Trump's Constant Whining About The NY Times Isn't Just Bad For The First Amendment
from the business-threats dept
We've already made it clear that we're quite concerned about how freedom of expression will fare under President Trump. He has a long history of threatening and/or suing those who cover him factually, but in a manner he dislikes. And while he hasn't (as far as I can tell) threatened to sue anyone since the election, he appears to have become somewhat obsessed with the NY Times. Since winning the election he's tweeted at least six times about the NY Times, insisting (incorrectly) that it was losing subscribers and (incorrectly) that it had "apologized" to readers for its Trump coverage. He also claimed (incorrectly) that it had said he hadn't spoken to foreign leaders -- when the actual article just said that his conversations with foreign leaders happened without State Department briefings (which is fairly stunning). Here's what the NY Times said:One week after Mr. Trump scored an upset victory that took him by surprise, his team was improvising the most basic traditions of assuming power. That included working without official State Department briefing materials in his first conversations with foreign leaders.But Trump claimed something entirely different:
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: attacks, business, corruption, donald trump, first amendment, free speech, threats
Companies: ny times
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That said, Hillary Clinton once sponsored an amendment to ban flag burning, so yeah, it's not like the leading lights in either party have a sterling record on the First Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The lights that lead .. ftfy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He has made a living while doing just that with his own buisnesses? Probably doesn't care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sigh
Stop being part of the problem. Lead by example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
Wow. Somebody has opinions about the opinions on an opinion blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
Suddenly "whiners" doesn't sound very fair, does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
That's false equivalence, but sure, if you want to have a robust discussion about whether or not it's reasonable for protesters to interfere with traffic, or debate the merits of the electoral college, those are good topics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
It's not like other people have been allowed to protest and stuff, sheesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Paid employees of George Soros, and the associated useful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
I'd go so far as to say that similar rhetoric is the reason we keep getting GWBs and Trumps infesting the white house. I'm fairly convinced that a lot of the reason we get people voting in that direction is just to spite all the people calling them stupid for voting for Trumps and Gee-Dubs. "What, you think that's stupid? I'll show YOU!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
The guy is POTUS in a twitter tister with the NYT. Dude's pretty much whining. I might be with you on the "Constant" part though because that might tend to imply to infinity and beyond. He should definitely change that, like, immediately, or I could, you know, I could freak the fuck out. It's not right. Not cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost -900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Can a conservative please chime in as to whether or not you guys actually trust politifact or not?
If it's about Trump getting a mostly false rating for his clever use of statistics, they're not to be trusted.
But this 900 seat link? It's right on the money.
Re-posting this same shit makes you guys look grossly inconsistent, if not downright hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Can we please stop calling everyone who disagrees with the far right factions "leftists?" This really annoys me because it's not true. You want left wing politics? Go and check out Jeremy Corbyn. That is left wing.
I don't often see progressives advocating state control of industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
....No, these are not "good points" about Trump by TD
The NY Times hammers Trump daily with misleading and often false reporting. The bias is overwhelming.
Trump has every right to openly challenge unfair news coverage, both as a private citizen and President.
U.S. Presidents complaining about news coverage of them has been normal practice for over two centuries.
The NY Times is not sacredly immune to criticism, as a private business. Hillary & Obama boldly pledged to destroy the U.S. coal industry.
Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. openly admitted the paper failed to fairly evaluate Trump’s candidacy... and pledged to rededicate the Times to honest journalism.
Trump is correct that the Times is failing financially -- 3rd Quarter 2016 earnings fell sharply in a constant downhill trend. Deceptive quibbles about the Times subscriber base cannot hide the sorry bottom line. (note that the subscriber total includes significant numbers of Times Crossword-Puzzle-only & Book-Review-only paid subscribers)
Overall, an obviously biased hatchet-job on Trump here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
See how ^ added jack shit to the conversation? Learn from that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[Citation needed]
This goes beyond simply complaining about the coverage. He's advocating for changing the law to restrict First Amendment rights. That's foolish coming from a private citizen and dangerous coming from a politician, no matter what political party.
Fair enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYTimes Hammers Trump
Example today: "As Trump Rises, So Do Some Hands Waving Confederate Battle Flags"
Above NYTimes news article smears Trump as a racist, by attempting to connect Trump with Confederate Flag displays by a few of his supporters.
Intentionally a bit subtle to put a small fig leaf over the smear, the NYTimes does paint a very clear theme from the very first sentence in that article:
"white supremacists" + "massacre of black churchgoers in Charleston" + "racist Confederate Flag" + "some Trump supporters with Confederate Flag" = "Trump is Racist"
The Times constantly publishes this type of subtle Trump-
hammering.
(P.S. @Thad -- start footnoting all your own assertions here... before using the old "citation needed" ploy)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NYTimes Hammers Trump
"As Trump Rises, So Do Some Hands Waving Confederate Battle Flags"
The Times constantly publishes this type of subtle Trump- hammering.
Those folks waving those flags are his followers. He could say they're wrong, or try to distance himself from them. But he doesn't. That's not the Times' fault.
