world

Trump's 'war with the media' raises questions of trust

104 Comments
By DAVID BAUDER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

104 Comments
Login to comment

Confronted by “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd on Sunday with “falsehoods” stated by Spicer, Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway called them “alternative facts.” She accused Todd of laughing at her and said he symbolizes how Trump has been treated by the media.

So it would appear that Trump and his camp have the expectations that the media is supposed to be a silent partner in propaganda. Their job is to report what Trump says and nothing more.

15 ( +21 / -6 )

Does anybody in America still trust the mainstream media?

The people hate the establishment, haven't they figured that out yet?

-10 ( +14 / -24 )

This should be a call to arms. Forget the briefings. Dig up the stories, use your informants, and write the truth. I'm not certain it's terribly important to have Kellyanne on every morning news show. Maybe, if she is only going to announce "alternative facts," threaten the press as if its composed of naughty children, and bemoan how mistreated the administration is, just maybe she shouldn't be asked to appear? Just a thought. I know you Trump voters do not read, but please, do yourself a favor, read 1984.

18 ( +26 / -8 )

The war on media is preparing the population to not trust anything that is contradicting the new administration.

Major none complying media cannot be removed from the press room, well, yet.

10 ( +13 / -3 )

@brbush Does anybody in America still trust the mainstream media?

None but those with the lowest level of reasoning skills ever totally 'trusted' media, corporate or otherwise. Anyone with the tiniest bit of intelligence has been able to determine independently what is true (and there is such a thing as truth, regardless what the right wing believes) and form their own opinion. A free press has given people options on ways to interpret events and info. The US is not Russia; don't confuse them.

Now, though, the oligarchs and corporatists have got their followers to dismiss what's reported by media, setting up an era when any criticism of them, their corporations or the dear leader himself can be ignored. The masters of the various 'bigs' can tell their followers that anything negative said about them or Trump by the MSM (3 letters that get the rightists's knees ajerking) is 'fake news' or now 'alternative facts'

And their followers will parrot these prescribed memes. They won't bother to look any deeper. They've been suckered, snookered and flummoxed believing new jobs are just around the corner. They believe the corporatists who sent their jobs overseas are going to bring their jobs back.

Trump's taking a page out of every modern demagogue's playbook. Including Putin's.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Well, unless you were there in person, it's always useful to look up both sides of a story. Of course it is always just easier to take whatever is offered on the silver platter...

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The war on media is preparing the population to not trust anything that is contradicting the new administration.

Major none complying media cannot be removed from the press room, well, yet.

LOL, calm down, the sky is not falling.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

This should be a call to arms. Forget the briefings. Dig up the stories, use your informants, and write the truth.

I agree, but the problem is the quality of the American media (or lack thereof). It would not be possible to stand in a White House breifing and spout lies like this if the credibility of the media was not completely torn to shreds. The media has been the author of its own demise over these past few years.

Just watch Mark Singer from the New Yorker talking to Piers Morgan in the link below. Any of us could have articulated a more cogent criticism of Trump, yet all he can do is repeat an easily falsifiable myth and then start hurling childish insults when someone pushes back and doesn't share his own view. Is this the serious credible journalist who is going to hold Trump to account? There's a huge swamp that needs to be drained in major news organisations as well as in Washington.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoZ_ajEXXGY

Whenever I'm looking for objective reporting on countries like North Korea or Saudi Arabia, I certainly don't watch their local media to find out what's going on. I think the same is now true for America. Everyone should start reading German or Swedish papers for an objective view of what's really going on in America.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

alternative facts

What?! Facts are facts, regardless of perspective. If it changes by perspective, it's not a fact.

Does anybody in America still trust the mainstream media?

Well I'm glad to see someone on your team is distrusting Fox News and Breitbart. So many of your teammates seem to take what they say at face value. They could take a lesson from you and question their MSM.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

CNN did not air the session but showed highlights later.

I love CNN's response. They finally found their gonads. They anticipated that Trump would not be honest, and delayed broadcast so they could fact check it. Now if only they could find their brains, we might be in business.

But this is the response media needs to do. If Trump and his surrogates can't be trusted to be honest, deny they access. It goes both ways. As much as news people feel they need access to the President to get scoops, the President needs access to the media to get their message out. And Trump being an utter narcissist, desperately needs to get attention from as much of the media as possible. Deny him coverage (until it's properly fact-checked, of course) and he'll fall to pieces. Probably throw another tantrum on Twitter. Which means by giving up a juicy scoop in the form of a live WH press conference, you're creating a juicier scoop in the form of the President having a public meltdown.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

They're already calling Spicer "Baghdad Sean." And Trump vs. the media is shaping up to become "the mother of all battles."

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The headlines should read.."Twatster Trump fights twitter addiction" his inauguration speech was pathetic, not worth watching anyhow..His narcissist personality can't handle criticisim..Oh my poor little Trumpy .mwah mwah mwah...

2 ( +8 / -6 )

But this is the response media needs to do. If Trump and his surrogates can't be trusted to be honest, deny they access. It goes both ways. As much as news people feel they need access to the President to get scoops, the President needs access to the media to get their message out.

This is a non-starter for most American media organisations who's business model is now built on clickbait and telling you what's trending on Twitter.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

The whopper of all government lies was the weapons of mass destruction falsehood. And most of the news media supported it. The government and the media are that crooked, they couldn't lie straight in bed.

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

President needs access to the media to get their message out

You think Trump is going to have a meltdown because he isn't covered on CNN ? Especially when Fox scored like 3 times the ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined on inauguration day.

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

The whopper of all government lies was the weapons of mass destruction falsehood. And most of the news media supported it.

