Just saw a prime example of why media needs to be held accountable for all of the lies and propaganda they spew

I'm watching Fox and Friends while my kids get ready for school and they were doing the diner interviews. They had a young lady, prob early 20s, that said she was on the fence but is leaning Harris because she needs birth control because she stated she's ill and needs it or she would be in daily pain. And she thinks if Trump is elected he will take away the pill

Seriously

Vapid ignorance and sheepish willingness to go along with 'the narrative' is what the media seeks to sew. Covid was like crack cocaine to both our politicians and media (and many doctors), getting addicted to a sense of righteous power/wisdom.

ALL CAPS!

ZOMG!

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

I would have preferred if he would have not done this, because this falls in line with, not in my opinion, but it will be framed how Trump will govern, as the Dems have said he will, going after his enemies.

---

He has a duty to do just that.

---

MSM will have to talk about it in order to frame it in any way, which will draw attention to it to. There's not really a way to talk about it without exposing what CBS did with her answers to a large portion of likely Kamala voters, ie consumers of MSM.

Bluto said:

---

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

MelvinUdall said:

---

I would have preferred if he would have not done this, because this falls in line with, not in my opinion, but it will be framed how Trump will govern, as the Dems have said he will, going after his enemies.

---

---

---

Except 60 Minutes clearly violated all journalistic integrity and essentially lied or covered for the Harris campaign. They can't possibly worm they way out of this. The more that this is talked about the better. If this is provided as example A of what Trump will do to his "enemies", then perhaps they rightfully have it coming and most people will see it that way.

I think the timing of this was perfect. It will dominate another news cycle and bring attention to one of Trump's main campaign planks, battling corrupt legacy media that protects the deep state.

MelvinUdall said:

---

I would have preferred if he would have not done this, because this falls in line with, not in my opinion, but it will be framed how Trump will govern, as the Dems have said he will, going after his enemies.

---

He is not going after his enemies; he is defending himself from an attacker. Neither he, nor we, should just roll over and take it due to fear of losing some moral high ground.

Goodnight Irene said:

---

Just saw a prime example of why media needs to be held accountable for all of the lies and propaganda they spew

I'm watching Fox and Friends while my kids get ready for school and they were doing the diner interviews. They had a young lady, prob early 20s, that said she was on the fence but is leaning Harris because she needs birth control because she stated she's ill and needs it or she would be in daily pain. And she thinks if Trump is elected he will take away the pill

Seriously

---

And she just looked like a weird liberal. I'd bet she's a hypochondriac. The next woman essentially told her that's not happening and to wake tf up.

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

Deleted, double post.

Quote:

---

So Trump, a private individual, sues CBS in civil, and CBS raises a defense that the government isn't allowed to curb their free speech? Got it. Man, this will over turn so many civil cases. I guess we should buckle up!

---

It's a pretty routine and standard defense. Happens all the time in defamation cases involving public figures. No need to buckle up.

No civil cases will be overturned because of this.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

So Trump, a private individual, sues CBS in civil, and CBS raises a defense that the government isn't allowed to curb their free speech? Got it. Man, this will over turn so many civil cases. I guess we should buckle up!

---

It's a pretty routine and standard defense. Happens all the time and defamation cases involving public figures. No need to buckle up.

No civil cases will be overturned because of this.

---

I know. I'm saying it is a crap argument that will be easily countered and isn't really worth discussing beyond grandstanding. I would argue this is the equivalent of the old law school argument of using the first to defend yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater.

CBS just tried to prop up a political candidate they prefer. They got caught. They should pay the price. I would love to be the attorney to present this case.

Toptierag2018 said:

---

The Harris campaign explicitly said the first amendment shouldn't apply to "hate speech" or "misinformation".

Isn't CBS changing a Presidential candidates answer, in post-production, the definition of "misinformation"?

---

I'm still waiting for the the lawsuits/criminal prosecution each time the dems/msm call those on the right "fascists". That is hate speech by their very definition.

BluHorseShu said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

---

When I and millions of others watch an interview that Harris finally agrees to give, we're supposed to be smart enough to realize or suspect that CBS has massively edited her responses to show her in a much more favorable light? Please. This suit may go nowhere, but CBS definitely defrauded the public.

93MarineHorn said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

---

When I and millions of others watch an interview that Harris finally agrees to give, we're supposed to be smart enough to realize that CBS has massively edited her responses to show her in a much more favorable light? Please. This suit may go nowhere, but CBS definitely defrauded the public.

