have watched them move from just reporting the news to giving everyone their opinion. Use to be  that they had to have multiple sources before reporting something.  Now, a lot of it is just a repeat of what some unknown source said.

 

What I remember about the  1st amendment is that the president is mentioned way earlier then the press was and has the same if not more rights! But that all came of earlier written history books. Could be a lot different now.

 

[Strychnine 1,802]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

First and foremost. We are not a democracy. The closest definition is representative republic but besides that.

How come no one can call out the press? First amendment rights? I don't see not being invited to a press conference as  an infringment of freedom of the press. They were there.....Some were excluded but nothing was said or done that they don't know about. It called a pool feed.

 

Next, since the press claims that they help keep politicians and government in check. I would ask who has the rights to do the same to them?  Does anybody? They print and report things that are not true all the time. They also slant stories the way they want them to be interpreted.

 

Before you go off on that. I have worked with them since the early 70's and have watched them move from just reporting the news to giving everyone their opinion. Use to be  that they had to have multiple sources before reporting something.  Now, a lot of it is just a repeat of what some unknown source said.

 

What I remember about the  1st amendment is that the president is mentioned way earlier then the press was and has the same if not more rights! But that all came of earlier written history books. Could be a lot different now.

 

 

First, the United States is a constitutional republic.  Second, the 1st Amendment to said Constitution does not mention the President at all.

Here is the text, since you could not be bothered to look it up:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

EDIT:  There is a place for people that want to shoot from the hip when posting, it is a sub-forum of this one.

[Grumps 3,704]

13 hours ago, Strychnine said:

 

First, the United States is a constitutional republic.  Second, the 1st Amendment to said Constitution does not mention the President at all.

Here is the text, since you could not be bothered to look it up:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

EDIT:  There is a place for people that want to shoot from the hip when posting, it is a sub-forum of this one.

I am not sure what Dave meant, but I interpreted his words to mean that the POTUS, as a citizen, has rights before the press does.

[homersapien 11,367]

14 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I am not sure what Dave meant, but I interpreted his words to mean that the POTUS, as a citizen, has rights before the press does.

What do you mean specifically?  What rights?

[metafour 4,969]

On 2/24/2017 at 9:44 PM, homersapien said:

"Slanting news for so many years"?  

How about expanding on that?

 

Hahahah, get a load of this guy!

 

 

 

Nothing to see here folks, move along....

[homersapien 11,367]

What's fake, other than possibly the Nancy Sinatra piece?

[metafour 4,969]

Your post asked for specification on how they were SLANTING NEWS; so go through the list:

 

1) Islamic terrorist attack labelled as a "truck crash".  Slant.

2) Slanting "hacking" reports to suit their own agenda: when Hillary was supposed to win, it was "impossible" to hack the election.  After Trump won: "where's the outrage over Russian hacking of the election?"

3) Running a headline suggesting that illegal immigrants aren't "committing a crime", when they are, in fact, committing a crime.

4) Slanting a headline to imply some sort of gross malpractice by Trump's aides for being in contact with Russian officials.  The actual article then claims that this isn't even abnormal practice and that no investigation had even confirmed what the "intent" of the contact was.  Pure slanting of the worst kind.

5) Label everyone else "fake news" to slant what is acceptable in your own favor, then cry when someone else labels YOU as "fake news", going as far as to use a racism comparison to tug at the heart-strings of their idiotic audience.  LOL. 

6) Headline implies that Melania Trump ditched the Japanese first-lady; later proven to be false.  Slant.

7) More stupid than serious; but can't help but raise an eyebrow to a "news agency" apparently finding it more important to report on Trump eating chicken than a terrorist attack...

8) Again using a slanted headline to push a story in their preferred direction; which would have passed without question had the actual subject of the story not come out and called BS.

[Mims44 1,867]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

What's fake, other than possibly the Nancy Sinatra piece?

I had to "like" that for just how damn Raptor-like you were. LMAO

 

You have become a funnier poster since Trump got elected Homer.

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, Mims44 said:

I had to "like" that for just how damn Raptor-like you were. LMAO

 

You have become a funnier poster since Trump got elected Homer.

Sorry, but I don't get your point.