I was watching a lot of news back then. I wouldn't say they supported it at all - they were just reporting what the white house was saying.

We have people complaining that the media is reporting falsehoods now, and complaints that they were reporting what was being announced back then. It's all pretty ridiculous.

When did the right come up with this idea of demonizaing the media?

7 ( +11 / -4 )

M3M3M3JAN. 23, 2017 - 09:01AM JST This is a non-starter for most American media organisations who's business model is now built on clickbait and telling you what's trending on Twitter.

Hard to support that argument given that CNN already did it.

It's true that the American Media consumption model is closest to the fast food model (i.e. who cares about quality when you make it as fast, cheap, and flashy as possible) but I think it's very probably that Trump and his fake news propaganda will sour people on that model. Besides, in the age of twitter and reddit there is no way that news agencies can be the first to report something anyway.

I think the successful news organizations in the next few years are going to be the ones who offer news of substance. I wouldn't have thought this prediction realistic even a couple months ago, but I think Trump is going to hurt the country so badly that Americans will finally begin to realize that HOT FRESH NEWS HITS YOU IN THE FEELS just isn't good for us.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Fizz You think Trump is going to have a meltdown because he isn't covered on CNN

That's one of my many worries about having an unstable man in the White House. Any perceived slight could cause a meltdown. (Scary choice of words, BTW)

Fox scored like 3 times the ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined on inauguration day.

Point taken. FOX is probably the main TV network for Trump and his followers in the US. FOX is one of Rupert Murdoch's many biased outlets worldwide serving Trump's Ministry of Truth.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Oh so no one wants to mention the LIE that the press reporter told about the MLK bust in a blatant attempt to make Trump look racist? First day in office and the press there looking for gotcha things already. It doesnt matter how many new outlets reported that as fact, wrote articles about it without fact checking or asking?

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Notice how Trump supporters won't even acknowledge Trump's inauguration lies, instead bringing up criticisms of the media in unrelated stories. Look for them to distract and deflect to save the billionaire, even when they know he is lying. Problematic.

As someone else said before it's not surprising that we have an angry mob who fights against the mythical MSM while at the same time we see polls showing 50% of Trump fans thinks he was born in Kenya and 70% think millions of illegals voted for Clinton. These are the people telling us not to trust whatever the MSM is.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

They're so pathetic that they created a press conference just to talk about audience size, ratings, and popularity? Like, they really really really have a time for that? But if you really want to talk about the crowd, how delusional can one be when even photographic evidence is being branded as "fake news".

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Fizz You think Trump is going to have a meltdown because he isn't covered on CNN

Huh? Oh I see it. You wanted to write Lizz

I was really furious at the MSM for going along with Bush's Gulf War lies. Never watch FOX and still don't, but CNN and MSNBC are no better. Everything was honkydory with Wall Street leading up to the 2008 crises. They are corporations first. They are snake oil salesmaen. And now Zuckerberg wants to control HIS idea of fake news. Of the irony. Even this article is stupid..."oh..Trump/Pricer are lying.." What a joke.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Trump and his handlers are clearly insane.

I've just seen his 'pep talk' to the CIA , where he says that "When I was young...." And then rambles on for several minutes about how young he is (didn't like using the word feels), for what seemed like an eternity, then said when he was young, that "America was always winning" (among the things he mentioned that America won, he included wars .... Er, Don, you clearly don't remember Vietnam, like the rest of the world, guess as you weren't even there).

He continued that in Iraq, less lives would've been lost, if he'd been giving orders, said that "We should've taken all their oil", then muttered an off the cuff remark, that they might be given a second chance.

The final remark was met with stunned silence.

The Don is America's Caligula .

1 ( +6 / -5 )

I love CNN's response. They finally found their gonads. They anticipated that Trump would not be honest, and delayed broadcast so they could fact check it. Now if only they could find their brains, we might be in business.

Look, there is a reason why CNN are sinking in the Tubes, not even a week and they are already suffering from Trump syndrome, no surprise here and as long as they insist on giving president Trump only negative coverage, the distrust from the the Trump admin. will persist and he'll have have to resort to twitter to set the record straight.

But this is the response media needs to do.

I agree, but they can do it fairly and not make a hit pice out of EVERY response.

If Trump and his surrogates can't be trusted to be honest, deny they access. It goes both ways.

Sure, but Trump doesn't have to grant certain media outlets and interviews, so it's their loss, especially if they choose to cover him negatively constantly, then what's the point?

As much as news people feel they need access to the President to get scoops, the President needs access to the media to get their message out.

So he's got Twitter or he can go to the other outlets that give him a fair shot. The liberals at this point it seems, will not.

And Trump being an utter narcissist, desperately needs to get attention from as much of the media as possible. Deny him coverage (until it's properly fact-checked, of course) and he'll fall to pieces.

Actually, it's the other way around.

Probably throw another tantrum on Twitter. Which means by giving up a juicy scoop in the form of a live WH press conference, you're creating a juicier scoop in the form of the President having a public meltdown.

Who could blame him, I would as well.

-15 ( +4 / -19 )

Trump has a point about the media.

During the election they consistently reported (falsely) that Hillary was the front runner. Media polls predicted Hillary had anywhere from a 92% chance of victory to as high as 99.9% (according to Huffpo). Not only were these reports, predictions, and numbers wrong, but they were polar opposites to the facts. They refused to report the details about how Hillary dumped thousands of emails the day before they were to be subpoenaed, they refused to report that Hillary ordered her aids to destroy their phone and blackberries with hammers. They refused to report the evidence of "pay-to-play" within the Clinton foundation, or how Chelsea's wedding was paid for by the foundation, in addition to her living expenses.