Ironically, they're waving the flag of the side that lost. So at least we know it's going to be a funny 4 years watching the nation's finest come out of the woodwork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NYTimes Hammers Trump
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
The First amendment was created in an era n which news papers and information was much like Youtube is to social content today.
Today there are at most 20 mainstream news organizations: CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, FOX ABC (US), New York Times, Washing Post et.
It was never the intent of the founding fathers that only main stream news media should be able to express their (New York City) opinion while the rest of the country was shackled in their ability to express their opinion to the point that if it were not for social meada they could not do such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
The NYT deserves to be put out of business. Something better will take its place. It is called creative destruction, something the author here has talked about in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
When it is ill gotten gains - yes.
Martin Shkreli ring a bell?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
fyi ... many non-rich people own shares, the stock market is a very poor place to invest retirement savings. But do continue in your ignorance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
Right off the bat, before the story can even be read the OPINION of the author is expressed.
Yes. This is an opinion site. We state opinions.
What's the problem now?
Instead, Trump supporters (and Clinton non-supporters), will just dismiss this as another attack piece. They'll never read your content and their (legitimate) distrust of the mainstream media will grow.
Wait. It's my responsibility that some people live in such a closed bubble they refuse to read anything that doesn't already meet their preconceived notions? Fuck that. I'm not here to coddle people. I'm here to state my opinion.
It's inflammatory and therefore draws eyeballs to advertising.
That's not why we do it. We do it because that's what we've always done. We state opinions. Have been for almost 20 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
What may win over his non-fringe supporters (of which there are some) is substantive progress on real issues that have a real effect on people's lives.
My most favorable interpretation of this election is this: no one supported the person Trump is; they supported him because he was a Rorschach inkblot of indeterminate nothingness onto which they could project the things they wanted, and they were rebelling against a political system that no longer really represents the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Oh, no. Many of us knew EXACTLY what we were voting for, and determined that Trump, despite his many egregious flaws, was STILL THE LESSER EVIL.
Look on the bright side, the TPP is already dead and the man ain't even in office yet. He'll have to work pretty dang hard to screw us over harder than what he saved us from with that.
Add in the fact that he's already moderated some of his nuttier positions, and we all might end up pleasantly surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Fuck that!
Just thought you should know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
While correctly argued in your opinions of Trump's libel threats, you've also erred trying to mangle it to cover pretty much any 100%-First-Amendment-protected stated counterpoints to media reports ("attacking") or any (B.S.?) claims of negative business performance that politicians may make.
*Rather than appearing the proud patriot defending liberty you usually are with the fantastic TD coverage we all love and expect*, here you somehow manage to come off as a unfactual whiny hack who somehow managed to miss the grand irony of his own Trump critiques. We know this isn't your real quality level nor the website you want TD to be, and you are simply burned out from this year's politics like the rest of us are.
*I'm an anti-Trump voter who greatly welcomes his B.S. being called out*, but it's become impossible for me and the apparent majority of TD commenters to **not** notice some glaringly substandard politics articles this past year. Even a simple opinion piece like this one seems unnecessarily aborted with invalid logic and spurious evidence that seems more ruled by emotion than reason (perhaps in line with the TD swear word increase that other keen commenter observed — about which I otherwise honestly wouldn't "give a flying fuck").
Be as callous, snarky, angry, happy, or sad to others as you want to since I 100% agree with you that nobody's feelings/bubble should be protected as sacred or any coverage off-limits; however, please don't forget to check that each article has the usual TD diligence that we fans esteem and the polity sorely needs.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Mike, you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts, like the old saying goes. "Chilling effect" has a particular legal definition and argumentation, and cannot simply be argued however it may be convenient like you do in this article.
That's not true. Chilling effect does not have a special legal definition and argumentation. It's just a descriptive phrase. And it was used accurately and appropriately here.
While correctly argued in your opinions of Trump's libel threats, you've also erred trying to mangle it to cover pretty much any 100%-First-Amendment-protected stated counterpoints to media reports ("attacking") or any (B.S.?) claims of negative business performance that politicians may make.
What did I get wrong? You say that I'm wrong, but you don't say how. I never said that Trump was not allowed to say what he said, I pointed out why it was scary and dangerous that he was literally lying about publicly traded companies, something that could adversely impact shareholders. That's crazy for a President or President-elect to do -- and that's why I was concerned -- accurately -- about the chilling effects of Trump's statements.
You don't explain why they are wrong. You just disagree.
What facts did I get wrong?
Uh, it's a very small minority of commenters claiming that, and they're wrong. What we write about has remained perfectly consistent.
perhaps in line with the TD swear word increase
Similarly, there has been no swear word increase. So, nope.
Thank you and keep up the good work!
I will!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
"Chilling effect does not have a special legal definition and argumentation. It's just a descriptive phrase."
It does in fact, and specifically refers to the consequences of explicitly legal and governmental actions. It doesn't simply refer to any situation where there could be discouraging negative consequences for speaking your mind. Your mama warning you not to say impolite things lest you get a time out is not a "chilling effect." Fearing an expensive libel case or government tax investigation prompted in retaliation for protected speech you write on TD definitely is. To clarify with another example, because "due process" has a particular legal argumentation, it would be objectively invalid to argue that a mechanic misbilling you is a "due process" violation.
If I was unclear before, calling either simply spoken/written counterpoints or bad claims (lies?) about business performance "a chilling effect" is objectively invalid given the legal argumentation of the term. It is not simply that people may casually disagree with your ideals here.
As for the status of commenters, I have quickly colored red the commenters someway criticizing your coverage in this complete screenshot ( http://bit.ly/2fjfV84 ) — a clear majority of named accounts (13 criticizing to 8 neutral/favorable) though I disagree with much they say. It's impractical to do this for every article where this is observed, but by now you have to accept that at the very least it's not merely a "very small minority of commenters" who feel this way. Perception may not always be reality, but this feeling that a few substandard articles have sneaked there way onto the site this year cannot simply be dismissed as noise or coincidence; it's worth ruminating.
Again, I want to emphasize that TD's coverage is mostly great and I am very thankful for TD over the years, and your patriotism for liberty. Just like you, I only want TD to be the best it can be!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Historic low? Where ya been, under a rock?
You should research "Yellow Journalism".
You think Trump is undeserving of the criticisms? Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As President-elect he needs to remember that. Failure to do so will eventually result in disaster. Then he'll either be quiet or try to respond further by raising the ante. Either way it'll be too late. Mud will stick and it will be his name people will remember, even if they can't remember what was actually said and by whom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stop politics
[Citation needed]
You...don't even understand the irony of putting those two sentences back-to-back, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: stop politics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, maybe Peter Thiel has a problem with NYT and is simply funding a campaign to destroy it. Probably cheaper than his war on Gawker. Getting Trump to do it must appeal to Thiel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
President Obama attacked Fox News
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: President Obama attacked Fox News
Because President Obama never advocated for legislative action to allow people to sue Fox News for criticizing him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(And oh how I wish I was an alien who's just landed on earth because then I could leave... Anyone got some sleeping pills? That fifty year sleep / coma sounds awfully enticing)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This rag should have died years ago, kept on life support by Uncle Sam, hope to hear a eulogy for it soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are completely out of touch with any political
reality. Whether it is your opinion or not, perhaps
your field of expertise is anywhere but the MSM.
The entire industry (MOP) has been aiding and abetting
the Socshevik movements for decades.
There where at least 30 plus reporters meeting with
the Clinton Crime Organization, several months before
the election to get their talking points. The bias is
so bad, that even a child can discern it.
Mr Mike, this is not your finest hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No American deserves a politician. Their clothes and assets should be stripped from them on entry into a political house, and not returned until the term is over. No more, no less, than when they entered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NYTimes = "folded fertilizer"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's unfair to bulls. Mythbusters tested that one out and it turns out that actual bulls aren't the types to slam into shelves and break stuff randomly.
Go with perhaps a drunk in a china chop, or a kleptomaniac in a jewelry shop with the cameras turned off and the stock records destroyed, or a politician alone in a room where the sole records of the laws are held instead, that might be more accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An actual china shop, as referenced in the saying, is something more like the one displayed here:
http://www.havilandchina.net/
(Literally the first Google image result for "china shop" without quotes.)
Aisles barely wide enough for one human being to fit through without turning sideways (much less a full-grown bull), packed densely with merchandise, to the point where it's easy for a loose sleeve (or flicking tail?) to brush something hard enough to knock it off the shelf.
And once the bull does accidentally knock something down, it seems likely that the noise and possible shrapnel might startle the bull enough to instinctively try to move away without taking as much consideration for what may be in the way, thus resulting in more things being knocked over and broken - and the cycle potentially repeats.
Possibly the model of bull behavior I'm using is wrong, and it would still be OK; possibly the bull would just remain standing still, rather than trying to move around in spaces too small for it to fit.
Until the actual experiment is carried out with something more like an actual china shop, however, I remain unconvinced. The Mythbusters experiment was nice, but it was based on an invalid model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just stop it man...
Once again, Micheal pulls transgressions out of his asshole and slings them at his pet-peeve. Trump said they were "wrong". He didn't say" "Stop it or else!", or even just: "Stop it." YOU stop. Stop making things up.
Anybody every notice that some calls out Mike's Trump bashing that he doubles-down (or even triples-down) said bashing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The chilling of lawful speech
He is not 6 years old, but reputedly an adult. The presidency is not a kingship in which petty spites are to be indulged at whim.
The man has two months to grow up, but I don't think he will make it.
He may have a certain amount of immunity during his presidency, but should he live through that period it is unlikely he will spend a day out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump has 1st amendment rights too
Trump has 1st amendment rights, too. Becoming POTUS doesn't include a vow of silence.
As long as he's not using the power of government against the NYT (or threatening to do so), he's within his rights.
These things work both ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump has 1st amendment rights too
In a similar fashion to .. a juvenile is within their rights to (insert immature bullshit).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump has 1st amendment rights too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trump has 1st amendment rights too
If you support freedom, everyone has the right to be an irresponsible jerk.
"Freedom" to do only those things that other people think are responsible and admirable is hardly meaningful.
Freedom is all about being allowed to do things that other people don't approve of.
(sorry for the late reply)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump has always whined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]