[justAFan]

How would you recommend Trump respond to the media when they publish things like this "dossier" back in January before the inauguration that alleged things like Trump traveling to Russia to rent an old hotel room Obama stayed in so he could hire Russian prostitutes to perform a "golden showers" show in front of him -- a "dossier" (makes it sound more legitimate right) which has since been debunked as a 4chan prank on the intelligence community:

[1] CNN http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intellig...

[2] BuzzFeed with source of "dossier" https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-t...

[3] 4chan talking about Rick Wilson + dossier back in november https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/95568919/#95571329

Now, NYT themselves did not run this story. But the vast majority of "main stream media" runs stories with a narrative - or as Trump himself put it - a "tone". They insist that Trump must be wrapped in controversy, and every article I come across from NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WaPo all insist on including a negative tone; or at the very least, emphasizing facts that make Trump seem negligent, stupid, arrogant or malevolent. In my opinion, it's them who have forfeited ethics. Tell me, how exactly is Trump doing something "new and very dangerous"? How should he respond to constant negativity? Even he himself is not asking for positive propaganda - he just wants neutral, honest media reporting. He has told CNN in a press conference that he'd be their greatest fan if they would report honestly.

[KZeillmann]

First of all, the dossier was put together by former MI6 agent Christopher Steele and wasn't just some 4chan prank.

How do you suggest the NYT, CNN, WaPo react to actions that seem to come from a place of incompetence or malevolence? When Trump rolls out an unconstitutional EO that seemed barely vetted by the Attorney General's office, how should the NYT paint that in such a way that Trump is depicted as competent?

When Trump and Spicer repeat falsehoods that anyone with a pair of eyes can refute (inauguration crowd size) or that has zero evidence behind it whatsoever (3-5 million illegal votes, Obama wiretapping Trump), how should the WaPo react to these lies?

When the president's campaign is under investigation by the FBI for potential collusion with a foreign government, and Rep. Schiff says there is 'more than circumstantial evidence', how should CNN report this?

It's laughable and a little bit sad that people think that Trump is more honest than the MSM.

[goldenkey]

US Code 1182 (f)

Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

[KZeillmann]

Sure, the president has the authority to impose restrictions on immigration, but not by imposing a religious test, which would violate the establishment clause.

[goldenkey]

I agree but there is no religious test. The countries on the list are from Obama's State Dept recommendations due to terror threats.

[specialist]

Lee Atwater taught us that if you're explaining, you're losing. Troll juijitsu is to provoke another screed.

Maybe ask what Trump stories NYT should be covering.

[etchalon]

1. The dossier wasn't some prank, and was proceeded by someone who, all things being equal, could be considered a somewhat "reliable" source. It's production and existence warranted investigation.

2. The dossier existed. It was floating around for months. Reputable organizations refused to publish the actual document, because it could not be verified sufficiently to warrant full coverage. CNN approached the potential story by talking around the document. NY Times just didn't publish it.

3. The Press is supposed to be relentlessly aggressive towards the administration, and towards power in general. Every administration has to deal with this, from one section of the media or another. Any time the press has abdicated that balance, bad things happen (see Iraq war).

4. An anonymous comment on 4chan doesn't "debunk" anything.

[komali2]

>NYT themselves didn't run this story

I'm not sure how it's relevant then, unless you're suggesting there's a conspiracy between CNN and NYT to destabilize Trump. Oh, you are. Carry on then.

>Every article... include a negative tone.

He is a bad president. Of course the media is negative about him.

>a dossier... which has since been debunked as a 4chan prank

Nope, wrong.

[tracker1]

> He is a bad president.

I'm not saying he isn't a bad choice for President... He's only been President for a couple of months. In the course of 4 years, that's a bit premature of a statement.

What seems to be happening with education, and the pitiful healthcare bill... not fond of a lot of what's happening. Not to mention, there is zero need to expand military spending. I'm all for cutting spending, but expanding one of the biggest areas of the budget when we already outspend the rest of the world combined is asinine.

[komali2]

You can tank your entire presidency on a single decision. Bush JR did, relatively early into his career as well.

When the sum total of your bad decisions are as great as Bush JR or Trump, there's little you can do to negate that in the next 3 years.

Furthermore, my statement is that he is a bad president, which he is. Personal attacks on Twitter, regular vacations at taxpayer expense, deregulating climate change, pushing to remove healthcare from Americans, bad appointments. These actions are happening now and have not been rectified. Present tense, he is a bad president.

If he undoes all these things and does a couple good things, I will say "he was a bad president, then he became a good president." Currently, though, bad president.

[dbmikus]

You can criticize the editorialization of news sources without falling to outright blanketing them as "fake news" sources.

Trump has repeatedly claimed facts as true without evidence or just based on a claim by a singular news source sans evidence. It is worrying that Trump has repeatedly done this and then sought to discredit critical news sources by labeling them "fake". I'd wish the president to be above hypocrisy in the realm of "fake news". You shouldn't spew falsehoods and then criticize others for doing the same. Both sides are guilty of this, but I believe the president has a higher burden of responsibility than a newspaper or TV program.

I also believe that Trump has been guilty of generating BS moreso than the "legitimate liberal-leaning" news, but that's just me editorializing, so please leave it out of my argument :)

[lordCarbonFiber]

/pol/ thread != debunking. You should stop spreading propaganda and consider maybe not hitching your horse to a pathological liar.

[rhizome]

emphasizing facts that make Trump seem negligent, stupid, arrogant or malevolent

An absolutely perfect role of journalism, because he is.

[specialist]

Trump could turn state's witness, rat out all his friends, before he get indicted.

Then he could sell his story for a big fat advance.

Personally, I hope Trump chooses to fight. Pass the popcorn.