Last week the Clinton Foundation was shut down. Did anyone hear that news? Did the media widely report about it? Since Hillary didn't win, donations simply stopped. Apparently the foundation's donors don't care anything about the Clinton's charitable work, they would only donate so long as a Clinton was in public office. But since Hillary lost, she has no way to do anything in return for the money the foundation receives.

The media has no love for Donald Trump, but showed a fair amount of love for Hillary. Why was this so? Because media is a business, which exists to make money. Hillary raised $1.2 billion for her campaign, much of that was spent on media advertising. Trump raised a little more than one-third what Hillary raised, and spent far less on advertising. From September 20th until election day, Hillary's campaign spent 20 times as much on advertising as Trump did. 95% of campaign advertising during this period came from Hillary's campaign.

With $1.2 billion to spend, the media will be very amenable to bending the truth, as was evident back in October and November.

The media is among the most corrupt group businesses in the corporate world. It exists to profit by reporting scandal, conflict, pain, murder, and mayhem. And when there aren't enough of these to boost readership or clicks, the media is quite good at inventing it's own scandals. Anyone see the Jon Benet Ramsey story resurface recently? If you can find a bloody story to report on, you can always dig up a body from the past.

What about the crowds in Washington for the inauguration? Of course Obama had more people show up, he was the first black president to be elected. Schools from half a dozen nearby states bused students to see Obama's inauguration. The various activist groups from all over the country flew or bused people to be present.

How about previous inaugurations? How did Trump compare to Bush, Clinton, or Reagan?

What is left out of the inauguration crowd argument was that after 8 years of Obama, America elected Trump. Also unmentioned is that Trump could not have won without a significant number of Obama voters. It was because the hope and change promised by Obama didn't occur that Trump is now president. And this lack of hope and change, and the disappointment people feel with Washington did nothing to draw a crowd to Trump's inauguration. That huge crowd which appeared for Obama's inauguration ended up being terribly disappointed. If they hadn't, Trump would not now be president, would he?

For the naysayers, the haters, the protesters, etc, Trump is president. Protesting, fighting, and cursing is for the weak and the stupid, who are crying over spilled milk. It's too late to do anything now. The country needs to move forward and get to work. There is another election in 4 years, save your rage for the voting booth.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

"If Trump and his surrogates can't be trusted to be honest, deny they access. It goes both ways."

"Sure, but Trump doesn't have to grant certain media outlets and interviews, so it's their loss, especially if they choose to cover him negatively constantly, then what's the point?"

But you were whining about Obama's treatment of Fox News ( part of the MSM by the way ). Their coverage of him was negative in the extreme and you loved it.

You do seem to have double standards here.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

During the election they consistently reported (falsely) that Hillary was the front runner.

The reporting wasn't false, the predictions made from the poll were wrong.

Media polls predicted Hillary had anywhere from a 92% chance of victory to as high as 99.9% (according to Huffpo). Not only were these reports, predictions, and numbers wrong, but they were polar opposites to the facts.

Wrong - yes. But opposite to the facts? Where were the facts showing these polls were wrong?

I think we're all clear that the polls were entirely wrong, but you are appropriating on the media for reporting polling results/predictions. Predictions are just that - predictions. They are not facts. In fact, the only facts are that a poll came up with X. Now X may be incorrect, but the fact that a poll came up with those results is fact, and not false at all.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Is this a pattern? He admitted he believed Russia was behind the hack, then glossed over it with a bombastic salvo against the media on an unrelated issue. The million woman march was big news and suddenly Trump drops headline bombs again on an unrelated matter.

Trump's camp shouldn't have lied about the biggest crowd ever. We all agree on that, but not everyone wants to admit it. Trump fills some kind of emotional hole for his fans and they will fall on the billionaire's sword for him. I just don't think they want to even think about the trauma if they can't support him anymore.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

or the naysayers, the haters, the protesters, etc, Trump is president. Protesting, fighting, and cursing is for the weak and the stupid, who are crying over spilled milk. It's too late to do anything now. The country needs to move forward and get to work. There is another election in 4 years, save your rage for the voting booth.

Well said...

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Fox scored like 3 times the ratings of CNN and MSNBC combined on inauguration day.

Total absence of critical thinking.

Of course it did!

4 ( +6 / -2 )

But you were whining about Obama's treatment of Fox News ( part of the MSM by the way ). Their coverage of him was negative in the extreme and you loved it.

Actually, that's not always true, the difference was, they didn't go ohh and ahhh to everything he said or did.

You do seem to have double standards here.

Not at all.

Trump fills some kind of emotional hole for his fans

The same the way Obama did for his fans

and they will fall on the billionaire's sword for him. I just don't think they want to even think about the trauma if they can't support him anymore.

ROFL, ok....

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Can someone please provide a clear definition of "fake news"?

Thanks in advance.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

There is another election in 4 years

Actually, there's another election in two years, and progressives appear intent on keeping up pressure on Congress. Shouldn't take too much to drive a wedge between Trump, congressional leaders, and rank-and-file GOPers.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Can someone please provide a clear definition of "fake news"?

Ask Hillary. LOL

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Can someone please provide a clear definition of "fake news"?

Sure. It's a term used by the right to try to attempt discredit news that presents any information they don't like to hear, without actually providing any factual counter argument to said news.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Can someone please provide a clear definition of "fake news"?

It's used by rightists in attempts to discredit reports they don't agree with and/or have been told by the chosen one are wrong.

