Jump to content


Trump and the Press


Recommended Posts

This is what happens when you have a man in the White House who is openly antagonistic to a free press.

 

Video of the interaction is in the link.

 

 

Quote

 

After Orlando Sentinel reporter is struck at Trump rally, state Rep. Sabatini responds with ‘MAGA’

State Rep. Anthony Sabatini’s response to a tweet about a man knocking the phone out of an Orlando Sentinel reporter’s hand at Amway CEnter was “MAGA,” a comment he stood by Wednesday despite the man being arrested and charged with battery.

 

Sabatini, R-Howey-in-the-Hills, first replied to an Orlando Sentinel tweet quoting reporter Michael Williams that “a Trump supporter tried knocking my phone out of my hand as I was recording him being kicked out of the Amway Center.”

 

Sabatini later responded to another tweet, which pointed out that the man was arrested, by writing that “the most appropriate reaction” to Sentinel coverage “is to not comment on its spin and sensation, but to ignore the content and reply with the peaceful phrase they hate – MAGA,” the Trump campaign’s now-former slogan.

 

The president announced his new slogan, ““Keep America Great!”, or “KAG!” at his kickoff rally.

 

In a phone interview Wednesday, Sabatini said the initial tweet “was another example of selective editorial bias. You’re searching for incidents that were very rare at the event in order to cast a dark, negative light on the event.”

 

Told that it was a reporter describing what had just happened to him personally, Sabatini repeated that “my reaction to it is writing ‘MAGA’ and see how people interpret it. It’s interesting journalists see a neutral phrase and interpret it as something it’s not.”

 

 

 

 

 

What a great example of the current Republican party.

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

This may be in the minority opinion, but there was a segment of the George Stephanopolous interview that I was let down by ABC. The whole guy coughing during the interview and Trump stopping them and wanting to redo it seemed inappropriate to keep in the final cut. That is something that felt petty to keep in in order to make him look bad. There were so many other things from that interview that reflect poorly him. Keeping that in, feeds the narrative that the press is out to get him. Politics aside, he granted you fairly wide ranging and open interview. Cut that interaction out.

  • Plus1 3
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Mike Mcdee said:

This may be in the minority opinion, but there was a segment of the George Stephanopolous interview that I was let down by ABC. The whole guy coughing during the interview and Trump stopping them and wanting to redo it seemed inappropriate to keep in the final cut. That is something that felt petty to keep in in order to make him look bad. There were so many other things from that interview that reflect poorly him. Keeping that in, feeds the narrative that the press is out to get him. Politics aside, he granted you fairly wide ranging and open interview. Cut that interaction out.

 

 

I agree with that.

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Mike Mcdee said:

This may be in the minority opinion, but there was a segment of the George Stephanopolous interview that I was let down by ABC. The whole guy coughing during the interview and Trump stopping them and wanting to redo it seemed inappropriate to keep in the final cut. That is something that felt petty to keep in in order to make him look bad. There were so many other things from that interview that reflect poorly him. Keeping that in, feeds the narrative that the press is out to get him. Politics aside, he granted you fairly wide ranging and open interview. Cut that interaction out.

 

On the contrary, I think that episode spoke more openly about who and what Trump is than his calculated answers. I thought it was crucial to include in the interview they aired.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

I think there's a time and place for raw interview soundbites and interactions, and that one didn't really sit well with me, either. It's common in the TV world to re-do answers to questions during recorded interviews if something went wrong i.e. a microphone malfunctioning, a light dimming, some outside disturbance impacting the quality of the sound, etc. Someone coughing during an answer is a good reason to reset an interview and get better sound. In this case, it's unlikely to have impacted the quality of the answer in any way.

 

It would've been different if Trump started to say something, his Chief of Staff coughed to get him to stop, and then Trump completely changed his answer. That would be quizzical and worth airing IMO. But, Trump asking to re-do it because someone coughed? Totally fine by me.

 

I've seen some people going so far to say as 'Trump asking someone to leave because they coughed during an interview is everything you need to know about Trump.' No, it's not. There are literally 1,000 bigger and more important things that have told us exactly what type of person Trump is. This didn't tell me anything.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

21 minutes ago, knapplc said:

On the contrary, I think that episode spoke more openly about who and what Trump is than his calculated answers. I thought it was crucial to include in the interview they aired.

 

 

We didn’t need them to betray his trust/act unprofessional in order to know that he’s a stupid a$$h@!e who treats people like s#!t.

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
43 minutes ago, Mike Mcdee said:

This may be in the minority opinion, but there was a segment of the George Stephanopolous interview that I was let down by ABC. The whole guy coughing during the interview and Trump stopping them and wanting to redo it seemed inappropriate to keep in the final cut. That is something that felt petty to keep in in order to make him look bad. There were so many other things from that interview that reflect poorly him. Keeping that in, feeds the narrative that the press is out to get him. Politics aside, he granted you fairly wide ranging and open interview. Cut that interaction out.

 

If Trump wasn't already an a$$h@!e to everyone he meets, especially to the press, they might be more inclined to edit out those kinds things from an interview.

 

I generally find if I actually treat people with respect and not be a dick, the better people treat me in turn and give me the benefit of the doubt in some cases. That's a life lesson for all of us, folks. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Being banned from a social media platform is no different than being banned from the mall. You behave poorly, you get banned.

 

There are 1,000 different places to speak your mind online. And frankly, if you're getting banned by more than one place, the problem isn't the ban, it's you and your behavior.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

On the contrary, I think that episode spoke more openly about who and what Trump is than his calculated answers. I thought it was crucial to include in the interview they aired.

I know where you are going wt this or meant by this - but I think we all know that Trump is jerk in chief.  He is petty, egotistic, etc.  I don't think airing it however helped the broadcast and may only reinforce the MAGA crowd's view that the press is all anti-trump.  In this case, I wish ABC had left their power dry and allow Trump to prove his unfitness for the office by the things he says about policy, 

Link to comment

Just now, knapplc said:

 

If someone supports Trump at this point there is nothing the press can do that will change their mind. Those people are not to be pandered to.

 very true of the hard core MAGA people ---    No pandering was meant in my post.  However, I'd prefer that Trump be confronted by facts only and not be given the opportunity to move the goal posts by accusing the press of bias. :goalposts: There are former Dem voters in the rust belt states who were persuaded by his promises and personality in 2016 that gave him the election. If these fringe voters can see the facts and not Trump's goal post moves and accusations, I think they will turn from Trump in 2020.   That is why I think someone like Warren with a well thought out, fact based plan, may be more of a challenge to Trump than Biden.  Trump will use Biden as a 'Obama is the anti-Christ' candidate - Trump can then ignore facts about his presidency.  It will be hard for Trump to have a fact based debate with Warren.  Facts & truth will open eyes and the media needs to maximize the telling of them.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Being banned from a social media platform is no different than being banned from the mall. You behave poorly, you get banned.

 

Okay but what does that have to do with the argument being put forth that, "Shutting down others is intellectual laziness."? You're not addressing the point being made, you're just saying a thing that exists.

 

Being banned from the mall is like being banned from a football stadium. You behave in a way that doesn't follow the rules (right or wrong), you get banned. Okay......and? So what?

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, knapplc said:

And frankly, if you're getting banned by more than one place, the problem isn't the ban, it's you and your behavior.

 

 

Based on what? The private and unknown but also definitely for sure 100% implicitly presumed good and noble intentions and honorable decision-making of private companies?

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Okay but what does that have to do with the argument being put forth that, "Shutting down others is intellectual laziness."? You're not addressing the point being made, you're just saying a thing that exists.

 

Being banned from the mall is like being banned from a football stadium. You behave in a way that doesn't follow the rules (right or wrong), you get banned. Okay......and? So what?

 

Sorry, I thought the analogy was obvious. You're banned from the mall, that's being "shut down." You're not banned from purchasing things at Target or KMart or Walmart, you just can't go to the mall anymore. In the same way, if you're banned from Facebook or Twitter, fine, go to Reddit, go to 4Chan, go to Snapchat, go to any one of 1,000 other places to voice your opinion.

 

Your speech is not stifled, you just have to choose another venue to voice it.  This is perfectly legal and has been happening since this country was founded. And if you're going to make the argument that Facebook is so ubiquitous that banning someone from it amounts to stifling their speech that's also a non-argument. MySpace was Facebook before Facebook was Facebook, and then Facebook came along. When Facebook is long gone the people banned from Facebook will still have their voice, and if they get banned from the next big iteration of social media, that's probably a them problem.

 

Quote

Based on what? The private and unknown but also definitely for sure 100% implicitly presumed good and noble intentions and honorable decision-making of private companies?

 

This is all very dramatic, but people are who they are. Getting banned from Facebook isn't easy, just like getting banned from HuskerBoard isn't easy. You earn it, and if you've earned that ban in multiple places, the common denominator is you. 

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, knapplc said:

This is all very dramatic, but people are who they are. Getting banned from Facebook isn't easy, just like getting banned from HuskerBoard isn't easy. You earn it, and if you've earned that ban in multiple places, the common denominator is you. 

 

 

you're presupposing a benefit of the doubt onto the social media companies. Being banned from more than one social media platform does not imply you have earned that ban. I think I understand why you would, having been a moderator on here, but social media megaliths don't operate anything at all like huskerboard.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...