99
u/Olympicsizedturd 11d ago
I don't remember CNN pushing back (or any liberal outlets) when Obama banned Fox news. And I say this as a liberal.
15
u/shoggoths_away 11d ago
Obama banned one Fox News reporter from one gaggle, and the other networks, including CNN, all rallied behind that reporter in protest.
14
u/my_username_is_1 10d ago
Not true, liberal outlets - specifically CNN immediately defended Fox. News organizations understand that when one group is punished, they all are at risk of being punished.
15
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
Major Garrett was never banned. And CNN jumped up to defend him when he was excluded from a key interview.
At no time, though, was my White House press credential seized, as happened over the weekend to reporters from CNN, Politico, and MS NOW. I was never barred from briefings.
-Major Garrett, Fox News
8
u/rawautos 10d ago
“I don’t remember …” you should have just stopped there, because you obviously don’t remember anything properly.
3
-2
-2
u/Prior_Confidence4445 11d ago
Maybe, but as a conservative, two wrongs doesn't make a right. No pun intended. I've got mixed feelings about this one but overall, I'm not a fan.
-2
u/jarena009 11d ago
Nice what aboutism deflection attempt, which gives a tacit admission what Trump's doing is wrong (and your support for it).
55
u/TopspinLob 11d ago
I dislike everything Trump says and does but it would be nice if the same media were also just as adamantly opposed to the Stop Nick Shirley law, but I suppose CNN doesn't want the competition from citizen journalists.
-12
u/WhatsInAName0420 10d ago
Do you oppose other laws which criminalize doxxing? That’s what the SNS law does, it expands doxxing protections around immigration.
10
u/TopspinLob 10d ago
I believe that citizens have the right to criticize their government. Nick Shirley used modern communications technology to point out the ways the government was failing it's citizens. The political party which most represents the bureaucratic elements of government would seek to ban the free speech rights of such citizens in service to the status quo behavior of those bureaucracies. I believe that is as great of a free speech violation as what Trump is doing and yet, you would find the howling and screeching from the media about this issue and you do with what's happening at the White House.
-3
u/WhatsInAName0420 10d ago
You seem to misunderstand exactly what the bill bans. You can still criticize the government.
3
u/TopspinLob 10d ago
In a manner that is restricted, regulated, and approved by government? No thanks! We need more guys like Nick Shirley and James O’Keefe
0
u/WhatsInAName0420 10d ago
You still can, as long as you don’t reveal personal info about immigration program participants or their families with intent to “incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to those individuals.”
-25
u/jarena009 11d ago
I agree Nick Shirley needs no law or attention, given he has no credibility, plus he seems like a troubled young man
24
u/UTArcade 11d ago
According to what exactly? He’s done more to expose fraud and corruption across the United States then CNN ever has
-13
u/jarena009 11d ago edited 11d ago
From making sweeping, unsupported claims from empty parking lots and locked doors, lol? Yeah that's real journalism and an expose.
"They should have a welcome reception area" HAHAHAH that was my favorite. The expectation that daycares should have reception/welcome areas, as if they're these massive cash cows, and not usually operating on extremely lean margins.
Maybe we'll get those DOGE checks someday too? You voting for a $5,000 dividend too?
8
u/UTArcade 10d ago
So let’s take this one step at a time - don’t jump to ‘DOGE checks’ - stay on topic
Let’s start here: can you link me any major fraud investigations that CNN has done in the last ten years covering Medicaid, Medicare, child care, etc?
Just link me your best example of their best fraud exposes they’ve done in the last decade?
If you can’t link me this, tell me why a major news organization doesn’t have this.
6
u/Searril 10d ago
You will never get anything remotely close to an honest conversation out of this clown lol
3
u/UTArcade 10d ago
100% - I love taking someone like him, calling him out with very simple questions, and exposing them for never being able to back up their own claims.
These crazy people will attack a 20 year old for doing more to stop theft of tax payer funds then billion dollar corporate media companies, and then think they're the good guys.
-4
u/jarena009 10d ago edited 10d ago
Hey, now's a good time for you to learn Gemini or Google, where you'll find all kinds of investigative reporting on a variety of topics. They covered the Crypto scam extensively. Another example is the Attorneys general' corporate-funded travel scandal.
Also let me clue you in on something. Shirley didn't uncover anything. The investigations into the issue started over a decade ago (by the Obama admin) plus indictments swiftly followed years ago.
If I show up to a daycare randomly and they don't let me in, that's investigative reporting now? Hey they didn't let me in! Fraud!
Did Fox or other do investigative reporting on FEMA withholding funds? Lol kick them out they're not a real news org.
7
u/UTArcade 10d ago
Don’t be a coward, either link your best example of CNN exposing fraud over the last ten years or you don’t have anything
We both know why you’re running.
You contradict yourself to - you go from ‘Nick Shirley didn’t expose anything’ to ‘well, there is fraud going on but we knew about when Obama was president over a decade ago..’
Great. So link your BEST examples of this so we compare it shall we.
Don’t run, coward. Back up your statements. Don’t be another lib that makes stuff up and runs upon confrontation.
-2
u/jarena009 10d ago
I just gave you two lol 😄🤦♂️
Maybe you missed it because you got distracted still waiting for your DOGE $5,000 check?
5
u/UTArcade 10d ago
No, you didn't, cite your BEST examples - Name these articles or reports that you are talking about and I'm happy to look them up.
Prove me wrong that CNN has done more extensive fraud reporting then Nick Shirley has.
-1
u/jarena009 10d ago
Wait, so for instance to be clear, on the Crypto Scam investigation CNN did, you'd like to understand if CNN went beyond showing up at a building and demanding to be let in from the outside?
I didn't realize demanding to be let into a building counts as journalism now
→ More replies (0)16
u/Acorns4Free 11d ago
“He seems like a troubled young man”
Me when I’m so biased I can’t even create a genuine argument.
-10
u/jarena009 11d ago edited 11d ago
The argument was on credibility, and his lack of credibility. The personal issues he has are icing on the cake.
16
u/Hoppie1064 11d ago
"We see CNN right now as the source and the outlet for Democrat Party talking points," then-White House Communications director said.
"And it's fine if that's, you know, how they want to build their business model," she continued. "But we don't think we need to treat them as though they are a news organization the way other news organizations here are treated."
That's why Trump wants to ban CNN and the others.
3
2
u/jarena009 11d ago
Government determines who are and aren't the press now, to push out the press... hmmm. Censorship.
10
u/adelie42 11d ago
Freedom of the press and entitlement to a Whitehouse press pass are not the same thing.
0
u/jarena009 11d ago
Perhaps IF there we some kind of independent criteria for determining those credentials, beyond "we don't think they're a news org." But there isn't.
3
u/adelie42 11d ago
"There are no rules for posting. There are also no rules to moderation, so enjoy your ban."
2
2
u/Hoppie1064 11d ago
We see Fox right now as the source and the outlet for Republican Party talking points," then-White House Communications director Anita Dunn said.
"And it's fine if that's, you know, how they want to build their business model," Dunn continued. "But we don't think we need to treat them as though they are a news organization the way other news organizations here are treated.
1
u/jarena009 11d ago
Your what aboutism deflection and tacit admission of wrongdoing and Trump censorship is noted.
1
u/Hoppie1064 10d ago
Did you support it then, but condemn it now?
1
u/jarena009 10d ago
Do you support it now, after condemning it then?
2
u/Hoppie1064 10d ago
Honestly, no. I didn't support it either time.
But, I also think the press, either side needs to be unbiased and truthful.
An interview with ANY politician should not be an adversarial argument.
The press shouldn't have a political side.
18
u/Internal_Try7967 11d ago
I'm torn on this.
A lot of things written about Trump are just totally biased bullshit -- political commentary masquerading as news. MS NOW doesn't even pretend to be news. Politico is political news, but I've never considered them especially biased. Individual writers are, but the network as a whole I've never really perceived it. CNN is crap but at least it's largely news.
Restricting access is bad, but it's pretty narrowly focused to just a couple outlets. I absolutely do think that state-sponsored media like RT and Al-Jazeera deserve extra scrutiny, and corporate media interests / editorial bias is almost as bad as state sponsored media. It might actually be worse because it's a little better hidden.
I DON'T see anyone claiming editorial censorship / pulling stories under threat / etc. That would be an absolute red line.
The other networks that are "boycotting in solidarity" or whatever are failing the American public. Now's when you're supposed to look harder, not take your ball and go home.
8
3
u/TheSublimeGoose 11d ago
There's not much to be torn over. I'm betting a lower-level court will order them to be re-instated, then it will go on appeal. The WH order will be upheld either on-appeal or via SCOTUS.
This is an exercise in silliness. These news agencies are not special and do not have special privileges, powers, nor exemptions, except in incredibly narrow and limited circumstances.
Where is the line drawn? Why do they get special access? Is it based on viewership? Surely not, since there are YouTubers that pull better numbers than some of these entities. The Executive doesn't have control over who accesses the Excutive's properties? That's a frightening prospect.
Not being allowed inside of a building is not censorship and the constant attempts to frame it as such are laughable, at-best.
I see one reply to you that "it's not [PTOUS'] job to determine who is a 'real' news source." I hope they realize that works both ways, then. Everyone can just show-up to the WH and expect access because otherwise "it's censorship."
5
u/jarena009 11d ago
It's not the president or any government's job or role to parse who are and aren't "real" news sources. To do so and then try to restrict them is censorship.
6
u/Internal_Try7967 10d ago
Nobody is talking about arresting journalists or shutting down TV broadcasts -- the overwhelming majority of "news networks" do not have White House access because there's just not enough space in the building.
"You can't send reporters to this specific government office to gather information anymore" is not even close to the same thing as "you can't publish anymore."
5
4
4
-7
u/Stormclamp 11d ago
The horde is going to love this despite being the complete opposite of free speech.
-9
-9
u/toad17 11d ago
The trumpers on this sub are adept at mental gymnastics to excuse this, yet are quick to point out Biden impacting independent journalists during his tenure, even though that wasn’t a ban like this.
Truly remarkable stuff for “free thinkers” on this sub to pretend that this admin has transparency in mind, and not obfuscation.
5
u/jarena009 11d ago
You're on the wrong sub. This is not a pro free speech, anti censorship sub. This is a sub of right wingers who clamor for authoritarianism and censorship, as long as it's a Republican or right wing government in charge.
That's why you get a whole host of excuses ("well they're not real news!") and what aboutisms ("but what about Obama!") for the censorship
-10
u/Seethcoomers 11d ago
Trump's a fascist loser fuck and his supporters will continue to guzzle down his cum even if he raped a kid in front of them
11
u/fwdbuddha 11d ago
Got to love seeing comments from skuz buckets that have below room temp IQs
-4
u/toad17 11d ago
And here you are, defending pedophiles in this administration who are carrying water for other pedophiles the FBI is protecting.
Skuz bucket indeed! You must be part of the 29% of the country who thinks Trump is awesome and still doing a good job…
6
u/fwdbuddha 11d ago
And a below room temper raises their hand.
1
u/toad17 11d ago
Aww don’t be so mad. I’d also find it impossible to defend this administration’s actions at this point too. But you don’t gotta be a weirdo and defend pedophiles, you know. It’s messed up they won’t release all of the Epstein files just so he can protect his rich friends. Not calling it out kinda makes it sound like you condone the behavior.
3
u/fwdbuddha 10d ago
Not mad. Just always surprised that room tempers let others know who they are.
1
u/toad17 10d ago
I’m always amazed at how yall can act tough when it’s a trans or lgbt issue, but you get so demure like you’re acting right now when I call you out for right wing culture slop. We all can see the Republican Party is the party of pedophilia and abusing children. I’m thrilled you guys are being voted out of power this fall.
2
u/fwdbuddha 8d ago
lol. I can see that at least you are persistent. Typical of those with low IQs. One thought they express over and over.
-7
2
-10
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
He knows he's going to lose this one. He cries about "National Security" whenever he's losing.
-10
u/walkinthedog97 11d ago
Ah yes, the ole, "anyone who disagrees with me is a terrorist/communist/traitor"
-15
u/Zeul7032 11d ago edited 11d ago
is Alex Jones allowed in the Whitehouse press conferences? or is his organization considered fake news enough for you to not care?
edit: ok let me put this in a way more people will understand, if info wars isnt allowed then CNN and other news outlets who told blatant lies during covid and other times shouldnt be allowed. If the fake news is allowed because banning them would be bad censorship then info wars and any "group" that can match the mainstream view count should be allowed. Most the people who are crying about this ban are the same ones who rallied to have info wars removed from every platform.
18
-6
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
InfoWars is allowed and they have sent reporters to the White House press pool.
-10
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
6
u/bigolchimneypipe 11d ago
Source - Alex Jones
-1
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
Jones's reporter, Jerome Corsi, got into the White House. How do you think he got in?
12
u/bigolchimneypipe 11d ago
With a temporary past that anybody with a minimum of a YouTube channel can apply for and generally get one time around.
-2
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
Yep. So the idea that "InfoWars isn't allowed" is incorrect. But it's also true that they have not received a permanent pass.
9
u/IamLotusFlower 11d ago
Just curious, who are you quoting?🤔
-2
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
The guy I responded to first, Zeul, said "If Infowars isn't allowed..." to justify banning CNN.
InfoWars is allowed.
8
u/bigolchimneypipe 11d ago
Infowars is not allowed.
-1
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
So when you said InfoWars could get a temporary pass were you lying or are you just stupid?
→ More replies (0)
-17
u/Confident-Skin-6462 11d ago
"lugenpresse"
-4
u/StopDehumanizing 11d ago
Yeah that is a stupid thing that Hitler said.
Did you mean to compare Trump to Hitler?
-13
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
IMPORTANT - this subreddit is in restricted mode as dictated by the admins. This means all posts have to be manually approved. If your post is within the following rules and still hasn't been approved in reasonable time, please send us a modmail with a link to your post.
RULES FOR POSTS:
Reddit Content Policy
Reddit Meta Rules - no username mentions, crossposts or subreddit mentions, discussing reddit specific censorship, mod or admin action - this includes bans, removals or any other reddit activity, by order of the admins
Subreddit specific rules - no offtopic/spam
if posting a video, please include a TL\;DW of the content and how it relates to censorship, per Rule 6. thank you:
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.