HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Trump Campaign Releases S...

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:27 PM

Trump Campaign Releases Statement Threatening That Trump Administration Will “Break Up” Media Conglo

Source: Media Matters

Trump Campaign Releases Statement Threatening That Trump Administration Will “Break Up” Media Conglomerates That Have Criticized Trump

The campaign of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump released a statement promising that a Trump presidential administration would “break up” media conglomerates that operate properties that have criticized Trump.

In an October 23 press release signed by senior Trump economics advisor Peter Navarro, the Trump campaign threatened presidential action against “NBC, and its Clinton megaphone MSNBC,” “the wildly anti-Trump CNN,” The New York Times, and The Washington Post.

The statement promised that as president Trump “will break up the new media conglomerate oligopolies that have gained enormous control over our information, intrude into our personal lives, and in this election, are attempting to unduly influence America’s political process.”



Read more: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/23/trump-campaign-releases-statement-threatening-trump-administration-will-break-media-conglomerates/214061

73 replies, 7017 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump Campaign Releases Statement Threatening That Trump Administration Will “Break Up” Media Conglo (Original post)
ColemanMaskell Oct 2016 OP
JoePhilly Oct 2016 #1
TeamPooka Oct 2016 #2
Bok_Tukalo Oct 2016 #5
elleng Oct 2016 #6
pnwmom Oct 2016 #13
elleng Oct 2016 #15
pnwmom Oct 2016 #16
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #46
thucythucy Oct 2016 #55
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #60
pnwmom Oct 2016 #63
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #64
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #65
pnwmom Oct 2016 #61
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #62
onenote Oct 2016 #66
truebluegreen Oct 2016 #68
muriel_volestrangler Oct 2016 #17
forgotmylogin Oct 2016 #29
thucythucy Oct 2016 #53
elleng Oct 2016 #3
relayerbob Oct 2016 #20
awoke_in_2003 Oct 2016 #23
Ccarmona Oct 2016 #44
George II Oct 2016 #7
elleng Oct 2016 #9
pnwmom Oct 2016 #18
Foggyhill Oct 2016 #52
onenote Oct 2016 #67
Botany Oct 2016 #8
whatthehey Oct 2016 #41
Rex Oct 2016 #10
bucolic_frolic Oct 2016 #11
rurallib Oct 2016 #12
Buckeye_Democrat Oct 2016 #19
wordpix Oct 2016 #42
Buckeye_Democrat Oct 2016 #45
shenmue Oct 2016 #22
mrsv Oct 2016 #24
sarae Oct 2016 #26
dlwickham Oct 2016 #59
sarae Oct 2016 #69
sarae Oct 2016 #72
RobinA Oct 2016 #32
barbtries Oct 2016 #25
tinrobot Oct 2016 #27
Buckeye_Democrat Oct 2016 #35
underpants Oct 2016 #28
GWC58 Oct 2016 #30
Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #34
allan01 Oct 2016 #31
Bernardo de La Paz Oct 2016 #33
Rose Siding Oct 2016 #36
nightwalker Oct 2016 #38
Not Sure Oct 2016 #43
Crash2Parties Oct 2016 #47
forest444 Oct 2016 #48
Turbineguy Oct 2016 #49
Ilsa Oct 2016 #50
liberal N proud Oct 2016 #51
JI7 Oct 2016 #54
Doreen Oct 2016 #57
GWC58 Oct 2016 #58
crim son Oct 2016 #70
alarimer Oct 2016 #71
TexasBushwhacker Oct 2016 #73
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #
LineLineReply
Dec 1969 #

Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:29 PM

1. Cool ... let's see Repubican's say they support doing that ...

... and then President Clinton can call on them to send her a bill that DOES it.

Perfect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:29 PM

2. If you're going to destory The Constitution might as well start with the First Amendment and then

work your way down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamPooka (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:34 PM

5. How would breaking up large corps violate the Constitution?

And we as a nation control broadcasting. We don't have to give it to corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to elleng (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:46 PM

13. He also wants to "open up libel laws" to make it easier to sue the press.

You can't be trying to justify that, can you?

Beyond attacks on specific journalists, Trump has said he would "open up" libel laws to make it easier to sue news outlets.


