Posted on 05/20/2017 4:30:18 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
The media, political establishment, and bureaucratic deep state will stop at nothing to derail the Presiden
The media smells blood in the Potomac River. They sense the President they hate could be removed from office. Never mind that he won a landslide, winning electoral votes in 31 states. The media hate the President’s agenda and they hate that he defied their wishes and expectations by winning last November.
What has happened since his election is the equivalent of an attempted media coup d’état. According to the Media Research Center (MRC), 89% of the coverage of President Trump by the network news programs of CBS, NBC and ABC has been negative. According to the MRC’s Rich Noyes, “the elite liberal media do not think that Donald Trump is worthy of being president. They don’t like his policies. They don’t like his character.”
The Art of the Deal v. Rules for Radicals.
No, we the people must take over this war
Not Donald Trump
We must have the will and courage to turn off the TVs and stop the news and cable subscriptions and even stop the web site clicks that the corporate-state-elitist media uses to sell ads to feed itself
Trump has thrown himself on the barbed wire for us, every day
Its up to us
The fake press needs to see the anger of 62 million politically aware people
And so does the fake republican party
The Republicans could maintain power for two decades or more if they got behind our president. I don’t understand their logic.
I endorse a free press but the press needs to be fair and more importantly accurate. Use of BS anonymous sources. What if I called the NYT with some ridiculous story and they stop the presses and run with it.
Where is the responsibility and what is the check and balance on a free press gone irresponsible and truly out of control?
All I can think of is liable laws. Meaning they have to be sued. How else can they be brought back to being responsible.
Sounds good, except that I have done all the things you suggested for a long time.
I left the Republican Party in 2006, because they weren’t conservative enough.
I got rid of my TV set in 2013, mainly because the reception was messed up when the signal went digital, even with a converter box. Since then my wife and I have gotten all our entertainment and information off the Internet, so we don’t miss the idiot box.
As a rule, I avoid non-conservative news websites.
How can you boycott a product or service you didn’t use previously? You might as well ask me to boycott cigarettes, because I have never smoked, either.
When viewership drops, so does the price of ads that subsidizes the networks
Do,sponsors hear from you?
Have you sent a message if support to the White House?
I have no political representation because they are all,democrats
Any communication gets a canned patronizing response
I suppose I need to keep sending
But i have to disagree that Trump needs to “ declare war” on the media
Arent there some things we can do for ourselves and our country?
The media didn’t report that bammy and moochelle just went on “vacation” to Italy. Not a word about the cost, or that he visited with Renzi, the former prime minister who he was good buddies with.
Yes, Trump cannot do this alone. We must disrupt our lives to disrupt the system.
No cable tv which supports the Left cabal.
No Hollywood which supports the Left cabal.
No Name Brand products which supports the Left cabal.
Feel free to add to the list.
My post to the Daily Caller/Ryan Pickerell article:
The media needs to be taught a lesson. You can say boycott advertisers but which ones? There are too many.
A general strike against name brands, in general, might get their attention.
If everyone chose generic, store brand or local brands that don’t generally do tv advertising might get there attention. The same for restaurants, do not patronize the chains that advertise on tv. Eat at the local, family owned restaurants.
Do it until they feel the reduction in revenue.
There is a long history of economic boycotts that have helped to defeat enemies.
The American Revolution and the boycott of British products.
India under Ghandi boycotting British products.
MLK and the civil rights movement boycotting the bus company and others.
It works.
Obama and Michelle were right. Americans can not continue to live the lives they have been living. They need to fight with everything they have, including their wallets.
I endorse a free press but the press needs to be fair
Only more competition will make the press fair. The Left control the media and act as a cartel.
We need to make the conditions ripe for more competition by disrupting the system.
The source of revenue for the media is name brands.
Stay away from name brand products. Go generic, store brand, local brands that don’t do tv advertising. Same with restaurants. Stay away from the chains that tv advertise. Patronize the local, family owned restaurants.
Make them feel some pain. Make some openings for more competition in the media.
To disrupt the system, we have to disrupt our lives.
Warm up the helicopters.
Take your children out of public school.
Ha...it gets better
Trump has used Alyinsky and Cloward-Piven techniques against the dims
Dims have not read Art of the Deal.
Trump trumps...dims loose.
....The media smells blood in the Potomac River...
The only blood in the river is the blood the Democrats threw in it themselves as a ruse.
Close the Press Briefing Room.
Make the journalists (bastards) stand outside in the rain.
Hand-out written press releases.
Throw the New York Times for sale at Starbucks in the garbage.....ask CNN blaring at Denny’s to be turned off, go on the websites of leading MSM disinformation outlets and confront the lies being propagated as news....
... .it’s time we preserve our freedoms by taking the infowar to another level...
Trump needs really take the gloves off, now!
”Liberal” is a brand. It was a good brand, in America, back when socialists in America realized that - in America - “socialism” was a bad brand. The consequence was that during the 1920s socialists systematically took over that positive brand, “liberal,” by describing socialist policies as “liberal.” So by 1930 a Franklin Roosevelt could style his socialist policies as “liberalism” entirely unselfconsciously.Now obviously, neither you nor I would be able to invert, for an entire society, the meaning of a word the way the socialists did to “liberalism.” It is obvious that the socialists had a commanding position in “the media” (a term I denigrate) in order to pull that off. Why would that be? My answer to that question is that journalism is, self-consciously, negative. They know that “if it bleeds, it leads” sells newspapers and, for self-interested commercial reasons, they systematically report bad news about the reliability of the people upon whom society most depends.
In reality, “the people upon whom society most depends” are - the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. Yes, and the policeman, for security is a good just as much as bread is a good. Reporters claim to be objective, and yet they know that they are negative towards society. "Claiming that 'negativity is objectivity’" is my idea of a perfect definition of cynicism. In short, journalists are systematically cynical about society - and, concomitantly, project a naive attitude towards government. Reject, Dear Reader, any suggestion that “society” and “government” are the same thing. This is a great mistake:
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.The conceit that “government” and “society” are the same thing is naive towards the former and cynical towards the latter.Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)
I mentioned above my antipathy toward the term, “the media.” I beg you to observe, Dear Reader, that
Consequently we should not diffuse our criticism by attacking “the media,” we should be attacking journalism head-on. Here we run into that nasty First Amendment thing, and people get confused. The First Amendment is a statement of the most basic constituents of liberty. The First Amendment must be defended against our opponents but also, as occasion can arise, against our friends and against our own selves.
- Journalism is, as indicated above, inherently biased toward socialism. For commercial reasons. And,
- Journalism puts itself forward as “nonfiction,” and therefore has - at least notionally - an obligation toward truthfulness. Fiction - whether books, movies, or dramas - has no obligation toward truth which can even notionally be enforced.
How, then, can journalism be opposed? Journalism - defined as negativity towards society cloaked in a claim of objectivity and a patronizing attitude towards the people who make society work - can be philosophically opposed. The problem here goes back to the schools; most of us were taught that journalism was objective, and most of us still struggle with the problem that, as Adam Smith put it,
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)And there is another aspect of journalism which is a legitimate target of reproach: its homogeneity under the wire service model:People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of NationsUnder the wire service model, journalism functions as a single entity which deceptively is marketed through “fronts” such as The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC News, etc. The Associated Press long predates the 1890 passage of the (remarkably short) Sherman Anti-Trust Act and, though it has been found to be in violation of it in 1945, was reckoned to be “too big to fail” then. But that was then. The Associated Press was formed a few years after the demonstration of the Baltimore-Washington telegraph by Samuel Morse in 1844. to distribute news nationally to its member newspapers while conserving scarce, expensive telegraph bandwidth.But that was then, and this is now - a time when, I suppose, FreeRepublic.Com alone disposes more bandwidth than the Associated Press did in 1945. The mission of the AP is to conserve something - comm bandwidth - which was expensive and is now dirt cheap. The purpose of the First Amendment is to guarantee to the people the right to attend to whatever and whoever they choose to - and to ignore whoever/whatever else. “Press” is not a title of nobility - something expressly forbidden by the Constitution - and it is not a priesthood. “Press” is whoever chooses to spend money printing (or otherwise propagating) opinions and/or facts. “The press” is not limited to “The Associated Press.” The very term “Associated” betrays the lack of independence of members of the AP.
The Associated Press is an attack on independence of thought and expression. The FCC - with its restrictions which tend to limit who can broadcast - attacks independence of thought and expression. The FEC - with its restrictions on how much particular presses - such as political parties - can spend to broadcast or print its opinions is an attack on freedom of thought and expression. All of them thereby promote cynicism toward society and naïveté towards government. They are socialist monstrosities. As are government schools.
First thing - revoke any press credentials for The [Failing] New York Slimes and Washington Compost. Absolutely NO interviews to their reporters at ANY level of the Administration.
I prefer Rex Tillerson's approach - Fire 'em all to rid the government of any "Deep State" sympathizers!
Absolutely - it’s this country number one enemy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.