Trump: NBC, CNN should have ‘licenses or whatever’ pulled for not airing Iowa speech

[Vambram]

I don't want the government over regulating the media. It doesn't matter to me that NBC and MSNBC (aka MSDNC) chooses whether or not they show Trump's victory speeches. They justify not airing Trump's speech by saying that they don't want to broadcast "lies."
Considering that probably 95% of MSNBC viewers are liberals, that media company knows that their viewers probably don't want to listen to or watch any unedited speeches from Trump.

 

[A2SG]

I don't want the government over regulating the media.

Then you disagree with Trump, because he certainly seems to.

It doesn't matter to me that NBC and MSNBC (aka MSDNC) chooses whether or not they show Trump's victory speeches. They justify not airing Trump's speech by saying that they don't want to broadcast "lies."

When did they say that?

Considering that probably 95% of MSNBC viewers are liberals, that media company knows that their viewers probably don't want to listen to or watch any unedited speeches from Trump.

They're probably right on that. Trump fans can always switch to Fox News, they freely wave the Trump banner.

-- A2SG, they had to pay $787 million for the privilege....

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why is it so hard for some to say they disagree with Trump? He’s really got some of you well under his thumb.

 

[Tuur]

Considering that probably 95% of MSNBC viewers are liberals, that media company knows that their viewers probably don't want to listen to or watch any unedited speeches from Trump.

If so, bad idea. I despise communism, but have read The Communist Manifesto. You want to know what the other side actually thinks, not what you think they think. That said, I haven't been able to bring myself to read Mein Kampf.

 

[rjs330]

That’s not what Trump is saying, is it? He wants them off the air for not showing his speech.

Do you agree with that, that they should be taken off the air and have their press credentials removed?

I'm concerned about the media bias. If they are not a strictly neutral news source or information source then something should be done. I don't know if they should be shut down. That's a violation of freedom of speech. But I would have no problem with a law requiring these companies to expressly state they are a liberal or conservative or whatever broadcast station and will not be broadcast conservative information. In the night of Trump's speech they should have to broadcast a disclaimer stating they are a liberal organization and they will not be broadcasting the speech.

If there is a conservative broadcast organization they should do the same if they refuse to broadcast liberal speakers etc.

Let's stop hiding and be honest about what we are doing. Let's stop pretending and be out in the open.

 

[rjs330]

Probably because when he talks, nobody knows what’s going to come out of his mouth and for how long he will blather on… Not even him. So instead of giving him an unlimited forum to just word vomit during prime time, they decided to give us the highlights later.

Besides which, don’t the networks have some sort of equity in airtime rules they have to follow? I remember it coming up waaaay back when Ah-nold was running for CA Governor. His movies weren’t shown because it was viewed as giving airtime to a candidate during regular programming and if they give him X amount of time, they have to give all the candidates X amount of time.

Maybe I’m misremembering or it’s a state thing, but if Trump drones on for an hour saying nothing of consequence (as he does more than he doesn’t), networks don’t want to have to compensate by giving other candidates equal time to prattle on about nothing.

And neither does America, for that matter.

I think many Americans DO want to hear the candidates speak. I would have no problem with the networks dictating the amount of time a candidate has and then cutting them if for regular programming if the time runs out. Give people the opportunity to actually hear the candidates. Quit being biased.

Invite the candidates in for interviews and ask the exact same questions for each candidate regarding the issues. "What are your proposals for dealing with the immigration issues?" "What are your proposals for building a strong economy?" "What are your thoughts on the war in Palestine?" "What do you think the governments role is in the transgender debate regarding the medical transitioning of kids?" "Do you believe climate change is real?" "Why it why not?" "If you do what is your plan to deal with it?'

Let the candidates speak. Don't argue with them or turn it into a political debate between the interviewer and the candidate. We want to hear the candidates thought on the matter, not the interviewers. We can get that from the talking heads any day. I want to know how they feel and what they think about the issues of the time.

 

[rjs330]

I don't want the government over regulating the media. It doesn't matter to me that NBC and MSNBC (aka MSDNC) chooses whether or not they show Trump's victory speeches. They justify not airing Trump's speech by saying that they don't want to broadcast "lies."
Considering that probably 95% of MSNBC viewers are liberals, that media company knows that their viewers probably don't want to listen to or watch any unedited speeches from Trump.

If they said that they are lying themselves. They are not broadcasting Trump's speeches because they hate him and are a liberal leftist organization. They should be required to say that. That way it's out in the open and they can't pretend to be unbiased. It's obvious they are are not, but it's the pretense that drives me nuts. Admit you are liberal and don't want conservatives in power and you believe in the liberal agenda and are working and providing programming to support that. Maybe have a slogan or banner on the screen or something that says "we don't do conservative. We do liberal.".

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I think many Americans DO want to hear the candidates speak. I would have no problem with the networks dictating the amount of time a candidate has and then cutting them if for regular programming if the time runs out. Give people the opportunity to actually hear the candidates. Quit being biased.

They gave him that opportunity. They let him announce he won and jockey and jeer for a moment, then they cut to regular programming. He got just exactly what you’re saying he should have gotten and thus gave zero to complain about.

How is that bias? I’m smart enough to put together that if I want in-depth coverage of every exhalation of a particular candidate after a win on a state caucus or primary, I go to the appropriate channel or I stream it. I don’t go to a channel that isn’t carrying it and hem and haw it’s not on there. I didn’t go to CBS to watch the Dolphins game and then bang my fists and cry and complain they didn’t have it… I went to Peacock and watched it.

Seriously, it’s not that hard. It’s your TV. You control where it goes. It’s crazy next level entitlement to assume because you’re you and you want to see something, they’ll just carry it.

Invite the candidates in for interviews and ask the exact same questions for each candidate regarding the issues. "What are your proposals for dealing with the immigration issues?" "What are your proposals for building a strong economy?" "What are your thoughts on the war in Palestine?" "What do you think the governments role is in the transgender debate regarding the medical transitioning of kids?" "Do you believe climate change is real?" "Why it why not?" "If you do what is your plan to deal with it?'

That isn’t what a victory speech is for. That’s what debates are for. And they do that. So far Trump has declined to participate. In fact, they just cancelled one because nobody wanted to participate. That’s not a media problem, that’s a Trump problem.

Let the candidates speak. Don't argue with them or turn it into a political debate between the interviewer and the candidate. We want to hear the candidates thought on the matter, not the interviewers. We can get that from the talking heads any day. I want to know how they feel and what they think about the issues of the time.

Again… That’s what debates are for. And if you’re upset Trump doesn’t get heard during them, then complain to Trump.

 

[DaisyDay]

“NBC and CNN refused to air my victory speech. Think of it — because they are crooked. They’re dishonest, and frankly, they should have their licenses or whatever they have: Take it away.”

Trump: NBC, CNN should have ‘licenses or whatever’ pulled for not airing Iowa speech

Former President Trump says NBC and CNN should be taken off the air for their decision to not air in full the speech he gave in Iowa following his win in Monday’s caucuses. “We were talking about her show and how corrupt the press is, and last night it was amazing,” Trump said during separate…

www.yahoo.com

Those networks should be recognized as political arms of the Democrats.

Hey, can anyone say Cancel Culture?

For those who listened to Trump's speech, did he say anything he hasn't said before and won't say again tomorrow? Is it actual news? The speech by itself, not the news of his victory which all channels promptly announced.

 

[Tuur]

I'm concerned about the media bias. If they are not a strictly neutral news source or information source then something should be done.

Thomas Jefferson made several negative comments about newspapers, yet supported their freedom and existence. He went so far as to say if he had a choice of a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he'd prefer the latter. The problem is that once you get into the government regulating information, the issue immediately becomes what information sees the light of day and what is forbidden to print. Jefferson experienced this first hand under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where criticism of John Adams and his party was considered sedition, but criticism of him and his party got a free pass.

We don't want that. A free nation cannot remain free if information is controlled by its government.

A better solution would be to break up the information monopolies. In Jefferson's day, newspapers were local, and if one was a Federalist rag, another was a Democrat-Republican rag, and while they could show regional preferences, there were still a variety of voices. How many voices are really in media now? Not many.

 

[Valletta]

Hey, can anyone say Cancel Culture?

For those who listened to Trump's speech, did he say anything he hasn't said before and won't say again tomorrow?

CNN lied about Trump while he was speaking, saying he was anti-immigrant. So they once again are conning their audience. Trump congratulated Haley and DeSantis and said they did very well. Trump was particularly complementary of Ramaswamy.

Is it actual news? The speech by itself, not the news of his victory which all channels promptly announced.

These "news" networks typically cover the remarks by the winner, especially races for president or other high-ranking positions. They made an exception for Trump. This has been an ongoing theme, true liberals like Bill Maher or Alan Dershowitz, anti-Trumpers for sure, are horrified at how the left so often suppresses free speech, whether it be Jewish students or pro-Israel people or white Christians or conservative Catholics or moms at school board meetings. Trump is against illegal immigration, he is pro-legal immigration and not anti-immigration. Look at how they denied the Hunter Biden laptop or the border disaster before the busing forced them to cover it. This is more of the same.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That said, I haven't been able to bring myself to read Mein Kampf.

And I can't bring myself to watch any more extended segments of Donald Trump.

 

[rjs330]

They gave him that opportunity. They let him announce he won and jockey and jeer for a moment, then they cut to regular programming. He got just exactly what you’re saying he should have gotten and thus gave zero to complain about.

How is that bias? I’m smart enough to put together that if I want in-depth coverage of every exhalation of a particular candidate after a win on a state caucus or primary, I go to the appropriate channel or I stream it. I don’t go to a channel that isn’t carrying it and hem and haw it’s not on there. I didn’t go to CBS to watch the Dolphins game and then bang my fists and cry and complain they didn’t have it… I went to Peacock and watched it.

Seriously, it’s not that hard. It’s your TV. You control where it goes. It’s crazy next level entitlement to assume because you’re you and you want to see something, they’ll just carry it.

That isn’t what a victory speech is for. That’s what debates are for. And they do that. So far Trump has declined to participate. In fact, they just cancelled one because nobody wanted to participate. That’s not a media problem, that’s a Trump problem.

Again… That’s what debates are for. And if you’re upset Trump doesn’t get heard during them, then complain to Trump.

You've never watched a debate have you. The candidate gets like 30 seconds to say something. You get little to nothing from any of them because there isn't enough time.

No I want to hear real information. Sounds like you are happy with soundbites. I could care less what they have to say after the voting is over. I want to hear what they have to say before. The media doesn't want that.

No the media is totally biased. It's fine if they don't like Trump or hate Biden. But they need to admit it in front of God and everybody what they believe in and they are a biased organization.

 

[rjs330]

And I can't bring myself to watch any more extended segments of Donald Trump.

Then don't.

 

[rjs330]

Thomas Jefferson made several negative comments about newspapers, yet supported their freedom and existence. He went so far as to say if he had a choice of a government without newspapers or newspapers without government, he'd prefer the latter. The problem is that once you get into the government regulating information, the issue immediately becomes what information sees the light of day and what is forbidden to print. Jefferson experienced this first hand under the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, where criticism of John Adams and his party was considered sedition, but criticism of him and his party got a free pass.

We don't want that. A free nation cannot remain free if information is controlled by its government.