---

This. And this is why they can't hide behind the first. It's a ridiculous defense.

You can't say, "We're one of the biggest news organizations on the planet and we have a first amendment right to edit and slant our reporting to ensure whoever we want gets elected and should have no liability because of that amendment thing that we only mention when it benefits us!"

Smudge said:

---

DarkBrandon01 said:

---

Quote:

---

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

---

Bill of Rights, Amendment number 1

---

This isn't just about free speech. Dems manipulated the long standing equal time rule regarding networks time and content as they promote, or not, political candidates. The Obama administration got the fairness doctrine removed from the equal time rule in 2011, so now networks can legally make up whatever they want about a candidate (as you see daily) and don't have to portray truths in political interviews, documentaries, and the like. Just part of the democrats playbook.

Edit to add: the equal time rule and fairness doctrine were added in order to protect free speech. The rational, or a large part of it, was that the American people are entitled to truth and equal discovery regarding the election of those who would/could hold office with the power to amend constitutional rights.

---

The fairness doctrine and equal time rules were made when Americans had access to something like 4 major TV stations, and you had to walk up to your set and turn a knob in order to change the channel.

It was the right rule for the time. Today's technology is different.

The MSM is not quite dead, but it is working on fumes. If it continues to lie as bad as it does, and the government continues to try and censor any opposing views, it will continue to die.

The strength of the MSM is going to die with the Boomers, kind of like widespread racism pretty much died with the Golden Generation.

BluHorseShu said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

---

There is a difference between the FBI working with Twitter and Facebook to kill a damaging story that would have prevented the election of Biden, and a private citizen suing a private company for damaging their campaign by lying about how an opposing candidate answered a question in an interview.

Do you understand the difference here? One of them is absolutely a 1st amendment violation, and the other is a private citizen protecting his election campaign by asking the MSM to be honest about the ineptitude of the opposing candidate.

Where am I wrong?

In my opinion, what CBS did here is no different than using an AI generated image to fake a legitimate answer by Kamala. Both instances are lying to the American people, its just that AI is a technology boogyman that is feared by those that don't understand it.

BusterAg said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

---

There is a difference between the FBI working with Twitter and Facebook to kill a damaging story that would have prevented the election of Biden, and a private citizen suing a private company for damaging their campaign by lying about how an opposing candidate answered a question in an interview.

Do you understand the difference here? One of them is absolutely a 1st amendment violation, and the other is a private citizen protecting his election campaign by asking the MSM to be honest about the ineptitude of the opposing candidate.

Where am I wrong?

---

I'm to talking about the suit so much as a President making the FCC remove the license of media that don't coddle them.

93MarineHorn said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

I hope he wins. They will claim its standard practice to edit interviews but this was fabricating an answer to deceive the voting public. Election interference and essentially an in kind contribution to her campaign.

Had Trump sat down with them, they'd no doubt done the same thing to him only in the opposite direction.

The major networks in this country need a massive come uppance to force their political reporting back to the middle. The Norah O'Donnell segment on Trump's garbage truck moment was insanely biased.

---

We should regulate all media and content. Madhura does it and it's worked wonders. Just like any other business, let the American people decide who they trust and listen to. We don't want to claim out of one side of our mouths that we demand free speech bc of 1A and then discard the other part of 1A that protects freedom of the press.

I agree, almost all news media is biased and editorializes stories. But most people are smart enough to take any of that with a grain of salt. Its no different then getting your news from X, Truth Social Facebook, Tiktok etc.

---

When I and millions of others watch an interview that Harris finally agrees to give, we're supposed to be smart enough to realize or suspect that CBS has massively edited her responses to show her in a much more favorable light? Please. This suit may go nowhere, but CBS definitely defrauded the public.

---

Right or wrong though, how many interviews do you think various media outlets have editorialized to make the interviewee look better or worse? Sure they can try to sue them but being a political candidate isn't some special category. How many videos on social media sites have been altered to make a candidate look better or worse? If the situation was reversed, no one here would say a thing. You don't think Fox or other conservative outlets don't edit Trumps interviews to show him in the best light?
I'm not saying its good, but its not happening only on one side.

Well said, and thank you for expanding upon the point I was trying to make.

Media on both sides need to be put on notice by the courts siding with Trump and awarding him the full amount.