Memo to Donald Trump: Thomas Jefferson invented hating the media

[jerryskids 5,188]

Apparently Jefferson hated the media worse than Trump does, including attempts to censor them. WaPo article so not righty fake news:

 

But once Jefferson was in office, he tried to censor the critical press.

“In his second term, in response to serious criticism from the New England newspapers … he instructed the state attorney generals in New England to prosecute the newspaper editors for sedition in the same way he had opposed such behavior when it was done by the federal government,” said Ellis, the historian.

The move further alienated Jefferson from the journalists, as well as the clergy.

It was during his second term in 1806 that Jefferson wrote to U.S. Rep. Barnabas Bidwell of Massachusetts, “As for what is not true you will always find abundance in the newspapers.”

The next year, Jefferson made his opinion known in a letter to John Norvell, a politician, lawyer and journalist who had written to him about plans to start his own newspaper.

“To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, 'by restraining it to true facts and sound principles only,'" Jefferson said. “Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of it's benefits, than is done by it's abandoned prostitution to falsehood.

“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson's presidency ended in 1809 — but his frustrations with the press did not.

In 1814, he said, “I deplore with you the putrid state into which our newspapers have passed, and the malignity, the vulgarity, and mendacious spirit of those who write for them.”

A year later, he wrote to James Monroe: “A truth now and then projecting into the ocean of newspaper lies, serves like head-lands to correct our course. Indeed, my skepticism as to everything I see in a newspaper, makes me indifferent whether I ever see one.”

And then again the next year: “From forty years' experience of the wretched guess-work of the newspapers of what is not done in open daylight, and of their falsehood even as to that, I rarely think them worth reading, and almost never worth notice.”

Monticello historian Christa Dierksheide said Jefferson was lamenting the press he envisioned when he first fought for its freedoms.

“As an idealist, he continued to hope that the press would overcome its partisan leanings,” she told The Post. “But that never happened.”

...

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/17/trumps-war-with-the-media-isnt-new-thomas-jefferson-railed-about-newspaper-lies-too/?utm_term=.9e407e727a27

 

Good to know the media has been biased one way or the other since at least 1800.

 

Also apparently liberals think Jefferson was an idiot and wish that he had been impeached.

[MDC 5,890]

B-b-b-but Thomas Jefferson!

[wiffleball 4,635]

Was it Jefferson That was f****** outside of his race?Dude was the original Kardashian Mudshark.

[drobeski 3,061]

Cant be true, immediately after Trump's speech ccn said Jefferson defended the media.

Good try jerry, but cnn is all over yours and Trumps schit.

[mighty_thor 115]

Apparently Jefferson hated the media worse than Trump does, including attempts to censor them. WaPo article so not righty fake news:

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/02/17/trumps-war-with-the-media-isnt-new-thomas-jefferson-railed-about-newspaper-lies-too/?utm_term=.9e407e727a27

 

Good to know the media has been biased one way or the other since at least 1800.

 

Also apparently liberals think Jefferson was an idiot and wish that he had been impeached.

Comparing Trump to Jefferson. Lol! The Trump supporters are delusional enough to think those 2 are on the same level.

 

Did Jefferson spout lies that the Press pointed out too?

[Gepetto 982]

Was it Jefferson That was f****** outside of his race?Dude was the original Kardashian Mudshark.

 

That sounds racist, your lefty buddies wouldn't like that.

[mobb_deep 917]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

You would think everyone would agree to that.

[Cdub100 3,379]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Sure, the problem is the MSM has become a conglomerate of 6 global corporations. I question how critical those corporations are to the fabric of the nation and constitution.

[giraldi02 470]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

If you don't see the writing on the wall for state run media, you are supporting state run media.

 

Take a look at how a couple people on Fox News are now being received following criticisms of Trump. Immediately they are labeled as part of the MSM or fake news.

 

Rather than labeling dissenting viewpoints as fake, why not diversify the information you intake? Of course there's a reason. Just as Hillary supporters pre-election were too invested, you're seeing it from the right. They absolutely want no possible way to concede an argument that the other side could be on to something. It's a very dangerous precedent.

 

It's called fact checking. It's called just prudence. It's understanding what parts of an article are opinionated and what parts are providing you actual facts. People read one paragraph that has an opinionated excerpt they don't agree with and label it as fake. That's not the way it works.

[FeelingMN 273]

Finally, Jefferson recognized that a free press provided information that some governments would deliberately keep from the people. We must have a free press to help provide a check on governmental power. To Charles Yancey in 1816, Jefferson wrote:

if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be. the functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information. where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2017/02/18/thomas-jefferson-importance-free-press-nottheenemy/

[Sho Nuff 719]

If you don't see the writing on the wall for state run media, you are supporting state run media.

 

Take a look at how a couple people on Fox News are now being received following criticisms of Trump. Immediately they are labeled as part of the MSM or fake news.

 

Rather than labeling dissenting viewpoints as fake, why not diversify the information you intake? Of course there's a reason. Just as Hillary supporters pre-election were too invested, you're seeing it from the right. They absolutely want no possible way to concede an argument that the other side could be on to something. It's a very dangerous precedent.

 

It's called fact checking. It's called just prudence. It's understanding what parts of an article are opinionated and what parts are providing you actual facts. People read one paragraph that has an opinionated excerpt they don't agree with and label it as fake. That's not the way it works.

 

giraldi again dropping the knowledge.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

So Trump not calling on CNN at a televised press conference is censoring the media now? I saw him take a bunch of questions.

[giraldi02 470]

So Trump not calling on CNN at a televised press conference is censoring the media now? I saw him take a bunch of questions.

It's the same thing as Obama not recognizing Fox News early in his presidency.

 

It's dumb and wrong on both accounts tbh.

[Strike 3,956]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

Definition of censor

1. 1 : a person who supervises conduct and morals: such asa : an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter <Government censors deleted all references to the protest.>b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful

2. 2 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct <Cato the Censor accused Africanus and his senior officers of running an army riddled with moral laxity — Colleen McCullough>

3. 3 : a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

 

So, exactly what is Trump doing that fits any of the meanings above?

[Strike 3,956]

It's the same thing as Obama not recognizing Fox News early in his presidency.

 

It's dumb and wrong on both accounts tbh.

 

That may be true, but we can agree it's not censorship, can't we?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

It's the same thing as Obama not recognizing Fox News early in his presidency.

 

It's dumb and wrong on both accounts tbh.

Oh ok, so what we have here is you don't like it, not that it's heading towards state run media or its censorship. Lay off the hype.

[giraldi02 470]

Oh ok, so what we have here is you don't like it, not that it's heading towards state run media or its censorship. Lay off the hype.

Applying negative connotations towards any publication or syndication that dares speak critically against his administration REPEATEDLY isn't heading down a path of state run media?

 

Demanding that the press be nice to him and ask nice questions isn't what the presidency is about. That's not a free press. He and others in his administration have done that numerous times at press conferences. This isn't a popularity contest.

 

He SERVES the entire country. Not just those that support him. If he doesn't like criticism, find a different profession.

 

He repeatedly browbeats press members of companies he doesn't like. Over and over and over again. He makes snide remarks at people based on their employer.

 

Yeah chief, that's approaching state run media.

 

When he doesn't like a question, or perceives it to be a slight, he doesn't answer it and moves on. Case in point the Jewish reporter asking about the rise in anti-Semitism.

 

That's more than me not liking it. But again, it's already painfully evident that those that can't see it won't see it.

[giraldi02 470]

 

That may be true, but we can agree it's not censorship, can't we?

I never said it was.

[Strike 3,956]

I never said it was.

 

The post you responded to was:

 

So Trump not calling on CNN at a televised press conference is censoring the media now? I saw him take a bunch of questions.

 

The discussion was about whether Trump was censoring the media. Try to keep up.

[mobb_deep 917]

Applying negative connotations towards any publication or syndication that dares speak critically against his administration REPEATEDLY isn't heading down a path of state run media?

 

Demanding that the press be nice to him and ask nice questions isn't what the presidency is about. That's not a free press. He and others in his administration have done that numerous times at press conferences. This isn't a popularity contest.

 

He SERVES the entire country. Not just those that support him. If he doesn't like criticism, find a different profession.

 

He repeatedly browbeats press members of companies he doesn't like. Over and over and over again. He makes snide remarks at people based on their employer.

 

Yeah chief, that's approaching state run media.

 

When he doesn't like a question, or perceives it to be a slight, he doesn't answer it and moves on. Case in point the Jewish reporter asking about the rise in anti-Semitism.

 

That's more than me not liking it. But again, it's already painfully evident that those that can't see it won't see it.

And the majority of the country doesn't support him, so if anything he should serve them more... Just because some wacky system got him elected doesn't make him the fuhrer.

[giraldi02 470]

 

The post you responded to was:

 

 

The discussion was about whether Trump was censoring the media. Try to keep up.

The post I responded to defines my argument?

 

What did I say in my response?

 

There's what I feel about it.

 

Try to keep up

[giraldi02 470]

And the majority of the country doesn't support him, so if anything he should serve them more... Just because some wacky system got him elected doesn't make him the fuhrer.

I disagree vehemently with any office of government favoring one group more so than another.

 

A majority of people don't support him doesn't mean they have more rights than those that do.

 

You could go down a pretty dark path of favoring majorities...

[SUXBNME 1,324]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

Censoring the media is bad.

Calling them out when required is good.

 

Fair enough?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,618]

Applying negative connotations towards any publication or syndication that dares speak critically against his administration REPEATEDLY isn't heading down a path of state run media?

 

Demanding that the press be nice to him and ask nice questions isn't what the presidency is about. That's not a free press. He and others in his administration have done that numerous times at press conferences. This isn't a popularity contest.

 

He SERVES the entire country. Not just those that support him. If he doesn't like criticism, find a different profession.

 

He repeatedly browbeats press members of companies he doesn't like. Over and over and over again. He makes snide remarks at people based on their employer.

 

Yeah chief, that's approaching state run media.

 

When he doesn't like a question, or perceives it to be a slight, he doesn't answer it and moves on. Case in point the Jewish reporter asking about the rise in anti-Semitism.

 

That's more than me not liking it. But again, it's already painfully evident that those that can't see it won't see it.

No, not headed towards state run media. He's not a dictator and you're not oppressed. Neither is CNN. Just like Obama wasn't going to take away everyone's guns. Take off the tin foil hat

[SUXBNME 1,324]

And the majority of the country doesn't support him, so if anything he should serve them more... Just because some wacky system got him elected doesn't make him the fuhrer.

[giraldi02 470]

Censoring the media is bad.

Calling them out when required is good.

This logic is the right path. The implementation of this, as demonstrated by this administration, just like the EO ban, is what's wrong.

 

I'm plenty fine with calling the media out on their BS. Their hands are not clean in why there is such divisiveness in this country.

 

Calling them out just because they work somewhere though is not the proper way of doing that. When a reporter says he's from BBC and then the president makes a snide off the cuff remark about that company, it's wrong.

 

Calling them out for running an errant story (ie: the National Guard memo) is right.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Applying negative connotations towards any publication or syndication that dares speak critically against his administration REPEATEDLY isn't heading down a path of state run media?

 

Demanding that the press be nice to him and ask nice questions isn't what the presidency is about. That's not a free press. He and others in his administration have done that numerous times at press conferences. This isn't a popularity contest.

 

He SERVES the entire country. Not just those that support him. If he doesn't like criticism, find a different profession.

 

He repeatedly browbeats press members of companies he doesn't like. Over and over and over again. He makes snide remarks at people based on their employer.

 

Yeah chief, that's approaching state run media.

 

When he doesn't like a question, or perceives it to be a slight, he doesn't answer it and moves on. Case in point the Jewish reporter asking about the rise in anti-Semitism.

 

That's more than me not liking it. But again, it's already painfully evident that those that can't see it won't see it.

Have you read the survey he sent out? Then resent it after others got a hold (beyond just his supporters)of it and took the survey?

[giraldi02 470]

Have you read the survey he sent out? Then resent it after others got a hold (beyond just his supporters)of it and took the survey?

Yes. And I filled it out myself...

 

To the name of Alex Jones

[Sho Nuff 719]

Wallace took Reince to task pretty well in FTN

 

"Reince, here's the problem. I don't have any problem with you complaining about an individual story. We sometimes get it wrong, you guys sometimes get it wrong. I don't have any problem with you complaining about bias," Wallace said.

 

"But the president went a lot further than that. He said that the 'fake media,' not certain stories, the 'fake media,' are an enemy to the country. We don't have a state-run media in this country. That's what they have in dictatorships," Wallace continued.

 

Priebus argued that "other cable stations, not necessarily Fox," only briefly covered events like Trump's meetings with foreign leaders and announcement of the president's Supreme Court nominee, saying outlets instead focused on ties between Russia and the Trump campaign "all day long, on every chyron, every seven minutes."

 

"As soon as it was over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies, how no one gets along, how nothing's happening. Give me a break," Priebus said.

 

"You don't get to tell us what to do, Reince. You don't get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did. Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I've got to say, he never said we were an enemy of the people," Wallace replied.

 

After Priebus said he was "surprised" Wallace would forget "all the shots" that Obama took at Fox News, the anchor interjected.

 

"He took the shots, and we didn't like them, and frankly, we don't like this either. But he never went as far as President Trump has. And that's what's concerning. Because it seems like he crosses a line when he says that we're the enemy of the people," Wallace said.

[Djgb13 2,338]

Would everyone at least agree that censoring the media is bad? It's a critical part of the fabric of the nation and constitution. And that goes for media and journalists on both sides of the political spectrum.

When the media doesn't bother fact checking anything and are one biased are they really still the media? My thoughts are no therefore they should be censored until they can get their sh1t straight

[drobeski 3,061]

When the media doesn't bother fact checking anything and are one biased are they really still the media? My thoughts are no therefore they should be censored until they can get their sh1t straight

they haven't been censored they've been called out for their bullschit

[mobb_deep 917]

When the media doesn't bother fact checking anything and are one biased are they really still the media? My thoughts are no therefore they should be censored until they can get their sh1t straight

They never will, because that's not the era we're in any more. We are in an era where news happens and is reported rapidly. News (both fake and real) can spread in an instant, so outlets are always looking to be "the first" to report something. Anybody can operate a website and publish whatever information they want. This isn't your mom and dads generation, where you had your local nightly news, and then the weekly international piece.

[cyclone24 1,811]

They never will, because that's not the era we're in any more. We are in an era where news happens and is reported rapidly. News (both fake and real) can spread in an instant, so outlets are always looking to be "the first" to report something. Anybody can operate a website and publish whatever information they want. This isn't your mom and dads generation, where you had your local nightly news, and then the weekly international piece.

That certainly is a factor but to me it's not the main factor.

Journalists and news men used to be just that and just report the news. Now everything is colored with a certain brush that fits whatever medium Channel you choose.

Like I said in another thread I shouldn't know what the person telling me the news their party affiliation. Right now I feel like we have way too much of that on both sides. If I know your political affiliation you're no longer a journalist. You're an advocate.

[MDC 5,890]

Did Thomas Jefferson marry a call girl and enjoy golden showers?

[cyclone24 1,811]

Did Thomas Jefferson marry a call girl and enjoy golden showers?

Yes.

[MDC 5,890]

Yes.

Did he want to fvck his daughter too?

[cyclone24 1,811]

Did he want to fvck his daughter too?

Yes. Pretty sure he did.

[drobeski 3,061]

Did he want to fvck his daughter too?

didn't your dad fock you at pizza party or was that your uncle ?

[MDC 5,890]

Yes. Pretty sure he did.

Did he spank her ass and say "Who's your founding father?"