You know racists are just intimidated by the BBC.
Don’t they know the BBC is more conservative than not?
Now is not the time to dick around.
Jesus that is. . .
. . . that is a beautiful fucking comment, @KevinC. Take it from this dedicated libcuck!
Glad to hear that AP and Time boycotted.
Correction: “What am I doing alt-right?”
I’m trying to understand the “illegal leak” aspect of this discussion and so I have been doing some (amateur) research.
Full disclosure: I consider Snowden to be an American hero for doing what he did. I also see that the courts side with journalists who share illegally obtained information if that information serves a greater good for public safety.
So what about information which is illegally obtained but does not involve the public safety? What if the releasing of illegally obtained information is intended only to embarrass (e.g. Wikileaks) or influence?
My take is that if it’s in the interest of public safety (or highlights laws being broken) then it’s fine. If it’s information used to sell news or politically influence, then maybe that should be illegal? So, I should celebrate Snowden but condemn Assange?
As far as Trump and Spicer go, I’m trying to come to grips with how I feel about their speaking just to a subset of the news core. While I believe in Freedom of Speech and believe that a responsible Free Press should be a core to sustaining our Republic, I also believe the Press has been extremely irresponsible and biased for a long time. In general, I would say everyone should be in the room – but if I know someone has obtained information illegally and there is no ‘public safety’ or illegality associated with the information – then what is my recourse? If I can’t find the illegal source (and if I were Trump I would be searching), then is it okay for me to punish those who publish the information?
If anyone has any food for thought, I’m hungry.
Thanks.
I doubt that much genuinely classified material is being leaked. Sourcing how Trump is spending his time, the general feeling in the White House, where bits and pieces of executive order or legislation are at is probably not as illegal as I am sure Trump thinks it is. Less ‘illegal’ and more ‘fire-able offense’ kind of stuff, would be my guess.
Beyond that, it is just not the WH’s job to correct bias (perceived or otherwise) by restriction of access to outlets whose bias they dislike. I have no idea what checks and balances exist to curb that kind of crap.
You’re going to have to work a lot harder to persuade me that the BBC’s irresponsible reporting deserved to get it banned from that room, while Breitbart is the bastion of fact-checking.
Now now, he didn’t say that.
@RoyalWe I think it’s even more grey than that, as I think it’s entirely possible information could involve public safety without even realizing it as such. But then, I don’t think people risk their jobs (or in some instances, maybe their lives–speaking generally here) to leak information just for kicks. So, at least somebody thought it was important enough.
With reference to the current goings on, I don’t normally condone that sort of activity, but it sure feels like this administration has a lot to hide, from Trump’s tax returns on down. To me, they haven’t exactly shown themselves to be forthcoming with information and trustworthy.
Okay, fair.
And I actually, I agree on that, but probably not from the same standpoint.
I think the Internet, and Twitter in particular, have had a terrible effect on the media. They have magnified the rush to be first, leading to irresponsibility, parroting of other news sources, and what I feel has been a significant decline in the quality of journalism. But I also think it’s starting to come back around, in the sense that both readers and purveyors of news are realizing that now, more than ever, you can get “news” anywhere, but you can’t get “journalism” anywhere.
Well the Press has certainly been biased for decades - biased towards ratings over fair reporting.
This is why the press went along with the GOP who was misleading them into selling the Iraq War. It’s why they always seems to need to show “both sides” on something as cut and dry as climate change. Or why right-wing conspiracy theorists always seems to get air time.
Or why Obama was criticized for stupid bullshit while entire press cycles everywhere (not just Fox News) repeated things endlessly:
Or how the press severely under-reported the truth of what Obama was doing for years, like prioritizing the deportation of violent criminals, while Trump was simultaneously saying that’s what he would do. It’s the job of the press to point out facts and hypocrisy like this.
Or how the press latched onto every stupid Clinton conspiracy theory - especially the email bullshit at the end.
So yes - the press got complacent and fucking sucked for decades, enabling the Tea Party and then someone like Trump to rise, and it’s about time they started getting their act together.
To be clear, there isn’t really an analogue here, as assange isn’t doing anything illegal by leaking stuff. He’s more in line with an unscrupulous reporter.
A better analogue would be Manning, who illegally leaked a mountain of data with no good reason, without even knowing what he was leaking.
Regarding Snowden, I feel like I’d cut him more slack is he hadn’t run off to Russia.
No, it is absolutely not OK for you to punish them.
The reporters in question are doing nothing illegal by reporting those leaks.
The reason why leaking classified information is illegal is because those with access have specifically agreed to protect it. Reporters and other private citizens have no such responsibilities. You are not able to punish them at all.
The current Trump Administration position on the FBI leaks is that 1) this is all made up fake news and, at the same time, 2) this is leaking classified information. But they’ve never even tried to explain how both of these can be true at the same time.
It’s tempting to say the person behind this strategy is either an idiot or is frantically conducting a cover-up. But the person behind it is Trump, so the correct answer is, naturally, “both.”
The sad thing is, they don’t have to. Trump supporters don’t and won’t see that contradiction.
I’m writing off the true Trump fans, I think they’re a lost cause and lack rationality and reason. I do know several Republicans who voted for Trump but really had to plug their nose and grit their teeth to do it, it was just that they viewed him as potentially a slightly less evil than the caricature of Clinton that the Right has built up over the course of decades. Those voters that I know aren’t firmly in his camp at all, and I think they can be reached and swayed.
When Trump says “fake news”, I really think he means “irresponsible” or “extremely biased” news. I agree with you that there is a serious contradiction here, but this is an example of Trump using a Trumpism (think “PR” or marketing). “Fake news” just rolls off the tongue and gets the idea across. It’s a theme to quickly get a point across – just like “Crooked Hillary”, “Lyin’ Ted”, and the other questionable quips he’s used.
I was trying to just ask a question and wasn’t making any statement on any specifics. I guess I should have labeled it as a hypothetical but I know people will read into it what they will.
edit: I’m also on pain pills, so no tellin’ how my brain is puttin’ words together right now.