It's an older version of 'alternative facts'. For yet older expressions, refer to 1984, Brave New World, Mein Kampf, or giving the Russians credit for starting dystopian sci fi, We . (thanks @yoshitune)

For an image, picture the monkey with hands covering its eyes and ears.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Sure. It's a term used by the right to try to attempt discredit news that presents any information they don't like to hear, without actually providing any factual counter argument to said news.

Wait..what!?

Hillary started this. Probably dropped a couple of million on some consultant group who told her to run with this meme. Karma brother.

-15 ( +2 / -17 )

Hillary started this.

No, fake news started this.

But the term has been misappropriated by the right. I simply gave the current definition of the term.

If you guys want to misuse it, you have to accept we're going to properly explain your usage of it.

Karma brother.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

What a total disgrace and humiliation to America. You can guarantee that Russia and China are laughing their arses off right now and preparing another round of "active measures" to see how far they can meltdown the White House. Will his administration even last out the year?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Right.

MSM: A pejorative term for media you don't care for.

Fake News: A pejorative term for news stories you don't care for.

Thanks, all. Maybe I'm a bit of a dinosaur and I'm better with numbers than words, but why do posters feel the need to use terms like this to obfuscate what they really mean? After all, we're not politicians here.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The definition is irrelevant since it has taken on a whole new meaning opposite of what the MSM tools had hoped for.

Exactly - it's become the definition I gave earlier.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Tyrant?

I'm now 100% sure you have no idea what you're talking about and are speaking from pure imiginantion.

Much like Willie Wonka sang about.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Baghdad Sean??? surely all of the wordsmith geniuses can come up with something better than that? all governments at some stage criticise elements of their local media. In the UK the BBC or Sky/Newscorp get it from one siude or the other. same across the EU. It's kind of halthy. Trump should grow a thicker kin and get on with making America great again. the Mexican and Canadians can't wait.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

"I'm now 100% sure you have no idea what you're talking about and are speaking from pure imigination".

Says the Trumpite anonymous keyboard warrior, who uses an avatar of an American native, but doesn't have one ounce the honour or wisdom.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Lots of examples of fake news.

For example, Trump seeing tens of thousands of cheering Muslims, the Trump Foundation giving 100% of their money for charity, Obama is not American, Trump's inauguration was attended by the most people in history, Trump will release his tax returns, Trump saved 1,100 jobs at Carrier, millions of ilegals voted for Clinton, etc.

Trump is probably close to the top of the list of organizations that pump out fake stories. That's something we all can all agree on.

Add to that Benghazi, the stand down order, Clinton is near death, Clinton has billions of dollars in a secret bank account, Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza shop, yadda yadda yadda. Obamacare has death panels, the US government is going to invade Texas, trickle down economics grows revenue, Planned Parenthood sells baby parts.

The list of fake news is endless. That's the whole reason why you create a bubble in the first place. Trump fans have Donald's tweets, Putin, and Breitbart, the establishment Republicans have Fox News.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

The problem was Obama was always of the mindset, it's either my way or NO WAY.

Well, you say that, but your actions simply put you in the position where when your anointed one is the same way, you will find that the opposition is going to act the same way in retaliation for your actions over the past eight years.

Moderator: Please repost without using the words "annointed one," which are meaningless.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Interesting opinion from an article linked in on Reddit. He's talking about the lack of journalistic value in interviewing people like Kellyanne Conway, and how it's mostly about ratings now:

http://www.recode.net/2017/1/19/14304862/jay-rosen-nyu-pressthink-donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-recode-podcast

"The logic is, this is a representative of the president,” Rosen said. “This is somebody who can speak for the Trump administration. But if we find that what Kellyanne Conway says is routinely or easily contradicted by Donald Trump, then that rationale disappears.”

“Another reason to interview Kellyanne Conway is, our viewers want to understand how the Trump world thinks,” he added. “But if the end result of an interview is more confusion about what the Trump world thinks, then that rationale evaporates.”

TV stations that do still want to talk to spokespersons like Conway or incoming White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer should transparently explain why those people are on the air, Rosen said: To avoid criticism, or for entertainment value.

“Just be real about it and say, ‘This isn’t actually of journalistic value,’” he said. “‘It has a different value and that’s why we’re putting it on the air.’ Just don’t pretend that this is a normal interview, with the normal rationale.”

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@SuperLib excellent examples.

On this board one of the many others that rightists circulated was the fake Planned Parenthood video.

A new glossary is needed to keep up with the terms rightists are adding to their meme handbook.

Wikipedia fake news websites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fake_news_websites

7 ( +8 / -1 )

PTownsend - On this board one of the many others that rightists circulated was the fake Planned Parenthood video.

A new glossary is needed to keep up with the terms rightists are adding to their meme handbook.

From your linked article - These sites intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire.

"News satire" should also be considered FAKE NEWS since they intentionally publish hoaxes and the stories they produce are FAKE.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Add to that Benghazi, the stand down order, Clinton is near death, Clinton has billions of dollars in a secret bank account, Clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza shop, yadda yadda yadda. Obamacare has death panels, the US government........

You forgot the Time magazine reporter who claimed that Trump had removed the MLKing bust. You're talking "fake news" while I'm talking MSM fake news. It's not so much to what they say as to what they don't say. Like Obama and Hillary's weapons sales, or any mention of Obama and Yemen in the same story. Or how Obama is supporting the Syrian "rebels". You can put up BS news all day about Pizza or whatever, but it just makes you look like a simpleton for doing so.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Tsk. Even some reliably conservative pundits like Tim Stanley are starting to say that picking on the media is a really stupid idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/01/22/tim-stanley-turning-press-donald-trump-playing-fire/

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Trump likes complements. Not criticism. He knows he has star power for attracting millions of Audience. Media has showed Trump fans were less than Obama audience inauguration eight years ago was great insult. During his prime time of Apprenticeship TV series, most Americans stop eating and sleeping for watching Trump was hiring and firing.