The reason he wants to break up the large media outlets is that they have the financial resources to fight back at him. He knows he can't win a lawsuit against the NYTimes, but he can put a smaller organization out of business -- and has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #13)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:48 PM

15. No, of course not,

and 'opening up the libel laws' could only be done by the courts and their interpretations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:50 PM

16. He knows he can't win a lawsuit against a large organization like the NYT

with the lawyers and resources to fight back. So he wants to break them all down into the size that he could take on -- and break them financially even if he didn't win the lawsuit in the long run.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:05 PM

46. So you are in favor of keeping the 5 mega-corporations

 

that control the media intact, so they can protect themselves--and therefore us--better?

Sounds like a great plan, certainly has been working like a charm lately!

Oh wait: those were the big media corporations that gifted us Donald J Trump already, for fucking ratings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:37 PM

55. The New York Times and the Washington Post "gifted us" Trump for ratings?

I don't think so.

Notice he isn't going after right wing radio outlets that run Rush and his ilk.

I'm no fan of mega corporations, but I'm also no fan of threats from presidential candidates to retaliate against outlets because they've been critical of a campaign.

What's next, targeting individual journalists he doesn't like? Oh wait, he's done that too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to thucythucy (Reply #55)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:00 PM

60. "he wants to break them all down"

 

was the statement I was responding to, and taking issue with...and which was the subject of this sub-thread

I'm not defending that ass Trump, I'm defending the concept of breaking up the media conglomerates...which, as you may know but the poster I was responding to apparently does not, the NYT and Washington Post are not part of (btw, the WaPo would be tough for that fraud to take out, since the owner is far richer than he is).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #60)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:55 PM

63. As I know, but you apparently don't, he has already targeted

the NYT and WA Post, sending a lawsuit letter to NYT; and complaining that the WA Post is owned by "Amazon."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #63)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:30 PM

64. Yes, I know that.

 

I also know that both companies are privately owned, not part of big media conglomerates. And Jeff Bezos owns WaPo; the fact that he also owns Amazon does not make that a "conflict of interest", no matter what Trump says.

Once more, with feeling: I was clearly referring to media conglomerates, as it seemed you were ("he wants to break them all down", which should have been clear by my reference to anti-trust laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #63)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:39 PM

65. BTW, is that what you consider "targeting"?

 

A letter from his attorney, and a complaint? Trump is a bully and a coward, and nowhere as rich as he claims. He won't be following up on his threats as a private citizen, and he's never going to be anything else.

But the media conglomerates do need to be broken up, and taken out of the infotainment business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:40 PM

61. No. But I do NOT trust Trump on this AT ALL. He always acts on self-interest

and ONLY self-interest.

Notice he did not talk about breaking up Fox.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #61)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 10:44 PM

62. I don't trust him either, on this or anything.

 

Last edited Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:25 PM - Edit history (1)

But the breakup of the media conglomerates would be a very good thing--in someone else's hands (as the above poster suggested, in accordance with the anti-trust laws).

The only good thing about his BS is that it brings to the forefront some issues that too many have ignored for too long (looking at you, Democratic Party).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #46)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:51 PM

66. Which five corporations control the media?

It used to be six. But five, six ... it's still a silly BS meme.

The corporations typically cited as controlling the "media" are Comcast/NBCU, ABC/Disney, News Corp/Fox, Time Warner Inc (now possibly TW Inc/ATT/DIrecTV), and CBS/Viacom. I suppose the sixth would be Charter/Time Warner Cable.

Now, some of these are vertically integrated companies with broadcast stations, broadcast networks, movie studios, and cable and/or satellite distribution. News Corp/Fox has a two large print publication (but no cable or satellite); Charter/Time Warner Cable basically has cable systems and not that much else other than a couple of regional sports networks. Time Warner Inc/ATT/DirecTV will have Time Magazine and other magazines.

It sounds impressive until you realize that there four other satellite/cable distribution companies out there with a combined total of nearly 30 million subscribers. That ownership of the 25 largest newspapers in the country is divided among 20 different companies, 19 of which are never listed as among the companies controlling the media. Plus, the largest group owners of tv stations include several companies not included on that list as is also the case for the largest radio station group owners.

Plus, the total number of tv and radio stations is dramatically higher than it was a few decades ago. And I haven't even mentioned the Internet -- companies like Netflix, with over 30 million subscribers, an almost infinite number of websites not controlled by whatever five or six companies supposedly control the media, and a few new behemoths, such as Google -- probably the company we should all be most afraid of.

The reality is that we have vastly more choices in terms of the sources of information and entertainment (which is what I assume folks are referring to when they say "media" than we did not all the long ago. When I was growing up, my choices were limited to some AM radio stations and maybe five tv stations (of which three were affiliates of a national commercial network, one was a public broadcasting station and the third was an "independent" station that featured mostly re-runs and old movies) and two local newspapers. I'd take today over that world any day of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #66)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 12:36 AM

68. OK--so one vote for having no problem

 

with heavily centralized control of the media, because you have more choices on what to watch on the teevee.

"more choices in terms of the sources of information" doesn't mean squat when they are all toeing the company line, playing false equivalency games and the fair and balanced scam. These fuckers, with their all-pundit both-sides-of-every-story BS--as opposed to actual facts--bear a huge part of the blame for our dysfunctional political system. Chuck Todd is a fine example of the crap, while Joy Reid shows how it should be done.

But hey! at least you're not stuck with re-runs and old movies so it's all good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bok_Tukalo (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:51 PM

17. It's the way they single out corporations that he sees as being 'anti-Trump'

It looks like he's not saying it's the size that's the problem, it's that they don't support him. Murdoch's 21st Century Fox/News Corporation, despite being huge, doesn't get mentioned. That looks like an attack on the freedom of the press. The statement also names the New York Times, which is not a 'massive conglomerate' by anyone's definition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bok_Tukalo (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:41 PM

29. He's grasping at straws.

He's pandering to his base. "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bok_Tukalo (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:32 PM

53. The New York Times and the Washington Post aren't "broadcasters."

There's also this little thing called the First Amendment that prohibits government action against news organizations in order to intimidate them, which is what this sounds like. There's also the Fourteenth Amendment that promises "due process" and "equal protection" under the law, so the government can't single out particular organizations for intervention based on their politics.

Cable news also isn't, technically, "broadcasting." It's not going out over the publicly owned airwaves, so cable news outlets are also immune.

In fact, the outlets most vulnerable to this sort of action would be network TV and hate radio. Interesting, though, how Trump isn't threatening to go after Rush Limbaugh, or the various right wing radio conglomerates. Only outlets that have dared to call out Trump for the serial liar that he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:30 PM

3. Sad that the FOOL is the one who says it.

For information, it's not about the First Amendment, it's about antitrust enforcement.

'The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 became law while Theodore Roosevelt was serving on the U.S. Civil Service Commission, but it played a large and important role during his presidency.
When Theodore Roosevelt’s first administration sought to end business monopolies, it used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act as the tool to do so. Passed after a series of large corporate mergers during the 1880s, this Act enabled government departments and private individuals to use the court system to break up any organization or contract alleged to be in restraint of trade. The federal government used the Act to invalidate formal and informal arrangements by which different companies in the same industry set prices, though for the first decade of its existence the Act did little to slow the rate of business mergers.
This changed when, in 1904, President Roosevelt urged his Justice Department to dismantle the Northern Securities Corporation. This entity was a holding company, a combination of separate railroads administered by a Board of Trustees. At issue was its control of railroading in the northern tier of the United States from Chicago to the Pacific Northwest. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Northern Securities Corporation violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the first major example of trust-busting during Roosevelt’s presidency.'

http://www.theodorerooseveltcenter.org/Learn-About-TR/TR-Encyclopedia/Capitalism-and-Labor/The-Sherman-Act.aspx

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:54 PM

20. Te only restraint of trade involved

is preventing a lunatic from buying the government. The only price they are setting is the price on his head

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:04 PM

23. Yep

 

They need broken up, but not by this buffoon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #23)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:57 PM

44. Agree

 

There's no more Fairness Doctrine; Pres Clinton allowed for media ownership consolidation; the TV networks' News Divisions were absorbed by their Entertainment Divisions. These are the problems with today's media. But I'm sure Trump's solutions won't address these issues, just his own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:38 PM

7. Who will oversee the breakup, Billy Bush?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to George II (Reply #7)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:40 PM

9. The Department of Justice,

Antitrust Division.

Not EVERYTHING he says is wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:52 PM

18. The motivation behind everything he does is wrong, because it's all

completely self-serving.

In this case, he knows he'd have more success suing smaller outlets that don't have the resources to defend themselves. So he'd love to make them all Gawker-size.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:27 PM

52. That ignores the reason why media are being concentrated, profits are falling.

Printed press, radio, local TV news and finally cable news, they're all seeing their profits collapse.

Also, this would held so long in the court, that it may not be done in 8 years if at all because first amendment issues
are mixed in with partisan and business / person (sic) issues.

This would be a big ass mess.

Preventing concentration of media production and distribution is one thing, but stopping concentration of the press would be harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #9)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 11:53 PM

67. On what grounds and based on what law would DOJ seek to 'break' up any of the large

media companies, given the vast array of sources of information and entertainment available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:38 PM

8. One time King Canute tried this by odering the tides not to come in ....

.... it didn't work real well.




BTW Don the US Constitution amendment #1.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Botany (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:46 PM

41. You do know he did that to troll sycophantic nobles right?

He was making a point that the tide would not obey him even though his flatterers said so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:43 PM

10. Says the guy ready to gobble up Glenn Becks failing media group.

 

So he can fail even biglier

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:44 PM

11. Delusional

The Trump campaign seems to think its still relevant

or influencing voters

Pathetic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:44 PM

12. this is one to pop a batch of popcorn for and watch unfold

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 06:53 PM

19. Hitler took away freedom of the press too... if it was critical of the Nazis.

That was the key to his dictatorship, not gun ownership BS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buckeye_Democrat (Reply #19)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:47 PM

42. Chavez also in Venez. I know a media person's family that had to flee

Chavez's thugs actually came for him but someone had tipped him off so he escaped and got asylum here. Damn immigrants!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wordpix (Reply #42)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:58 PM

45. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:00 PM

22. Buh-bye freedom of the press, hello Communism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:06 PM

24. Isn't this a Russian thing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrsv (Reply #24)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:21 PM

26. Under a president Trump, we'd get to pick between

Breitbart, Fox News, RT and Sputnik News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarae (Reply #26)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:58 PM

59. lots of people on here swear by RT News

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #59)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 07:05 AM

69. lol, I have noticed that...

given everything that's happened lately, though, I wouldn't trust any news they broadcast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #59)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 10:21 AM

72. Also!

I just took a look at both Sputnik News and RT's front pages – you would think they'd try to at least make it less obvious that they want Trump to win. It's laughable to say they don't have a dog in the game.

Top headlines regarding US Politics from RT:
#Podesta16: WikiLeaks releases fresh batch of emails from Clinton campaign chair
The whistleblowing website WikiLeaks has released a new tranche of emails from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, John Podesta.

Trump outlines first 100 days in office, swears to end US media’s abuse of news coverage
Donald Trump has outlined plans for his first 100 days in the White House if he wins the presidency. The outspoken critic of US media promised to stop American news conglomerates from abusing their power and change the way the country is run in general.

Brent Budowsky to RT: ‘Washington has evidence Russia hacked US’… no proof though
US intelligence has “evidence” that links Russia to meddling in the US elections, The Hill columnist Brent Budowsky told RT, yet failing to name exact facts, not disclosed by American authorities either.

Goldman Sachs CEO says ‘of course we engage’ with Hillary Clinton, admits support
CEO of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, has publicly admitted to being “supportive” of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, saying: “Yes, so flat out, yes, I do.”



And from Sputnik News:

WikiLeaks Reveals Plans to Expose Clinton Adviser Benenson

WikiLeaks: Big Donors Expect Hillary Clinton to 'Tweak' Policy in Their Favor

Clinton's Campaign Chair Lost Phone in 2015, Used Insecure Mailbox Password

WikiLeaks Releases 17th Batch of Clinton Campaign Chair's Leaked Emails

Trump May Partially Revoke Anti-Russia Sanctions If Elected US President

Russian Ambassador-at-Large Surprised by Active CIA, FBI Role in US Vote

All in the Family: Trump Attackers Go After Ivanka’s Business

Poll Shows Trump 0.3% Ahead of Clinton 2 Weeks Before Election

Media Paints ‘Definite’ Victory for Hillary Clinton Two Weeks Ahead of Elections





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mrsv (Reply #24)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:22 PM

32. It's A Totalitarian

thing. Control of the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:16 PM

25. and then he'll rescind the first amendment

and sue 'em all, and break them! and the whole country will watch only trump news and never a bad word will be heard.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:22 PM

27. So, personal vendetta disguised as policy.

I do support breaking up the big media companies.

