1. Joe and Mika helped put this treasonous rapist in the White House not only by giving him free air time, but by putting on "analysts" who had no business being on any network to lie about Democrats. My sympathy for them is nonexistent.
2. If anyone else tried to tweet what that bigoted mass murderer tweets, Twitter would ban that person in less than the time it has taken me to type this sentence, and I type 80 words a minute.
They don’t like admitting that they did this in the earlier months of the election. It took them some time before they realized just how bad Trump was.
I don't understand why Jack Dorsey is immune from being hounded by the press until he provides an answer that isn't contained in a formal statement. I want to hear HIS answer. Does the press consider it off-color to go after him until he tells the truth about why he allows Donald Trump (and others) to say whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter how violent or libelous? I don't agree with everything that Mika Brzezinski says or that happens on that program, but she's absolutely correct here. If there is a formal policy that states Donald Trump is immune from consequences that others face, then I want to hear from Dorsey.
As an aside, Twitter wears me out. It's a festival of checkmarks all talking to each other while the rest of us float underneath like objects in a sewer - "...but some animals are more equal than others."
I was going to note in my piece that I cannot find a single detailed defense from any Twitter exec re: why they allow Trump to openly violate its policies
Trump is President. His tweets are, ipso facto, news. Whether he’s promoting the latest conspiracy theory or inventing more childish nicknames; it’s still the President of the United States doing so. Unhinged tweets show the President is unhinged. Violent tweets show his violent tendencies.
All of it is important.
On the other side; I commend to you Jeffrey Lewis’ novel, “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States”.
So I’m at the position that Trump’s tweets are important but not serious. Not a subject for banning.
Maybe the media - especially television - doesn’t go after Dorsey because they are also guilty of giving Trump a platform for his lies. Cable networks are still showing his press conferences live. Journalists should just watch the pressers then fact check his claims before reporting on what he said. They can post the whole press conferences on line for those who want to torture themselves.
What Trump is doing to Scarborough is despicable but I don’t remember either Scarborough or the media expressing outrage when the Clintons were not only accused of murdering their close friend Vince Foster, they spent millions of our tax dollars multiple investigations of that crackpot conspiracy theory. The last one was conducted for Ken Starr by Brett Kavanaugh. Scarborough was a Congressman at that time so he had a platform for speaking out. What goes around .......
I don't disagree about the decision of media outlets to broadcast Trump's comments, but I understand the dilemma. For better or worse, he's the President of the United States. His words have some level of importance in a news sense even though he adds no weightiness to those words. He's just a carnival barker harboring bitter resentments and always out for revenge. I'm giving the press the benefit of the doubt by saying they are somewhat stuck in a tough place. Should they dismiss Trump entirely as a liar, broadcast him because he's President, or use the presser to hammer him with questions and then dissect the entire spectacle afterwards. I would prefer #3 as it would actually add to the public discourse.
As for Scarborough, Clinton, et al, there's not a whole lot I can do about that now. I don't like what happened. I don't like how the right and the press tainted Hillary Clinton with it all the way through 2016. I just would like the press to put the hammer to people like Dorsey or Trump or whoever now.
The major networks refused to give Obama time for his immigration reform speech so they are perfectly capable of saying no. Their excuse was that it was too political which you definitely can say everything Trump says is. CNN has refused to air of all his press conferences live.
I don’t remember the media always covering presidential press conferences live but maybe Eric can answer that.
This President has abandoned all norms and is using his platform to foment violence and distrust in the democratic process in order to retain power. He has weaponized Twitter to spread disinformation and our inability to adapt to this has been a crucial failure. He is a toxic criminal - what he says is an irrelevant distraction meant to distract from his crimes.
Certainly Twitter should include Trump if they ban bad information on the coronavirus. But does Twitter completely ban every nut that writes drivel on it? Just banning Trump would be discriminatory, and actually give some credence to his constant complaints (on Twitter).
right, but this doesn’t address the fact Trump violates Twitter’s terms of service on daily basis w/ his libelous tweets. why rules for all Twitter users, seperate one for him?