In his 70 years life span, Trump has marketed for himself for showing his greatness. How dare the most dishonest human on that earth showed Trump inauguration crowd was so few and so small. They are fake news.

Trump by himself fondly boosted himself I am not intellectually disabled. I know I am one of the smartest person. If media will not say good things about him, he will never answer their questions. It is time for media to give compliments to Trump.

Since 1776, No President inauguration has been great and massive like Trump day. Period! Trump is the greatest.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Trump is the greatest.

Agreed. The greatest fraud.

Pity all those who've taken his wooden nickels.

What straw will break the camel's back?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Sense, you've probably heard about this (lotsa straws blowin' 'round, but this is a big one):

A group including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing President Donald Trump of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator working on the case, said the lawsuit would allege that the Constitution’s emoluments clause forbids payments to Trump’s businesses. It will seek a court order forbidding Trump from accepting such payments, he said.

That was to be expected, of course, and the case, if it goes to trial, will likely be very lengthy. What could doom Trump, though, is Gupta et al could subpoena Trump's tax returns. Read this last night; kinda fun, and saved it so I can look at the links when I have time. It's a good summary of Trump's ties to non-Americans, which would certainly make his tax returns legitimate evidence. http://www.salon.com/2017/01/22/donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin-the-plutocratic-evil-twins-claim-to-stand-against-the-neoliberal-economic-order-they-dont/

3 ( +5 / -2 )

"You forgot the Time magazine reporter who claimed that Trump had removed the MLKing bust. You're talking "fake news" while I'm talking MSM fake news. It's not so much to what they say as to what they don't say. Like Obama and Hillary's weapons sales, or any mention of Obama and Yemen in the same story. Or how Obama is supporting the Syrian "rebels". You can put up BS news all day about Pizza or whatever, but it just makes you look like a simpleton for doing so."

Just to clarify the terminology, the MSM pumps out "fake news" while Trump just pumps out good, old-fashioned bulls##t?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

bass4funk: "...no surprise here and as long as they insist on giving president Trump only negative coverage, the distrust from the the Trump admin. will persist and he'll have have to resort to twitter to set the record straight."

Hahaha... you mean like how Connaway is 'setting the record straight'?? When asked about the fact that Spicer lied about the numbers Connaway LITERALLY said, "He used ALTERNATIVE FACTS". You fail to address that in all your 1.5 million comments today.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

SuperLib: you forgot $200 million a day trip to India in your list. Conservative news media jad a field trip with that!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Wasn't the whole MLK bust thing reported on Twitter? And the right is complaining about it? Funny that they would complain Twitter can be used to spread BS...

A group including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing President Donald Trump of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

His campaign sent letters to foreign governments requesting campaign contributions during the campaign, which I also understand is a constitutional violation.

Isn't the right always going on about how sacred the constitution is?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Wasn't the whole MLK bust thing reported on Twitter?

Doesn't make it any less false.

And the right is complaining about it? Funny that they would complain Twitter can be used to spread BS...

True but yet again doesn't nullify the fact that a 'credible' outlet peddled false narrative, no?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Does the information that Santa is white qualify as fake news?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

True but yet again doesn't nullify the fact that a 'credible' outlet peddled false narrative, no?

Actual fake news should be condemned no matter who is spreading it.

Now, I actually don't know much about this - did the guy do it on the official Twitter account of whatever news organization it was on? If so, he should be reprimanded by his media organization, unless there was some credible reason to have believed it in the first place, in which case, he should be given a warning, and the organization should put out an official retraction and correction (if they haven't already).

If he did it on his own personal Twitter account, then it was just stupid. Probably still deserves a warning from his organization, but anyone who takes a personal account as an official announcement is placing a little too much weight on it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I don't know why everyone is complaining about trust. Kellyanne Conway clearly stated that the Trump team are using "alternative facts". I'm not sure exactly what that means, but based on the concept of alternative realities, it's where things kind of look like the world we know, but scratch the surface, and it's all lies... In a world of lies, the truth is disgusting and must be shunned...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Actually, Trump's "There are a million people -- one million five hundred!" garbage when they claim at the same time there is no way to know the numbers is getting HUGE comedic props everywhere. Scoreboards in sports are boasting 1.5 million in attendance, and that's just for starters. Now schools and others can claim that many attendants when asking for more money from Trump for funding. They can point to the actual numbers are paper and say they are providing alternate numbers while the numbers they have in front of them, with the names and past enrolment numbers, are all "false".

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So, is the kind of America we've turned into? One where the POTUS only wants the media to print good things about him and consider all negative things (no matter if it is the truth or not) as "fake news"? Soon, he'll dictate where we walk, what we eat, and who we can communicate with.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

http://toprightnews.com/trump-vs-obama-inauguration-here-are-the-real-photos-you-decide/

And this is why the main media outlets are in disrepute.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The media are capable of lying. And so are governments and administrations are capable of lying too.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Ya don't fight lies with more lies.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If I were Spicer, I'd quit. Time for someone to start a Trump Administration "whopper lies" count. Can we get to 50 this week?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Actually, there's another election in two years, and progressives appear intent on keeping up pressure on Congress. Shouldn't take too much to drive a wedge between Trump, congressional leaders, and rank-and-file GOPers.

Trump doesn't care. He is not a republican, despite the fact that he ran as one. Both political parties combined to keep Trump out of office, they didn't do this because they thought he could be controlled by a majority of votes in either house of congress, but because they fear he can't be controlled at all. Trump is the wedge, and the hammer which drives it.

