Trump to CNN reporter: You are fake news!

[Fishman15]

It's sure nice to see the tone from the press corps hasn't changed from Obama to Trump...





Somebody pass the popcorn...the next 4 years will at least be the most entertaining of my lifetime.

[Clinos]

Next 8 years. Going to be so filled with awesome.

[Karl_Hungus]

CNN has historically always leaned left, but I didn't think they were terrible. This last year though, they have gone completely off the rails to the point where they hardly qualify as a news organization. Sure, most have their biases, but now, CNN is a straight-up propaganda arm for the DNC ever since Trump entered the picture. They have been busted again and again for shady bullsh!t. I can't believe anybody trusts a thing they say.

[7Seconds]

The free press is the strongest aspect of the free system; when a President begins to muzzle those parts of the press that he dislikes, we all lose.

[wesleysh21]

It's weird that CNN ends up with classified information that is given by the highest levels of intelligence to the president. How...convenient.

I just turned on CNN to see what they were talking about. They are getting ready to interview people in Detroit and ask why Hillary lost Michigan. WTF? Detroit overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. Get outside of Detroit and ask some...dare I say...middle aged working class white people?

[wesleysh21]

The free press is the strongest aspect of the free system; when a President begins to muzzle those parts of the press that he dislikes, we all lose.

It's not a free press, it's an arm of the opposition party.

[so-tex]

It's not a free press, it's an arm of the opposition party.

Yep, the president is a citizen and has the freedom afforded to him as well.

[Clinos]

The free press is the strongest aspect of the free system; when a President begins to muzzle those parts of the press that he dislikes, we all lose.

Though I agree with you, there is a very important distinction here that you over overlooking which is actual free press working as journalists, the kind that are checking sources, vetting those same sources and information and providing the end consumer the means to use that information to make informed decisions. vs. Sensationalism and back room agenda driven editorialism masked as journalism for political or ratings gain. A lot of the news organizations today are in the latter category.

CNN for years has been slanted towards the Democrats, which isn't a big deal as so is Fox towards the Republican party. But when either of those networks starts making up stories and running them as actual news, they aren't news organizations any more, they are acting as large well funded Political Action Committees peeking and operating around the law. I think him calling CNN out for fake news, as PACs often do, is very accurate.

or this:

It's not a free press, it's an arm of the opposition party.

On spread my man.

[paolo59]

Major Media are the consummate professionals when it comes to this 'fake news' thing. It is interesting how the fake news phenomenon has been trotted out front and center by the likes of 'journalists,' and politicians of left-leaning sensibilities as if it were something new. It appears that a good many media outlets want to be the sole purveyor of such. They have no problem with it whatsoever. They just want to be the ones who control it, its' direction and target.

[7Seconds]

Though I agree with you, there is a very important distinction here that you over overlooking which is actual free press working as journalists, the kind that are checking sources, vetting those same sources and information and providing the end consumer the means to use that information to make informed decisions. vs. Sensationalism and back room agenda driven editorialism masked as journalism for political or ratings gain. A lot of the news organizations today are in the latter category.

CNN for years has been slanted towards the Democrats, which isn't a big deal as so is Fox towards the Republican party. But when either of those networks starts making up stories and running them as actual news, they aren't news organizations any more, they are acting as large well funded Political Action Committees peeking and operating around the law. I think him calling CNN out for fake news, as PACs often do, is very accurate.

He’s deliberately undermining a news organization that’s said bad things about him. That happens in Russia. Not in the US. Until now.

[paolo59]

He’s deliberately undermining a news organization that’s said bad things about him. That happens in Russia. Not in the US. Until now.

You need to think back over the last 8 years.

[7Seconds]

You need to think back over the last 8 years.

Obama poked FOX News plenty, other Presidents have done the same, but he didn’t ever say “you’re fake news.” Implicitly censoring/humiliating them is a slippery slope. Poke fun. Ignore them. The President can even snub them in press conferences. But he can’t point them out and tell them they’re “fake.”

[Clinos]

He’s deliberately undermining a news organization that’s said bad things about him. That happens in Russia. Not in the US. Until now.

By not performing as a news organization of journalists they undermined themselves to the point that he could ignore them and get away with it.

Bush did the same with persistent questions or planted stories: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/19/us...-question.html

[wesleysh21]

He’s deliberately undermining a news organization that’s said bad things about him. That happens in Russia. Not in the US. Until now.

I would actually be upset...if this was back in the day when these were "news" organizations.

[Ikeman83]

Absolutely amazing. "You are fake news"

[keyboardworkout]

[7Seconds]

I would actually be upset...if this was back in the day when these were "news" organizations.

News organizations live on a continuum from “good” to “what the hell.”

Buzzfeed, Breitbart and their ilk definitely approach “what the hell.”

[wesleysh21]

Obama poked FOX News plenty, other Presidents have done the same, but he didn’t ever say “you’re fake news.” Implicitly censoring/humiliating them is a slippery slope. Poke fun. Ignore them. The President can even snub them in press conferences. But he can’t point them out and tell them they’re “fake.”

You "can't," but he just did. And that's what many people like about him. He's got the balls to say what's on his mind. He doesn't give some convoluted speech, then have attack dogs go out and say it for him.

[wesleysh21]

News organizations live on a continuum from “good” to “what the hell.”

Buzzfeed, Breitbart and their ilk definitely approach “what the hell.”

I don't know about buzzfeed, but Breitbart is constantly under attack.

[Brackneyc]

Obama poked FOX News plenty, other Presidents have done the same, but he didn’t ever say “you’re fake news.” Implicitly censoring/humiliating them is a slippery slope. Poke fun. Ignore them. The President can even snub them in press conferences. But he can’t point them out and tell them they’re “fake.”

He tried to snub the guy. The guy wouldn't stfu. He could just stop doing pressers altogether, and he might. There are a lot of people in that room who want to ask questions. The president has historically chosen those who get to speak. Not letting one guy openly try to embarrass him during a press conference does not equate to censorship. Those ass clowns write what they want anyway.

[7Seconds]

You "can't," but he just did. And that's what many people like about him. He's got the balls to say what's on his mind. He doesn't give some convoluted speech, then have attack dogs go out and say it for him.

Doesn't seem very ballsy to me. By not letting the reporter ask his question, he prevented the narrative he was promoting from being challenged, and saved himself from having to face a representative of the organisation he was attacking. It's the cowards way out.

[wolfLarson]

CNN has historically always leaned left, but I didn't think they were terrible. This last year though, they have gone completely off the rails to the point where they hardly qualify as a news organization. Sure, most have their biases, but now, CNN is a straight-up propaganda arm for the DNC ever since Trump entered the picture. They have been busted again and again for shady bullsh!t. I can't believe anybody trusts a thing they say.

This this this.

I hated fox up until around march 16. I thought it was just telling pple what they wanted to hear. Now i cant stand cnn and msnbc and dont even like entering in their web address because i dont want to be included in a click stat.

[7Seconds]

He tried to snub the guy. The guy wouldn't stfu. He could just stop doing pressers altogether, and he might. There are a lot of people in that room who want to ask questions. The president has historically chosen those who get to speak. Not letting one guy openly try to embarrass him during a press conference does not equate to censorship. Those ass clowns write what they want anyway.

I could see him stop doing pressers and sticking with his preferred method of spreading his message, Twitter. That allows him time to think about the rock he's going to throw, and throw it from behind the safety of the internet, where if he is called out he can just ignore it, or tweet about how the media is wrong.

[so-tex]

But he can’t point them out and tell them they’re “fake.”

Yes he can. It's a free country.
If they were actually reporting unbiased, factual information, I could see your point.

[Brackneyc]

I could see him stop doing pressers and sticking with his preferred method of spreading his message, Twitter. That allows him time to think about the rock he's going to throw, and throw it from behind the safety of the internet, where if he is called out he can just ignore it, or tweet about how the media is wrong.

You mean like everyone else in the entire world. He is a product of the people, and this includes people from both sides.

[Fishman15]

The free press is the strongest aspect of the free system; when a President begins to muzzle those parts of the press that he dislikes, we all lose.

Well then...I guess we all lost during the last 8 years because there was literally no objectional journalism being done during Obama's terms.

[7Seconds]

Well then...I guess we all lost during the last 8 years because there was literally no objectional journalism being done during Obama's terms.

Do you mean objective journalism? Usually “Unbiased” just means “agrees with my point of view.” The word “bias” is thrown around as though there would be some delivery of information that objectively could be considered “unbiased.” All recitation of fact, however faithful to events, is biased. Choosing which story to feature in a news show requires a determination of importance, which is a bias.

[Fishman15]

Do you mean objective journalism? Usually “Unbiased” just means “agrees with my point of view.” The word “bias” is thrown around as though there would be some delivery of information that objectively could be considered “unbiased.” All recitation of fact, however faithful to events, is biased. Choosing which story to feature in a news show requires a determination of importance, which is a bias.

lol, yes objective...

[Jtbny]

I keep hearing today that the big issues w/ Trump are what could be conflicts of interest w/ his business. I wonder what the conflicts would have been w/HC had she won and the countries that donated to her campaign and/or foundation. What am I missing here?

[Brackneyc]

I keep hearing today that the big issues w/ Trump are what could be conflicts of interest w/ his business. I wonder what the conflicts would have been w/HC had she won and the countries that donated to her campaign and/or foundation. What am I missing here?

They like her, they hate him. That is the primary filter.