Suspect it's the first rule of journalism, that Trump is news-worthy and the rest of us are not? If that's the rule, Twitter ought to clarify. PS: English teacher here ~ separate?
The model for Twtr is like a late night talk show. If a World Leader agrees to be on it, that's a huge "Get" - and if the person makes a total and complete fool of themselves, all the better for the ratings - and people will be talking about it for days. For years Twtr has been an "Enabler" for many pseudo-celebrities to display their abysmal ignorance by ignoring Clements' advice and opening their mouths to "...remove all doubt" about being fools. It was fun and entertaining, and we had some great laughs, but now all the little Bluebirds are coming home to roost and it's time for us to consider - as with the advent of Nuclear Weapons - exactly what Man hath wrought?
I certainly don’t want social media determining what can or cannot be posted unless it is illegal. Being offended is no reason to block a tweet. Even the sick lies I see all the time
Karen, your understanding of the first amendment appears to be limited to “something to do with free speech? The amendment protects US citizens from the government censoring their free speech. It doesn’t prevent a private company (Twitter) from adding a fact-check link to a government information source (Trump’s feed). If you’re still confused, you can always read the amendment? Or, as you suggest, maybe try the whole constitution.
This we know:
1. Joe and Mika helped put this treasonous rapist in the White House not only by giving him free air time, but by putting on "analysts" who had no business being on any network to lie about Democrats. My sympathy for them is nonexistent.
2. If anyone else tried to tweet what that bigoted mass murderer tweets, Twitter would ban that person in less than the time it has taken me to type this sentence, and I type 80 words a minute.
3. Jack Dorsey is gutless.
Amen.
They don’t like admitting that they did this in the earlier months of the election. It took them some time before they realized just how bad Trump was.
I don't understand why Jack Dorsey is immune from being hounded by the press until he provides an answer that isn't contained in a formal statement. I want to hear HIS answer. Does the press consider it off-color to go after him until he tells the truth about why he allows Donald Trump (and others) to say whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter how violent or libelous? I don't agree with everything that Mika Brzezinski says or that happens on that program, but she's absolutely correct here. If there is a formal policy that states Donald Trump is immune from consequences that others face, then I want to hear from Dorsey.
As an aside, Twitter wears me out. It's a festival of checkmarks all talking to each other while the rest of us float underneath like objects in a sewer - "...but some animals are more equal than others."
I was going to note in my piece that I cannot find a single detailed defense from any Twitter exec re: why they allow Trump to openly violate its policies
Mr. Boehlert,
Isn’t it obvious?
Trump is President. His tweets are, ipso facto, news. Whether he’s promoting the latest conspiracy theory or inventing more childish nicknames; it’s still the President of the United States doing so. Unhinged tweets show the President is unhinged. Violent tweets show his violent tendencies.
All of it is important.
On the other side; I commend to you Jeffrey Lewis’ novel, “The 2020 Commission Report on the North Korean Nuclear Attacks Against the United States”.
So I’m at the position that Trump’s tweets are important but not serious. Not a subject for banning.
I suspect you might feel different if he was smearing you personally as a murderer.
We are long past the point where his tweets are interesting as “news”.
I would not mind at all Trump publishing obviously absurd allegations that I have murdered someone.
He’d receive my libel or slander lawsuit soon enough.
Remember though, the limitations you demand on Trump may someday be applied to you.
What limitations am I demanding exactly?
Maybe the media - especially television - doesn’t go after Dorsey because they are also guilty of giving Trump a platform for his lies. Cable networks are still showing his press conferences live. Journalists should just watch the pressers then fact check his claims before reporting on what he said. They can post the whole press conferences on line for those who want to torture themselves.
What Trump is doing to Scarborough is despicable but I don’t remember either Scarborough or the media expressing outrage when the Clintons were not only accused of murdering their close friend Vince Foster, they spent millions of our tax dollars multiple investigations of that crackpot conspiracy theory. The last one was conducted for Ken Starr by Brett Kavanaugh. Scarborough was a Congressman at that time so he had a platform for speaking out. What goes around .......
I don't disagree about the decision of media outlets to broadcast Trump's comments, but I understand the dilemma. For better or worse, he's the President of the United States. His words have some level of importance in a news sense even though he adds no weightiness to those words. He's just a carnival barker harboring bitter resentments and always out for revenge. I'm giving the press the benefit of the doubt by saying they are somewhat stuck in a tough place. Should they dismiss Trump entirely as a liar, broadcast him because he's President, or use the presser to hammer him with questions and then dissect the entire spectacle afterwards. I would prefer #3 as it would actually add to the public discourse.
As for Scarborough, Clinton, et al, there's not a whole lot I can do about that now. I don't like what happened. I don't like how the right and the press tainted Hillary Clinton with it all the way through 2016. I just would like the press to put the hammer to people like Dorsey or Trump or whoever now.
Twitter is classic example of how bullying GOP imposes it’s will on media
The major networks refused to give Obama time for his immigration reform speech so they are perfectly capable of saying no. Their excuse was that it was too political which you definitely can say everything Trump says is. CNN has refused to air of all his press conferences live.
I don’t remember the media always covering presidential press conferences live but maybe Eric can answer that.
nope, daily WH press briefings were never covered live in entirety until Trump
Thanks for the answer.
This President has abandoned all norms and is using his platform to foment violence and distrust in the democratic process in order to retain power. He has weaponized Twitter to spread disinformation and our inability to adapt to this has been a crucial failure. He is a toxic criminal - what he says is an irrelevant distraction meant to distract from his crimes.
Certainly Twitter should include Trump if they ban bad information on the coronavirus. But does Twitter completely ban every nut that writes drivel on it? Just banning Trump would be discriminatory, and actually give some credence to his constant complaints (on Twitter).
right, but this doesn’t address the fact Trump violates Twitter’s terms of service on daily basis w/ his libelous tweets. why rules for all Twitter users, seperate one for him?
Suspect it's the first rule of journalism, that Trump is news-worthy and the rest of us are not? If that's the rule, Twitter ought to clarify. PS: English teacher here ~ separate?
agreed: if Twitters wants to state that has created different rules just for trump it ought to be clear abt that. (also, typo;)
Twitter bans people all the time. This is not news.
The model for Twtr is like a late night talk show. If a World Leader agrees to be on it, that's a huge "Get" - and if the person makes a total and complete fool of themselves, all the better for the ratings - and people will be talking about it for days. For years Twtr has been an "Enabler" for many pseudo-celebrities to display their abysmal ignorance by ignoring Clements' advice and opening their mouths to "...remove all doubt" about being fools. It was fun and entertaining, and we had some great laughs, but now all the little Bluebirds are coming home to roost and it's time for us to consider - as with the advent of Nuclear Weapons - exactly what Man hath wrought?
I like to think that it was this column that got Twitter to change its approach...!!
ha! Me too. Thanks Abby
I certainly don’t want social media determining what can or cannot be posted unless it is illegal. Being offended is no reason to block a tweet. Even the sick lies I see all the time
Social media companies all post user terms of service. so yes they “determine” what can get posted.
I don’t understand why the left thinks so little of the first amendment. Oh, and the whole constitution. It really is insane
Karen, your understanding of the first amendment appears to be limited to “something to do with free speech? The amendment protects US citizens from the government censoring their free speech. It doesn’t prevent a private company (Twitter) from adding a fact-check link to a government information source (Trump’s feed). If you’re still confused, you can always read the amendment? Or, as you suggest, maybe try the whole constitution.
Twitter is a private company. Banning Trump has nothing to do w/ First Amendment