However, I suspect Trump wants to do it simply as revenge. I doubt that a breakup would succeed with those motives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tinrobot (Reply #27)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:26 PM

35. I agree on all counts. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 07:27 PM

28. So... the free market thing

Uh, yeah

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)


Response to GWC58 (Reply #30)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:26 PM

34. (post now moot)

Last edited Mon Oct 24, 2016, 05:35 AM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:18 PM

31. lest he forgets the 1st amendment still exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:24 PM

33. Wants to break up media conglomerates to clear way for Trump TV. . . nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:28 PM

36. Fidel? Vlad? Who is he, really?

What a bunch of rubes he found in the fringes of the gop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:39 PM

38. Who really cares what he thinks anyhow

 

Donald,
Your such a joke when it comes to your policies. Freedom of the Press that seems to be talking about you 24/7.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 08:55 PM

43. Check the time: the stopped clock is right again

Just because trump gets something right occasionally doesn't mean he's not a dangerous buffoon. The media oligarchy does need to be broken up. I don't believe trump is the one to do it. He'd sooner turn the media into a single voice for his own agenda.

By the same token it was Bill Clinton who got the ball rolling on media deregulation, and given the benefit Hillary Clinton has received as the establishment democratic candidate compared to the near media blackout Sanders and O'Malley experienced, I don't expect much action to be taken by her administration on this subject.

This is a good example of a subject I'm having to let go for now in order to prevent the election of trump, sort of a "live to fight another day" approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:06 PM

47. TRUMP: Making America a third world dictatorship

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:07 PM

48. That I would support - but it can't be done (and Trump would never touch Fox anyway).

And it's a shame it can't be done because, as former UN Freedom of Expression Rapporteur Frank La Rue stated, media monopolization - rather than state interference - is the biggest threat to press freedom today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:12 PM

49. It's about time we got our information from

The Ministry of Truth!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:19 PM

50. I'd be happy to see it,

but not by Trump. Wish it had been stopped decades ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:22 PM

51. If this asshole doesn't sound like a dictator wannabe then people need their heads examined

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:33 PM

54. didn't he have a show on NBC ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:46 PM

57. I have had

this feeling all along that if he makes president we will be losing a lot of rights. Freedom of speech and press are two of them and now he has made a comment proving me right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Sun Oct 23, 2016, 09:47 PM

58. Let me rephrase.

Bury that BOZO, in a landslide. I think that's a little better. I'd never want to insult the near future "Madame President." 😃

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 07:59 AM

70. If it weren't for the press he so despises

he wouldn't be the Republican candidate today. It's the press that made him legit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ColemanMaskell (Original post)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 08:54 AM

71. Media consolidation is bad, no matter who does it.

But many here seem happy with it, so long as it provides them with distracting entertainment. But because this was another of Bill Clinton's "accomplishments", I doubt very much a Hillary Clinton Administration will do anything about it. What the Obama administration can do is bar the purchase of Time Warner (the entertainment part, not the cable TV part) by AT&T.

Trump is talking out of his hat, as usual and has entirely the wrong motivations. Consolidated media does need to be broken up, not because they criticized him, but because it is bad for democracy.

So says Bill Moyers, a voice usually respected around here. Or is he under the bus now too? I can't keep track.

http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/

But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty years ago last month, President Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was “essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies,” as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically “opened the floodgates on mergers.”

The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934, according to media scholar Robert McChesney, “is widely considered to be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this generation.” The act dramatically reduced important Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country, increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and around the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alarimer (Reply #71)

Mon Oct 24, 2016, 04:37 PM

73. I agree consolidation is bad

But I remember when Clear Channel was allowed to buy up radio and TV stations all across the country in the 1990's, many of the sellers were going broke and happy to have a buyer.

But then they were purchased by Bain Capital and another private equity firms and, as usual, were loaded up with debt and went bankrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread