nope, they edited the content for a specific reason; that is a fact jack and that is not free speech; that is altered speech for a specific purpose; you have gone to the dark side on this one and I for one am not buying the fear mongering you are clearly intending. No free pass for the biased media; sorry, but not really.
I am no Trumpist. I never voted for him. But claims of US media receiving a crippling blow are simply drama. Compared with most countries' media, ours are free to say nearly anything. They even get away with innuendo or outright harmful misstatements, UNTIL someone actually calls them out.
As Martha Stewart would say, 'It's a good thing'.
Trump also has a loose mouth. If Trump makes any harmful statements, he can and should be sued too.
Public figures, law-makers not speaking from either House and private citisens need to be responsible adults, careful saying or writing only truth about others.
But that is no FUN! It doesn't attract as many news followers. Too bad.
What generally keeps news organisations from making up or slanting news? Nothing I know of.
Trump sued 60 Minutes for editing the Presidential Campaign Debate to make his opponent look half-intelligent. Such campaign meddling is specifically regulated by enacted law.
And the people who have mercilessly smeared him and persecuted him for ten stright years are the victims.
I'll consider just about anything on a case by case basis. But a solid history of disreputable lying and cheating leaves me with no sympathy for the MSM or it's various political adherents. Whatever happens to them, good!
Another asinine take on an issue where the facts are clear. The 60 Minutes footage was edited in such a way as to misrepresent the interviewee's response to a basic question. And they rightfully got sued for it. Paramount settled because they knew they were likely to get spanked in court.
Regardless of the perceived merits of the case, it’s pretty widely accepted that Paramount settled because their proposed merger with Skydance requires FCC approval.
No on-the-record statements or quotes to back up that claim means it remains firmly in the realm of conjecture.
It also fails the logic test: the settlement means they avoid a legal ruling of malfeasance and a likely much steeper award by the court, but it does not in any way mean the FCC will now rubber stamp their merger. If Trump was going to somehow interfere with the merger to be spiteful, what's to stop him from doing so now?
Imagine the following interview by a reporter to a male politician:
Reporter: Do you love your wife?
Politician: Yes
R: Have you ever cheated on your wife?
P: No
In their practice of 'free speech' the news editors flip the answers. Is this supportable? After all, the politician did utter these words. Right? And the news company is merely editing for 'clarity'.
Only a dense free speech absolutist lawyer would argue that the reporter should be protected.
Just like the above hypothetical, 60 Minutes is on the wrong side of this controversy. Were 60 Minutes ethical, it would have clearly declared in the beginning of the broadcast, "We edited this interview to make KH look intelligent. This is not an unbiased interview." Beyond a doubt, to present the edited answers as spontaneous is HIGHLY misleading. CBS deserves no sympathy.
In the event, CBS's 'punishment' in the marketplace of ideas is that is loses whatever trace of credibility it still holds with those of exceptionally poor critical thinking. Trump's lawsuit is a minor sideshow and will not have a 'chilling effect' on free speech.
"Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. This settlement will only embolden the president to continue his flurry of baseless lawsuits against the press — and against the American people’s ability to hear the news free from government intrusion."
I'm not American so coming at this purely because you profess to stand for free speech?
It doesn't make sense, this position you're taking. This seems ludicrous in fact, laughable.
These" journalists" changed an interview, ie fixed it to hide what was actually said.
How can that be viewed as good for free speech? Please advise cause I simply don't see the rationale?
Ever since DJT beat Hillary fair & square in 2016, NO ONE in Corporate/MSM has done anything except attack & smear the man - e.g., MSM ran with “Russian collusion!” (a hoax fabricated by the Clinton campaign to distract attention from her willful destruction of NATSEC Classified Documents) FOREVER - then ignored it when HRC’s campaign was exposed as the source.
Whenever the MSM decides to get serious about covering DJT objectively WITHOUT GASLIGHTING/INJECTING OPINION to steer how or what John Q. Public should be thinking vis-a-vis DJT, then the lawsuits may stop. Not before.
RE: the discussion with Ms. Strossen, kudos to Angel for asking the right question about whether it's appropriate to expose primary students to sexual content at minute 47. Disappointing and not surprising that Greg and Nadine failed to comprehend. They waved away his question with a "There's nothing to see here" and denial type of remark "it's no big deal." That's just not the way it really is for the families who brought the case.
Too many people forget that some folks don't have the same standards as them, and this freedom of thought or viewpoint diversity is actually protected by the First Amendment. So much for radical empathy or informed consent.
nope, they edited the content for a specific reason; that is a fact jack and that is not free speech; that is altered speech for a specific purpose; you have gone to the dark side on this one and I for one am not buying the fear mongering you are clearly intending. No free pass for the biased media; sorry, but not really.
I am no Trumpist. I never voted for him. But claims of US media receiving a crippling blow are simply drama. Compared with most countries' media, ours are free to say nearly anything. They even get away with innuendo or outright harmful misstatements, UNTIL someone actually calls them out.
As Martha Stewart would say, 'It's a good thing'.
Trump also has a loose mouth. If Trump makes any harmful statements, he can and should be sued too.
Public figures, law-makers not speaking from either House and private citisens need to be responsible adults, careful saying or writing only truth about others.
But that is no FUN! It doesn't attract as many news followers. Too bad.
What generally keeps news organisations from making up or slanting news? Nothing I know of.
Trump sued 60 Minutes for editing the Presidential Campaign Debate to make his opponent look half-intelligent. Such campaign meddling is specifically regulated by enacted law.
Tough Darts 60 MInutes!
So, Trump is once again the villain.
And the people who have mercilessly smeared him and persecuted him for ten stright years are the victims.
I'll consider just about anything on a case by case basis. But a solid history of disreputable lying and cheating leaves me with no sympathy for the MSM or it's various political adherents. Whatever happens to them, good!
Another asinine take on an issue where the facts are clear. The 60 Minutes footage was edited in such a way as to misrepresent the interviewee's response to a basic question. And they rightfully got sued for it. Paramount settled because they knew they were likely to get spanked in court.
Regardless of the perceived merits of the case, it’s pretty widely accepted that Paramount settled because their proposed merger with Skydance requires FCC approval.
No on-the-record statements or quotes to back up that claim means it remains firmly in the realm of conjecture.
It also fails the logic test: the settlement means they avoid a legal ruling of malfeasance and a likely much steeper award by the court, but it does not in any way mean the FCC will now rubber stamp their merger. If Trump was going to somehow interfere with the merger to be spiteful, what's to stop him from doing so now?
Imagine the following interview by a reporter to a male politician:
Reporter: Do you love your wife?
Politician: Yes
R: Have you ever cheated on your wife?
P: No
In their practice of 'free speech' the news editors flip the answers. Is this supportable? After all, the politician did utter these words. Right? And the news company is merely editing for 'clarity'.
Only a dense free speech absolutist lawyer would argue that the reporter should be protected.
Just like the above hypothetical, 60 Minutes is on the wrong side of this controversy. Were 60 Minutes ethical, it would have clearly declared in the beginning of the broadcast, "We edited this interview to make KH look intelligent. This is not an unbiased interview." Beyond a doubt, to present the edited answers as spontaneous is HIGHLY misleading. CBS deserves no sympathy.
In the event, CBS's 'punishment' in the marketplace of ideas is that is loses whatever trace of credibility it still holds with those of exceptionally poor critical thinking. Trump's lawsuit is a minor sideshow and will not have a 'chilling effect' on free speech.
"Behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. This settlement will only embolden the president to continue his flurry of baseless lawsuits against the press — and against the American people’s ability to hear the news free from government intrusion."
I'm not American so coming at this purely because you profess to stand for free speech?
It doesn't make sense, this position you're taking. This seems ludicrous in fact, laughable.
These" journalists" changed an interview, ie fixed it to hide what was actually said.
How can that be viewed as good for free speech? Please advise cause I simply don't see the rationale?
🐂🚽Trump sued to make a point:
Ever since DJT beat Hillary fair & square in 2016, NO ONE in Corporate/MSM has done anything except attack & smear the man - e.g., MSM ran with “Russian collusion!” (a hoax fabricated by the Clinton campaign to distract attention from her willful destruction of NATSEC Classified Documents) FOREVER - then ignored it when HRC’s campaign was exposed as the source.
Whenever the MSM decides to get serious about covering DJT objectively WITHOUT GASLIGHTING/INJECTING OPINION to steer how or what John Q. Public should be thinking vis-a-vis DJT, then the lawsuits may stop. Not before.
RE: the discussion with Ms. Strossen, kudos to Angel for asking the right question about whether it's appropriate to expose primary students to sexual content at minute 47. Disappointing and not surprising that Greg and Nadine failed to comprehend. They waved away his question with a "There's nothing to see here" and denial type of remark "it's no big deal." That's just not the way it really is for the families who brought the case.
Too many people forget that some folks don't have the same standards as them, and this freedom of thought or viewpoint diversity is actually protected by the First Amendment. So much for radical empathy or informed consent.