Didn't you listen to his inauguration speech? Trump has no plans at all to work with congress, he made it quite clear he plans to work against it. It doesn't matter a whit to him which party is in control, he plans to get things done regardless of what they think. To him there are no conservatives or progressives, just a large group of liars who label themselves in a way to manipulate the voters.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

You forgot the Time magazine reporter who claimed that Trump had removed the MLKing bust.

There's a qualitative difference between that and the Trump team BS. The reporter on the MLK bust report quickly offered a correction. Can you say Team Donny did anything comparable? Instead it held a press conference to harangue the press for pointing out the obvious (because it insulted little Donny and his dreams of being the greatest president in the history of the universe), and put Conway on TV to blab about "alternative facts". What's that? Disgusting.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Frederic Bastiat: And this is why the main media outlets are in disrepute.

You counter clear photos of the rear of the crowd that CLEARLY show the difference in numbers with photos of the front of the crowd where you can't see the back? Oh, there's disrepute here, but it's clearly pointed to the "news" organization that you linked to... Fake news indeed. Or is this just showing us the "alternative facts"...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Frederic Bastiat: you decide to determine how many people were present from a low angle behind the podium or aerial poctures from the back? The problem here is not the the attendance but Spicer lying and wants hold the press accountable.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hahaha... you mean like how Connaway is 'setting the record straight'?? When asked about the fact that Spicer lied about the numbers Connaway LITERALLY said, "He used ALTERNATIVE FACTS".

Look, there may not have been as many people as by Obama, but you have to also remember, Obama was the first Black president, he made history, so of course from that alone you are going to have a lot of people, especially Black people come out to witness such an event. At the end of the day, who cares how many people were there, it's petty, I could care less, I just cared about Trump getting into office and now that it has happened. I am very relieved and content. I think liberals are making a fuss about nothing, just like the lies that were propagated that Trump took down the statue of MLK, seriously? Are liberals THAT desperate now??

You fail to address that in all your 1.5 million comments today.

I work for a living, I don't have time to write that many comments, I wish I did though.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

bass4funk: I am very relieved and content. I think liberals are making a fuss about nothing, just like the lies that were propagated that Trump took down the statue of MLK, seriously? Are liberals THAT desperate now??

I've already said on this site that I think the number of people who attended the inauguration isn't really that important. What is important, though, is the emphasis that the Trump administration has put on the dishonesty of the media. If left at that, then the statement would stand. But it has been Trump's team that has put out this lie that there were more people at Trump's inauguration, the most ever if I recall the statement. And when the media called them on this lie, the accusation was thrown back at the media of dishonesty. This isn't about how many people attended on Friday, it's about the sheer hypocrisy of the "main stream media" lie that has been going on for quite a long time now. When your administration tells straight out lies at press conferences, it needs to be called out. What's worse is that it wasn't even needed. The Trump spokesman only had to say "so what, grow up!" and they'd have taken the high ground here...

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I understand, but even if they owned up to it, there is no way the media would let it rest, they would have kept the story alive and pounded it home, that's just the way they operate, I know this for a fact, the majority of the MSM which is liberal oriented would never give any conservative president a fair shot.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Yes the media will continue to report on trivialities instead of the real news-fortunately,Trump is now able to communicate directly with any member of the US with a mobile device.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

I disagree. Based on my own reading of MSM reviews, I decided that Jeb Bush was perhaps the pick of all the candidates, from either side. And that's a big thing for me as I really didn't like George W's whole Iraq "WMD" and invasion thing. In the end, Jeb was too normal. This wasn't a normal election.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Kurisupisu: medium doesn't matter. If lies are found, they will called out.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

*will be called out

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I guess the thing that frustrates me the most about all of this is that we get stories of child exploitation rings in basements of pizza restaurants, and of masses of pre-filled Clinton ballots that have all been proven to be totally fake, and yet certain segments of society decry the media as biased for not reporting these stories that, with even the most elementary checking can be dismissed, and yet the same people get all of their news source from the same places that report such rubbish. There's a disengagement between logic and political support that does worry me. Yes, call out the MSM when they stuff up, like making a big deal about the number of people at the inauguration. But you also need to call out the utter rubbish coming out of other parts of the "media" (and I use that term lightly considering some of the sources). When actual facts get buried under a torrent of ****... well, then we get what we deserve...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I disagree. Based on my own reading of MSM reviews, I decided that Jeb Bush was perhaps the pick of all the candidates, from either side. And that's a big thing for me as I really didn't like George W's whole Iraq "WMD" and invasion thing. In the end, Jeb was too normal. This wasn't a normal election.

No, it wasn't a normal election. Jeb Bush was a candidate that the majority of conservatives didn't want, people were growing tired of what seemed to be a growing dynasty culture of Washington establishment elites the Bush's and the Clinton's and the people outright on both sides rejected them, this was the year of the outsider and people like Trump and Sanders spoke to millions of people that had it with the usual Washington establishment politics and I feel from this point into the future you will see more anti-Washington candidates on either side of the aisle pop up and that's actually a good thing.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Bass, agreed. I guess that's why I was surprised to find myself supporting who I did. And it's also why I think that the Democrats choosing Clinton pretty much paved the way for Trump. Choosing Clinton as the Democratic candidate was pretty insane when you think about it. With the exception of Obama, we've had nothing but Bushes and Clintons since 1988... In writing, that almost sounds like a North Korea sort of thing. :(

0 ( +2 / -2 )

"I feel from this point into the future you will see more anti-Washington candidates on either side of the aisle pop up and that's actually a good thing."

That's very non-partisan of you Bass. Glad to see you like to see views from all sides and not like the right wing lunatics who compared Bernie Sanders to Josef Stalin.

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Hush now, Jimizo... we're having a bipartisan moment here... :)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SuperLib: you forgot $200 million a day trip to India in your list. Conservative news media jad a field trip with that!

Or how about the $50 billion Obamacare website? Heh

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Donkusai

I know. I think it's great to hear such things about people not on your side of the argument. It's just that people unlike yourself and Bass start throwing Hitler and Stalin comparisons around, characterise the opposition as completely devoid of all morals and even buy in to tabloid-level "fake news" about people and organizations they don't like.

Sorry to butt in. I'm just expressing my admiration. It's something quite refreshing.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

"calling into question the extent to which information from the White House can be trusted."

Good grief, how about the extent to which information from the media can be trusted?

Crazy: " I know you Trump voters do not read"

Yet another condescending anti-Trump comment. Yeah, we irredeemable deplorables never read, lol, that's why we won the election and you giys lost.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Serrano: Good grief, how about the extent to which information from the media can be trusted?

Totally agree... Frederic BastiatJan posted this media monstrosity: http://toprightnews.com/trump-vs-obama-inauguration-here-are-the-real-photos-you-decide/

I agree with you. We shouldn't accept this sort of media rubbish.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

bass4funk: "At the end of the day, who cares how many people were there,"

Ummm... the entire Trump team, so much so that they have entire press conferences to lie about the numbers, storm off stage instead of answering any questions about the lies, then start a whole new thing called "alternative facts" because they care so much about it and can't admit they lied. That's just for starters.

"I understand, but even if they owned up to it, there is no way the media would let it rest,"

Like Benghazi and the birther issue, you mean?

"I think liberals are making a fuss about nothing"

Like emailing from work?

Seriously... you have ZERO place telling people they are harping on about things or not giving the president a fair shake, ESPECIALLY given what Trump has done, is doing, and the fact that he is decrying (and so are you) the media and then demanding they "give it a rest" when they've caused the furor to begin with.

Serrano: "Yeah, we irredeemable deplorables never read, lol, that's why we won the election and you giys lost."

Ummm... do you reread before you post? That doesn't even make an ounce of sense. But I guess in "alternative" world, saying things that make sense or ring true doesn't matter.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

There's really nothing you can say to defend a President and spokespeople who make a statement that is demonstrably false. You can lie yourself, switch the topic, go off track....but you cannot defend him even if you voted for him and really like him. Be a man and criticize Trump and say it's a problem.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Well, well...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/white-house-refuses-release-trump-tax-returns-wikileaks

So Trump won't be releasing his tax returns as he said he would, and WikiLeaks, are calling for them to be leaked. I wonder what the people who were praising WikiLeaks to the skies for the way they went after Hillary Clinton think of that.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The only reason for a so-called "war with the media" is so FDT and his evil cabinet can keep the things they do AS SECRET AS POSSIBLE.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I didn't know there was anyone alive dumb enough to trust the media.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

White House Press Secretary Spicer just had his first press briefing since the incident and pretty much admitted that their outside agency that measured the Metro (subway) numbers were wrong:

"At the time the information that I was provided by the inaugural committee came from an outside agency that we reported on. And I think knowing when we know now we can tell that WMATA's numbers were different but we were providing numbers we had been provided. It wasn't like we made them up out of thin air."

"There are many mistakes that the media makes all the time. I don't think that's OK to always turn around and say you were intentionally lying. I think we all go try to do our best job and do it with a degree of integrity within our agencies."

"We are going to do our best every time we can. I'm going to come out here and tell you the facts as I know them. If we make a mistake, we'll do our best to correct it."

So the White House is pretty much publishing a correction.

BTW, the official numbers straight from The Washington DC Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (Metro) official twitter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/wmata/status/822482330346487810

Metro Ridership: As of 11am, 193k trips taken so far today. (11am 1/20/13 = 317k, 11am 1/20/09 = 513k, 11am 1/20/05 = 197k) #wmata

Spicer continued:

"There are times when you tweet something out or write a story and you publish a correction. That doesn't mean that you were intentionally trying the deceive readers or the American people, does it? I think we should be afforded the same opportunity."

But Trump accuses the media of being dishonest when the media do that though - being wrong then publishing a correction. Shouldn't the White House also being dishonest when they're wrong then publishing a correction?

Spicer continued:

"It's unquestionable. And I don't see any numbers that dispute that. I'm just saying if you are asking me a question about my integrity I'm saying if you add up all of the various live streaming that we have information on, so far I don't think there is any question it was the largest watched inauguration ever."

We'd like to see the numbers that they have. So far, the only verifiable numbers published from official sources are the Metro ridership numbers and the Neilsen TV ratings, both of which are not the highest ever. And now they're adding online streaming too, but we still don't have their numbers for that (or Obama's online numbers).

There is little question that Obama’s 2009 inauguration drew a bigger in-person crowd than Trump’s ceremonies on Friday, based on aerial photography, Metro ridership statistics, Neilsen TV ratings and other factors. So the Trump White House is including worldwide viewership to bridge the gap that it's the biggest ever. They may be right; they may be wrong - but how could we know if they're not providing what numbers they're seeing and where they got 'em.

Basically, how can numbers be disputed when they're not providing any numbers themselves. So they should provide their numbers first and where they sourced them - after all, if they were wrong with their outside sources about the Metro ridership numbers, how do we know if they're not also wrong with their online numbers? Somebody, please, just give us some verifiable numbers before making any claims.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Donkusai: Frederic Bastiat link's show an "alternative" view which doesn't show the reality.

