Trump is not a threat to a free press

David Freddoso:
...
... when I see Trump rail against judges and journalists, I don't panic. I shrug.
...
Is he a threat to the republic? No. Not even a little bit. For the moment, at least, the FEC remains a greater threat to press freedom than our over-the-top commentator-in-chief, because three of its commissioners have actually tried to punish journalists for the content of their presidential debate coverage.

Others have pointed out, correctly, that tyrants rail against independent journalists just as Trump does. But tyrants don't earn the title by doing anything so trivial. Tyrants expel journalists from their countries in retaliation for negative coverage. They blackmail and extort journalists. They assassinate journalists. They wiretap journalists. They have them arrested on trumped up charges that are seemingly unrelated to their journalism.
What Trump has done is change the rules of the game, without attempting to use the heavy hand of government to actually attack the media.  Instead of absorbing blows stoically as many Presidents have done in the past, Trump responds in kind by attacking the attacker verbally.

He is sometimes over the top and is also sometimes as misinformed as the media he claims is being unfair, but he is not sending hitmen to take out reporters he does not like and he is not seizing control of the printing presses and media outlets.  He is just lambasting reporters in much the same way they lambaste him.

In the process, he has shown that those in the media to be as hypersensitive as he is.  And Trump's base likes the fact that he is fighting back against the real opposition.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more