• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the president have a “bias monitor” to censor news organizations?

Should the president have a “bias monitor” to censor news organizations?

  • Total voters
    36

Absentglare

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
46,101
Reaction score
17,843
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Recently we have seen the president solicit a bribe from a major news organization and then have Steven Colbert fired for speaking out against it.

That was a kind of indirect bullying of the media coming from our wannabe dictator president. But now the president will have a “bias monitor” directly censoring the news. Do you support this?

Skydance to Eliminate DEI at Paramount, Appoint CBS News Ombudsman to Review 'Complaints of Bias'

The latest move comes as David Ellison looks to secure FCC regulatory approval of the $8 billion merger
www.thewrap.com
 


ONE of the reasons I support the publicly funded CBC.

Any attempt to mess with their funding becomes a news story....and the CBC is the largest news organization in North America. Governments wisely keep one eye on the CBC...some have tried to cut their funding and almost succeeded

Canadians love to hate the CBC almost as much as they loved to hate the Maple Leafs
 


What, you mean like a ... Fairness ... Doctrine?
 
No, unless the President happens to be a Fascist.
 
No president should be able to censor news organizations. Colbert isn't news it's late night entertainment
 
CLAX1911 said:
No president should be able to censor news organizations. Colbert isn't news it's late night entertainment
Click to expand...
Does that include picking and choosing who gets to be in the press pool based upon presidential preferences and grievances?

Just asking because the censoring expands well beyond your attempted defense
 
marduc said:
Does that include picking and choosing who gets to be in the press pool based upon presidential preferences and grievances?
Click to expand...
No it doesn't include that you get to pick who's in your press pool. Nobody has the right to an audience with the president.
marduc said:
Just asking because the censoring expands well beyond your attempted defense
Click to expand...
Making up for it it extends as far as the constitutional housing because you have the right to freedom speech freedom of the press you can say whatever you want you're just not entitled to a press conference with the president
 
Conservatives are laying a precedent for the eventual destruction of their own mediasphere.
 
The administration seems to be creating a Ministry of Information to go along with their Ministry of Fear.
 
Cameron said:
Conservatives are laying a precedent for the eventual destruction of their own mediasphere.
Click to expand...
The reporter who represented a publication trafficking in a salacious, unverified story personally attacking the President has to gasp, fly commercial. Oh the horror of the WH press corps elite having to rub shoulders with common folk. From the perspective of Orange Man Bad zealots inconvenience becomes censorship.

Naturally real censorship such as the Biden regime spiking the Hunter's laptop story or Obama's attempt to cut FNC out of the press pool is ignored.

History sort of repeats itself with White House media ban - Poynter

The Obama White House refused to let Fox News participate in a network pool rotation until other outlets came to Fox's defense.
www.poynter.org
 
cpwill said:
What, you mean like a ... Fairness ... Doctrine?
Click to expand...

Why not just cut the crap and go full on North Korea and have actual Presidential news stations and ban everything else?
Surely we can trust Trump will only tell the truth?
I'm sure Trump News 24 will be fantastic.
 
Peter said:
Why not just cut the crap and go full on North Korea and have actual Presidential news stations and ban everything else?
Surely we can trust Trump will only tell the truth?
I'm sure Trump News 24 will be fantastic.
Click to expand...
Why not expect news organizations to actually report the news instead of acting as mouthpieces for Orange Man Bad?
 
AZRWinger said:
Why not expect news organizations to actually report the news instead of acting as mouthpieces for Orange Man Bad?
Click to expand...
Those two things are not in opposition.
 
Typical right-wing distortions and false equivalencies. I did not approve of Obama's "attempt" to cut FNC out of an interview, and in any event he immediately relented. You, on the other hand, are in here letting your rank tribalism turn you against the fundamental American value that is freedom of the press.
 
Oh I agree there is no equivalence between making a reporter fly commercial and conditioning access to a public official on excluding a news source the President dislikes. Your likes or dislikes are irrelevant to Obama's attempt at censorship. He only reversed his decision when the other news organizations refused to play along.

Attacking what you call "rank tribalism" doesn't excuse ignoring the facts of Obama's attempted censorship and the suppression of the Hunter laptop story.
 

Lol the conspiracy theory premise of this poll is already thoroughly debunked.
 
How is he bullying media? He was never a dictator so you are bullying our President.
 

Obama tried but relented. Trump has actually done it multiple times, and it is ongoing. Will you condemn Trump as I have done Obama, or are you going to prove my last post about your rank tribalism correct?

Specific examples
  • Revocation of White House press credentials: During his first term, Trump's administration revoked the press pass of then-CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta after a contentious press conference, according to CNN.
  • Exclusion from press briefings: In February 2017, the White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer barred journalists from The New York Times and other news organizations from attending his daily briefing, which is an uncommon breach of relations between the White House and the press corps, says The New York Times.
  • Banning from pooled press events: In February 2025, during his second term, Trump banned Associated Press reporters from pooled press events in the Oval Office and on Air Force One because they continued to use the term "Gulf of Mexico" instead of his preferred term "Gulf of America". This decision is being challenged in court.
  • Restricting access at the Pentagon: In May 2025, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth implemented new restrictions on journalists covering the Pentagon, requiring them to be accompanied by an approved government escort in many areas, a significant departure from historical practice, according to NPR.
  • Refusal of interviews based on perceived bias: Trump has made public statements about his preferences for interviews with certain journalists and outlets, indicating a reluctance to engage with those he believes are biased against him or his policies.
 
Last edited:
Peter said:
Why not just cut the crap and go full on North Korea and have actual Presidential news stations and ban everything else?
Surely we can trust Trump will only tell the truth?
I'm sure Trump News 24 will be fantastic.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. We should definitely bring back the Fairness Doctrine and Publicly Funded Media because only the State can ever be trusted to tell us the truth.

/sarc
 
cpwill said:
Excellent point. We should definitely bring back the Fairness Doctrine and Publicly Funded Media because only the State can ever be trusted to tell us the truth.

/sarc
Click to expand...
It doesn't sound like the private sector can either, and with the actions of Skydance as it relates to CBS News, we're going to have arbitrary application of the fairness doctrine while some may avoid it altogether. I imagine Fox News and Newsmax will not be appointing ombudsmen to do the same at their organizations.
 

If only there was some kind of court system that could impose costs on outlets like FOX News for the worst of its abuses, eh?

In the meantime, the First Amendment doesn't exist for the speech we like - it exists for the speech we don't, and government has no business imposing its preferred narratives on media outlets, whether they do it more openly (as Trump does it) or behind the veil of calling it "Fairness", or by trying to distract with complaints about how "Media Is Controlled By The Rich".
 
You need to cut off Faux News they are fake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…