A better solution would be to break up the information monopolies. In Jefferson's day, newspapers were local, and if one was a Federalist rag, another was a Democrat-Republican rag, and while they could show regional preferences, there were still a variety of voices. How many voices are really in media now? Not many.

Just so you know, I don't agree with Trump. He's a blowhard and don't want him as president. But we can't go on pretending that the media is unbiased. Right now THEY control the information. And THEY primarily are in the pockets of the Democrats.

I think we need to just dispense with the smoke and mirrors. I would support a law requiring the media to proclaim what they are. Just say it, be honest. This is NBC and we are a liberally biased organization that supports the Democrat Party and the ideals of the left.

They can still have whatever they want on their network. No free speech is stopped.

 

[A2SG]

Just so you know, I don't agree with Trump. He's a blowhard and don't want him as president. But we can't go on pretending that the media is unbiased. Right now THEY control the information. And THEY primarily are in the pockets of the Democrats.

I think we need to just dispense with the smoke and mirrors. I would support a law requiring the media to proclaim what they are. Just say it, be honest. This is NBC and we are a liberally biased organization that supports the Democrat Party and the ideals of the left.

They can still have whatever they want on their network. No free speech is stopped.

I dunno, sounds problematic, to be honest.

Will the government be regulating these proclamations? Will the government now define what are "liberal" and what are "conservative" viewpoints? What's the basis for their definitions? What if someone agrees with 60% of the specific delineation of what the government considers the "liberal" agenda, but agrees with 40% of the "conservative" agenda? Will they have to be labeled as "liberal", or will the specific calculation of their stance be specified? Who would be doing the math?

If you prefer networks self-report their viewpoints, what happens if, say, Fox News claims they are "Fair and Balanced," will there be a regulatory body that decides if they actually are "fair" or "balanced"? What would the metric be to measure that?

Just off the top of my head, I see problems. Got any ideas for how the government will deal with them? Would the FCC be expanded so they'd be the regulatory body, or does congress need to create a new agency? Will there be extra funding to support the extra personnel needed to perform these additional duties?

-- A2SG, seems to me there might be objections from those small-government conservatives against this kind of overreach...unless the MAGA component has run them out of town already....

 

[Tropical Wilds]

You've never watched a debate have you. The candidate gets like 30 seconds to say something. You get little to nothing from any of them because there isn't enough time.

I’ve seen plenty, actually, and they’re given more than 30 seconds.

No I want to hear real information. Sounds like you are happy with soundbites. I could care less what they have to say after the voting is over. I want to hear what they have to say before. The media doesn't want that.

I absolutely promise you that I do more research into candidates than 99.9999% of people. When I want information on them, I go to their websites, I stream/watch their debates, attend or stream their stump speeches, look up their town hall interactions, or write/email their campaign where almost 100% of the time, I get a reply from a rep who answers my question. If they have been in office already, I pull their voting records, look up their speeches, read what their peers say about them, see what their district/residents have to say… If you want that level of information, it’s your job to seek it. It is not the news’s job to provide it to you. They report on all things, not a singular deep dive on every candidate running in an election. It would simply be impossible.

What you are doing is tantamount to complaining that car commercials don’t give you all the details on the car they’re advertising. The commercial conveys they have cars, it’s up to you to research if the car they have is the one that you want.

And for all you say the victory speeches don’t matter, the thing you’re complaining wasn’t aired was a victory pontification, not a stump speech.

No the media is totally biased. It's fine if they don't like Trump or hate Biden. But they need to admit it in front of God and everybody what they believe in and they are a biased organization.

You can’t say “the news has the responsibility to hand me all this information” and “the media is biased” in the same breath. They are conflicting ideals. If they are biased, requesting information means you’re receiving unsatisfactory information. You can’t say “I get bad information from the news” and “why don’t they give me more information?”

The function of the news is to give a broad overhead of all current events with maybe a deeper dive on one or two stories of particular interest. Anything more detailed, you seek out yourself. It’s not the news’s job to do your thinking for you.

Every time I hear the “media is biased” or “information is suppressed,” I think of my friend who fled Russia. He gets a huge chuckle out of it and says Americans literally have no clue what suppressed information and news is. To him, suppressed information would be “is Trump even running because there’s nothing about it in the media, online, and on social media.” Not seeing one segment of one thing one candidate did on prime time, but still having it widely and freely available online would not be suppressed information, lol.

 

[durangodawood]

.....
I think we need to just dispense with the smoke and mirrors. I would support a law requiring the media to proclaim what they are. Just say it, be honest. This is NBC and we are a liberally biased organization that supports the Democrat Party and the ideals of the left.

I might go for that if, along with left wing bias, the media also had to disclose its right wing lies.

I dont think either would survive a 1st amdmt test tho.

 

[rjs330]

I’ve seen plenty, actually, and they’re given more than 30 seconds.

It's an exaggeration to prove a point. You can't explain your position and the whys in the soundbite moments of the debates. Don't pretend they can.

absolutely promise you that I do more research into candidates than 99.9999% of people. When I want information on them, I go to their websites, I stream/watch their debates, attend or stream their stump speeches, look up their town hall interactions, or write/email their campaign where almost 100% of the time, I get a reply from a rep who answers my question. If they have been in office already, I pull their voting records, look up their speeches, read what their peers say about them, see what their district/residents have to say… If you want that level of information, it’s your job to seek it. It is not the news’s job to provide it to you. They report on all things, not a singular deep dive on every candidate running in an election. It would simply be impossible.

Good for you. 99% of people don't. They listen to what these be networks have to say and they control the information and you know it. The fact of the matter is you are happy with that because it helps your cause. You want the information tightly controlled and in favor of the Democrats. You want to pretend the media is open and unbiased.

Who's asking the media to do a deep dive. I've provided something already and it doesn't say anything about what you're talking about. Although I think it would be interesting if they did an expose on the candidates.

What you are doing is tantamount to complaining that car commercials don’t give you all the details on the car they’re advertising. The commercial conveys they have cars, it’s up to you to research if the car they have is the one that you want.

You think car commercials are in any way related to the importance of who going to be president or congressman? We already have those commercials from the candidates.

There is zero reasons not to have an honest expose and interview with the candidates. But the fact is these media sites won't do because it might actually help the candidate they don't want. They are biased and will not aud the opposition. That's the point. They are biased while pretending to be neutral, only putting out what they want the public to hear, tightly controlling information while at the same time pretending they are neutral.

You can’t say “the news has the responsibility to hand me all this information”

Of course I can. I just did. The media has the responsibility to give me all the information and be unbiased about it. And if they can't then they should admit what they are and what they are doing. Admit they are not giving you all the information because they support candidate X.

The function of the news is to give a broad overhead of all current events with maybe a deeper dive on one or two stories of particular interest. Anything more detailed, you seek out yourself. It’s not the news’s job to do your thinking for you.

They don't do that though. They only give you the information they want you to hear. That's the point. Give us ALL the information in an unbiased manner and we'll do our own thinking. But they don't want that. They will only provide what they want you to hear so you DON'T do you your own thinking. Cause if they were honest you might vote the wrong way.

Not seeing one segment of one thing one candidate did on prime time, but still having it widely and freely available online would not be suppressed information, lol.

You understand there are degrees of suppression right. I have a hard time believing you think everything has to be extreme in order to be true.

 

[rjs330]

I might go for that if, along with left wing bias, the media also had to disclose its right wing lies.

I dont think either would survive a 1st amdmt test tho.

No one has to disclose any lies. The left wing media lies through their teeth all the time. But my way they don't have do anything except admit and be open and honest about who and what they support and quit pretending they are neutral. Cause what happens is they pretend they are neutral people buy it and think they are. So just be honest and then you can say whatever you like. They do anyway, just be open about it.