Again, attendance is not the problem. It is the "alternative" facts.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Bass, agreed. I guess that's why I was surprised to find myself supporting who I did. And it's also why I think that the Democrats choosing Clinton pretty much paved the way for Trump. Choosing Clinton as the Democratic candidate was pretty insane when you think about it. With the exception of Obama, we've had nothing but Bushes and Clintons since 1988... In writing, that almost sounds like a North Korea sort of thing. :(

100% agreed!

Ummm... the entire Trump team, so much so that they have entire press conferences to lie about the numbers, storm off stage instead of answering any questions about the lies, then start a whole new thing called "alternative facts" because they care so much about it and can't admit they lied. That's just for starters.

Don't even go there. I'm not going to defend the Trump admin. on this one, but I could make a list of all the lies the Obama and Josh Earnest told over the last few years. Don't even try to make it like the Spicer is the first spokesperson to exaggerate facts. Both sides do this from time to time.

Like Benghazi and the birther issue, you mean?

4 families died in Benghazi, you're trying to make a moral comparison?

Like emailing from work?

Ask Hillary. By the way, where is she these days?

Seriously... you have ZERO place telling people they are harping on about things or not giving the president a fair shake, ESPECIALLY given what Trump has done,

Actually, that's not true, it hasn't been a week and you guys smell blood in the water, even I didn't get on Obama right from the gate, I waited and watched first before criticizing the man and that took a bit of time.

is doing, and the fact that he is decrying (and so are you) the media and then demanding they "give it a rest" when they've caused the furor to begin with.

So what now? You want Trump to walk to the gallows? I guess so, right? I mean, Trump is just irredeemable in your eyes. Look, the left pushed Obama to move forward and not pay any attention to the right, well, I think Trump should ignore the left as well. If they don't like it, oh, well.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bass4funkJAN. 24, 2017 - 07:40AM JST

Look, the left pushed Obama to move forward and not pay any attention to the right, well, I think Trump should ignore the left as well. If they don't like it, oh, well.

He also appears to be ignoring the right.

Referring to Trump’s order on the TPP, Sen. John McCain, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, criticized it as “a serious mistake that will have lasting consequences for America’s economy and our strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region.”

“This decision will forfeit the opportunity to promote American exports, reduce trade barriers, open new markets, and protect American invention and innovation,” the Republican heavyweight said in a statement.

“It will create an opening for China to rewrite the economic rules of the road at the expense of American workers,” he said. “And it will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it.”

Perhaps you don't consider John McCain very right wing, though.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump's 'war with the media' raises questions of trust

Agreed. Hardly anyone trusts the media anymore. Their approval rating is around 13%. They have been going after Trump since he won the Republican nomination. Of course they supported him before that because they assumed he would lose to Clinton. I sure did. They are not used to a Republican pushing back on their Left bias and that's got them screaming bloody murder. Trumps supporters love it and the Left elite in Manhattan and Hollywood are losing their collective minds over it. Finally a Republican that fights back - no one has seen that since Reagan.

@CrazyJoe: This should be a call to arms.

Well Liberal icon Madonna is already calling for American women to blow up the White House. There is your call to arms.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Simon Foston - So Trump won't be releasing his tax returns as he said he would, and WikiLeaks, are calling for them to be leaked. I wonder what the people who were praising WikiLeaks to the skies for the way they went after Hillary Clinton think of that.

Assange can pick up a copy of Trump's tax returns at any police station in Sweden. He should tell the police that he's there to get what he deserves.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Well Liberal icon Madonna is already calling for American women to blow up the White House. There is your call to arms.

You criticize the media for in one breath, then go on to make a comment like the above in the next, doing exactly what you are decrying the media for supposedly doing.

Her exact comment:

Yes, I have thought an awful lot, about blowing up the white house.

Now please tell me exactly which part of this comment is 'calling for women' to blow up the white house? In which part of this comment is she telling anyone, much less women, to do anything?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

WolfpackJAN. 24, 2017 - 09:42AM JST

Trumps supporters love it and the Left elite in Manhattan and Hollywood are losing their collective minds over it.

I don't see why they should be. Trump's supporters are in a minority. Loudmouthed, strident and prone to threats of violent revolution if they don't get what they want, but a minority nevertheless.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Simon Foston - I don't see why they should be. Trump's supporters are in a minority. Loudmouthed, strident and prone to threats of violent revolution if they don't get what they want, but a minority nevertheless.

LOL. And yet the political party you claim are in the minority control BOTH houses of the U.S. Congress, the Whitehouse, and 60+% of the state governor's offices and state legislatures. The Democrat Party must be winning by losing.

It's the Democrat Party supporters, like J20, who are rioting, and physically attacking Republicans, conservatives, and fellow Democrats (aka Bernie supporters).

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

LOL. And yet the political party you claim are in the minority control BOTH houses of the U.S. Congress, the Whitehouse, and 60+% of the state governor's offices and state legislatures.

Yes, thanls to a gerrymander.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Trump correct all mainstream media fake news focused on liberal agenda..

1 ( +1 / -0 )

funkymofo - Yes, thanls to a gerrymander.

A "gerrymander" such as Illinois's 4th Congressional district? Created by Democrats to seat a latino democrat as U.S. Congressman. A democrat such as Democrat Luis Gutiérrez (D).

The boundary lines of Illinois's 4th form the letter C. Very unusual, but it's Chicago, where anything thing can happen if you know the right people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district

How does a gerrymander alter the outcome of a U.S. Presidential race? Or a U.S. Senate race?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites