Cheat Sheet Q&A: How much of the negative Trump coverage is justified?
Today's entry: Thank God for talk radio. I don't know if I could take the new cycle without you guys. Trying to watch TV, even Fox News a lot of times, is like one non-stop hit piece on Trump with the topic of the hit changing by the day. What I want to know from you is if you think any of this negativity is justified?
Bottom Line: I thought today was a good day to address this question because what's behind it is a real issue. Let's get back to basics. We take so many of our freedoms for granted starting with freedom of speech/expression. Most of the world's population doesn't have it and even most of the others that do (like many European countries) have restrictions longer than disclaimers on prescription drugs.
Think I'm kidding? Here's England's list:
Exceptions including threatening or abusive words or behavior intending or likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress or cause a breach of the peace,[sending any article which is indecent or grossly offensive with an intent to cause distress or anxiety, incitement, racial hatred, religious hatred, incitement to terrorism including encouragement of terrorism and dissemination of terrorist publications, glorifying terrorism, collection or possession of a document or record containing information likely to be of use to a terrorist, treason including advocating for the abolition of the monarchy or compassing or imagining the death of the monarch, sedition, obscenity, indecency including corruption of public morals and outraging public decency, defamation, prior restraint, restrictions on court reporting including names of victims and evidence and prejudicing or interfering with court proceedings, prohibition of post-trial interviews with jurors, time, manner, and place restrictions,harassment, privileged communications, trade secrets, classified material, copyright, patents, military conduct, and commercial speech.
And that's England! So anyway, the first issue we have is that we probably don't appreciate what we've got. But we also have a free press that's supposed to use our freedoms to hold public officials accountable. Media bias predates the Declaration of Independence so it's a false premise to suggest that much of what goes on with mainstream reporting is new. What is new is that in the past couple of Republican administrations, bias has crossed the line from the way material is presentation or omitted, to flat out dishonesty to attempt to achieve a political objective. While it might be possible that Dan Rather's forged documents, falsifying President Bush's military record, weren't the first records falsified to attempt to overthrow an administration - it certainly showed the extent that certain news outlets would be willing to go to achieve a desired political outcome. Fast forward to today...