Replies

I disagree with this tack, absent part of a strategy outlined below (this has been percolating for quite some time):

President Trump should initiate a national discussion on what qualifies a definition for ‘news’ when it comes to ‘national media’ (so goes the current urban slang, among others). As it stands right now, I grudgingly concede that the average American cannot define what qualifies as ‘news’ without their own inherent biases, thereby rationalizing their daily intake of gaslighting propaganda under the current “MSM” paradigm.

It’s shameful, but a new Trump administration with favorable Congress could possibly help preserve the Republic by redefining what is ‘news’ vs. ‘media’ in this technology era (which is a far cry from the ‘free press’ of the Founder’s era).

I assert this in the wake of media collusion with dems to facilitate both Russian Collusion and 4 years of lawfare, plus foreign influence and acquisition of national media (radio stations, etc.).

I truly believe that there should be at least 6 different categories of “news reporting” at the national level - all codified to be US-owned - as qualified annually by a Congressional panel (ahem...yeah, I know. But if anyone has a better suggestion...):
1. National broadcast news reporting credentials (”Broadcast PRESS”)
2. National print news reporting credentials (”Printed PRESS”)
3. National Streaming news credentials (”Online PRESS”)
4. National Opinion media, broadcast, print or otherwise streaming/online (”Pundit MEDIA”)
5. Citizen Journalist, typically streaming online (”Pundit MEDIA”)
6. Citizen Journalist, typically streaming online (”Pundit PRESS”)

To clarify, MEDIA is defined as ‘opinion reporting’ and PRESS is old-fashioned ‘news reporting.’

“Pundit PRESS” is an elevation of citizen journalism by his/her peers to qualified news reporting. There is a wide chasm of separation between mere ‘media’ and ‘press’ and we would do well to define the differences.

By my cited qualifications, ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC - at a minimum - would qualify as “Pundit MEDIA.” Fox, too, under the Murdoch spawn.

Admittedly, some Conservative streaming sites would as well, until such a time that they are irrelevant. After all, they only arose as a result of bias in that which we slur as ‘MSM.’

MEDIA & PRESS credentials all are granted the same access under a new paradigm, but by FCC rules would have to qualify onscreen of broadcast/online (perpetually, as PRESS or MEDIA), face of print or onscreen of online streaming (perpetually, as PRESS or MEDIA) their status to give the public clear & concise labels for their information sourcing.

That includes the preponderance of facts pursuant to reporting of non-affiliated facts & truth, versus the promotion of an agenda at the behest of bias (opinion). Foreign owned/based media would have to qualify similarly as “FOREIGN” in their streaming, prints & broadcasts. It is shameful that some Americans believe al jazeera to be domestic source of ‘news.’

Technology, globalism and outside influence (i.e., $$) have corrupted the >240-year-old definition of ‘free press’ and we would do well deliver clarification to preserve both the Constitution and, by consequence, the Republic.

Such ‘regulation’ - admittedly an affront to some on the right - does not run afoul of “freedom of the press.” Far from it. They are merely qualifications in promotion, not restrictions. In fact, it elevates the right of the people above the perceived right of a biased media to deceive said people (i.e., special interests heavy with $$, many now in this case foreign enemies who seek to sow discord from within). Whether this requires a simple act of Congress (law) or a Constitutional Amendment is to be decided by others.

IMHO. - rant over