He did run. You saw how well he did. This is one reason he failed so badly. A free press functioning as it should is indeed very American and essential to our democracy. The problem is in the assumption that this is what we have, when we do not, and haven't for quite some time. If there is one thing I support Trump on, it is this. I, and many millions of others, have been very frustrated by the bias in the MSM for a long long time. We finally have someone who is trying to do something about it. Those who don't like Trump probably don't see this...but this is good for the country, for all the reasons they mention, but which aren't currently true.
Trump doesn't give a damn about the free press and banning Acosta is an act against it. I'll agree that Acosta often tries to make it about himself and loves the feedback he gets when goes after Trump. However, he did nothing deserving the removal of his credentials. The administration took those away because they didn't like the content of Acosta's questions. That is expressly against the first amendment and freedom of the Press.
I'm a bit confuse here. Are you saying the press isn't functioning freely? If so... I think you have stated two issues: 1- The press is not essential to our democracy (because) it isn't functioning freely (because) 2- the press has a bias (liberal bias from your other posting). Is this an accurate understanding?
If he actually wanted to do something about the state of the free press in US, he would've proposed implementing tax breaks for private equity to invest in it. Banning Acosta does nothing but fires up non-constructive complainers like yourself and makes POTUS giddy at being able to get back at a personal enemy. Free Press is for truth first and foremost - not for conservatives or liberals. Did you see Standard Weekly bashing Iowa's King recently for calling Mexicans dirt? Trump doesn't like free press because he doesn't like them uncovering his dirty laundry and fact checking his lies.. PS If you feel that press is biased, become a conservative leaning journalist - do something about it. Press is not a caste - anyone can become a journalist.
Wars are great for business? That's ridiculous. The only business that benefits from a civil war is the military industry on the winning side? And I'm not even sure they benefit. Every economic activity not directed at war effort is stopped, infrastructure is destroyed and people are killed. All of this is BAD for business. No sane person would willingly want his/her country to slowly titter towards a civil war! Everyone is put in mortal danger.. The only individuals that may have a good enough risk reward profile in civil war is the leadership and their cronies (if said leadership sets up a dictatorship afterwards.) See any countries that are doing great that recently had a civil war? I trust the press because I get to choose the news outlet or also peruse many different ones. The press has uncovered a lot of Trump's lies and Trump has not pointed out any significant issues vis-a-vis fake news. On the other hand I have a president that I didn't choose, whose body of work is marred in lies, immoralities, exaggerations, bankruptcies and switching of political parties. Yea, I think between those two, I will assume that free press has the higher repute and respectability than Trump. Thanks for asking.
Ladies and Gentleman, I present you the modern day liberal. Just throw the race card if you cannot win an argument based on fact, logic and reason!
The press functions freely. It isn't doing its job as an objective counter to the government. I think the 'MSM' has a liberal outlook that has been getting a pass for quite a while. They've become much more blatantly so since Trump got elected. This leads to a 'cry wolf' phenomenon...when they constantly cry wolf, you don't pay much attention, because the other 40 times there was no wolf. Good for business (to a degree, some ratings declines now), bad for informing the public. I do think a good press is essential to our democracy, but that we don't really have one currently. To B-Bobs point elsewhere, are there avenues (WSJ, CSM, etc) where this isn't the case...yes. But are those where most people get their 'news'? No. So, we are living in an age that epitomizes the saying "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed. If you do read the paper, you are misinformed". Is the press 'free' to function this way? Certainly. Is it 'right'? I don't think so. Particularly when the bias exhibited by most of it isn't noted. It's one thing to be very biased in your presentation, and have everyone know it. They therefore take what they hear with a grain of salt, knowing the bias. It is another to be very biased, but wrapped in a cloak of objectivity. I would at least like everyone to be aware that that cloak is an The Emporer has not clothes phenomenon. So, maybe to summarize...if the press IS essential to our democracy...we should all demand better from it.
Sorry, I don't think the role of the press is to somehow limit the amount of news they report. If trump does 100 things, the press should report 100 things. Sure, there should be some sense of priority. But all significant things have to be reported. After all, if you (referring to trump supporters) have been denying everything trump has done since the get go, then whether they report one thing or 100, you will ignore or argue against everything he does. And that is what has been happening. Trump supporters have complained about bias. Or about "fake." That wouldn't change if the press only reported "a few bad things" about trump. Me... I fear we are becoming accepting of the things trump is doing. I don't think we are taking it seriously enough. Its not being reported enough. Hopefully the next president(s) will be significantly different.
CNN should definitely sue. Acosta has his problems but his credentials were removed simply because Trump doesn't like the content of the questions. Excluding the press because of content is absolutely a violation of the first amendment.
