GOP and the Challenge to Free Speech

[Dill]

Nicole Wallace hosted a panel on MSNBC's Deadline Whitehouse today which broached the possibility that CNN could incur legal liability for platforming Trump's "hurricane of lies" last night, in a townhall format which allowed for little pushback.

E.g., conservative editor of the Bulwark, Charlie Sykes, argued that they knew what Trump would do/say, i.e., knew he would
spew lies at a rate impossible to fact check in real time, and CNN still gave him that platform, just as Fox did for Trump's Big Lie.

This was framed by the analogy to the Dominion and Smartmatic suits against Fox, and included a segment on Nina Jankowicz's suit as well. 
Remember she was the DHS employee who was going to head a Dept. supposed to identify and counter disinformation. She resigned under a torrent of death threats following Tucker Carlson segments depicting her as head of a 1984 style "Ministry of Truth" (with no sense of irony).
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/nina-jankowicz-fox-news-lawsuit-defamation-rcna83988
https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/conservative-media-lost-it-over-bidens-efforts-combat-rampant-disinformation
(Carroll is considering another defamation suit now too, though it's not clear if CNN would figure into that. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/nyregion/e-jean-carroll-trump-defamation.html)

The MSM was almost unanimous in condemning the townhall as a "trainwreck," "disaster," and disservice to the public. 
https://www.thedailybeast.com/cnn-failed-america-with-its-trainwreck-of-a-trump-town-hall
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/05/donald-trump-cnn-town-hall-kaitlan-collins
https://headtopics.com/us/cnn-ceo-chris-licht-should-resign-over-trump-trainwreck-opinion-39023771
https://slate.com/business/2023/05/trump-cnn-town-hall-kaitlan-collins-new-hampshire-disaster.html
https://dnyuz.com/2023/05/10/cnn-failed-america-with-its-train-wreck-of-a-trump-town-hall/   etc. etc. 
Tonight Joy Reid accused CNN of positioning themselves to be the new Fox (though Collins pushpack against Trump was hardly sympathetic).

But CNN's Chris Licht defended the choice:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/11/business/media/cnn-donald-trump-chris-licht.html
“We all know covering Donald Trump is messy and tricky, and it will continue to be messy and tricky, but it’s our job,” Mr. Licht said, according to a recording of the call obtained by The New York Times.
“I absolutely, unequivocally believe America was served very well by what we did last night,” Mr. Licht added. “People woke up, and they know what the stakes are in this election in a way that they didn’t the day before. And if someone was going to ask tough questions and have that messy conversation, it damn well should be on CNN.”...
“While we all may have been uncomfortable hearing people clapping, that was also an important part of the story,” Mr. Licht said on Thursday, “because the people in that audience represent a large swath of America. And the mistake the media made in the past is ignoring that those people exist. Just like you cannot ignore that President Trump exists.”

One of the biggest complaints was that the format "normalized" a seditious sex abuser and liar, as if he were a normal political candidate. (I agree with that complaint.)

I'm pretty sure the GOP pushback to this would align with Licht's defense, with the addition that not only is Trump a candidate, but he has a right to free speech. Claims that Trump attempted a coup or sexually abused Carroll or lied about the election are "opinion," and Trump's opinion, to which he has a right, is that he did none of those things. If the networks limit his presentation, they are violating his right to free speech and the right of voters to hear him "unvarnished," just because they disagree with his "opinion."  Hypocrisy if Dems are always complaining Trump is anti-democratic!

The pushback to their pushback would be, of course, that no one is free to defame or lie, where the consequences damage others.

And the pushback to that might be that the MSM and Dems are only "weaponizing the 1st Amendment."* I can see people working to frame Biden or some other Dem like Maxine Waters as just as mendacious and dangerous--"both sides do it."

So I'm wondering what others think about restricting media coverage of Trump. Is it justified, or "biased" and a restriction on legitimate free speech? Someone may object: "What is an obvious lie to you may be 'truth' to MAGA voters"! But it's not impossible to settle such matters if truth is what we really want; think of election fraud claims which could not meet the standards for litigation; standards for assessing candidate claims are not impossible to achieve and use. 

What might such restrictions look like? This seems entirely new territory for serious journalism. Is a debate with Biden, or even with other GOP candidates, out of the question? An interview with timed intervals for fact checking? If the MSM bows out, one might expect the RWM to jump in. Newsmax might hope to expand its more limited audience. But might even they seek to protect themselves from liability in some way? Fox has been burned once . . . . 

Anyway, it seems that after the Dominion suit and last night's townhall fiasco, we will surely see some sort of accommodation to the liability threat, later if not sooner.  

*"weaponization" may be ok in some situations. Consider efforts of GOP legislatures to police thought in universities in various states (Arizona, Idaho, Florida) by hiring or firing faculty and admitting students on ideological grounds. Obviously, some restrictions on free speech are ok too. Think of Tennessee's ban on public and Trans performances in Tennessee, performances which, one would think, fall under freedom of expression. https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160784530/tennessee-ban-public-drag-shows-transgender-health-care-youth

[Belsnickel]

So, giving Trump a platform to spew lies is different than what Fox News did. Fox endorsed the positions rather than just provided a platform or reported on the news. That was what got them into trouble. In this instance, CNN provided the platform and should not face any liability.

Now, it is so stupid for these people to go "we would be violating Trump's free speech if we didn't let him do his thing." Bullshit. Trump has plenty of ways to spew his nonsense and so long as he doesn't cross the lines he is free to do so without government interference. That is what free speech is about. No media organization is restricting his free speech if they do not give him a platform and they know this. The only reason they have him or any other controversial person on their networks is because it makes people tune in. It is about ratings and they should just be honest about that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Not defending Trump, but if you're going to cite Nicole Wallace people should probably be made aware of her history.

[Dill]

(05-11-2023, 08:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, it is so stupid for these people to go "we would be violating Trump's free speech if we didn't let him do his thing." Bullshit. Trump has plenty of ways to spew his nonsense and so long as he doesn't cross the lines he is free to do so without government interference. That is what free speech is about. No media organization is restricting his free speech if they do not give him a platform and they know this. The only reason they have him or any other controversial person on their networks is because it makes people tune in. It is about ratings and they should just be honest about that.

"We"? I don't think MSM are worried about violating his free speech. That is what his supporters will claim if MSM either deny Trump air time or seek to restrict it by controlling his mike or excluding live audiences, and the like. But given the way their commentators have been discussing Trump's performance, they are concerned either about possible liability or at the least about journalistic standards. E.g., it would be irresponsible to put someone like Alex Jones on the air to give "his side" of the Sandy Hook massacre, especially if he'd be expected to double down on the claim it was a false flag operation. 

But Trump is at this point a Jones-level conspiracist. Giving him an opportunity to further defame Carroll and to praise the Capitol insurrectionists before cheering crowds is, for most MSM journalists, crossing a line. And they don't want to do it for "ratings" or whatever; they think giving Trump a platform actually harms the country. E.G, Trump also urged the GOP to double down on the debt limit because the Dems will cave. 

So the argument I see coming will be about the "lines" which shouldn't be crossed, and who draws them as gatekeepers to the national media, and how. Since Facebook and Twitter booted Trump, and Biden tried to establish a DHS dept. for monitoring disinformation, and Fox fired Tucker, there has been an effort in the RW media to elevate the first Amendment to the status of the Second in RW ideology. 

The division in our national politics turns around the fact that "the lines" are now different for different sides. One side thinks it is ok for a politician to call a reporter "nasty" for asking tough questions, and will at least tolerate the continued defamation of sexual abuse victims on national tv, along with dangerous falsehoods about election fraud, at least from members of its own party. The other side thinks all that is NOT ok. 

The RWM and GOP will charge the MSM with "bias" and "weaponizing government" in partisan support of Biden if it restricts or refuses to give Trump air time.  I'm wondering what the political effect of that might be, given the candidate in question has been successful at campaigning on grievance. Certainly we'll see them work harder at false equivalence.

But I do think we will see that Trump will force some journalistic innovations in the coming year. We may not have a GOP Dem presidential debate. The GOP debates will not look like anything we have previously seen, as wherever Trump participates, the moderators will have to have additional power to cut mikes and otherwise intervene. This will be a restriction on Trump's speech, even though it won't be government censorship. An illustration between actual freedom of speech and such freedom as an abstract, legal right. (Civil rights advocates have understood this difference for decades. Now maybe Trump gets to as well.) 

[Dill]

(05-11-2023, 08:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, giving Trump a platform to spew lies is different than what Fox News did. Fox endorsed the positions rather than just provided a platform or reported on the news. That was what got them into trouble. In this instance, CNN provided the platform and should not face any liability.

Murdoch didn't "endorse" Trump's Big Lie, did he? Nor did the Big Three endorse the Giuliani/Powell claims about Dominion. As I understood it, liability was incurred because their commentators knew the Dominion lie was a lie and repeatedly gave a platform to people they knew were lying without explicitly agreeing with them. No push back amounts to de facto endorsement, I guess.  Had they believed what they were selling, defamation would have been difficult to establish .https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/media/dominion-fox-news-allegations/index.html

I agree CNN doesn't face legal liability in this case. Like Fox they allowed someone to push known lies on the air, but their reporter, Kaitlin Collins, disputed many (too many to handle, though). But the uproar which followed giving Trump all that airtime to continue to lie and defame has raised important questions about journalistic responsibility/duty to the public. CNN faced almost universal condemnation from the MSM, including some of their own reporters, for placing Trump in that Townhall format, as if he were merely another guy running for office, whose incitements are not especially dangerous.

So I am wondering how this incident will affect the press' presentation of Trump going forward.

I am also wondering about what is happening at CNN--are they really going after a share of the Fox viewership? They're putting ex-Foxie Kaitlin Collins in Don Lemon's old slot. 

[BengalYankee]

(05-13-2023, 03:23 PM)Dill Wrote: I am also wondering about what is happening at CNN--are they really going after a share of the Fox viewership? They're putting ex-Foxie Kaitlin Collins in Don Lemon's old slot. 

This is why this forum is horrible with false statements and I try to restrict commenting here.

But this was a whopper.

Kaitlin Collins never worked for Fox, so why lie?

[Dill]

(05-13-2023, 03:45 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Dill Wrote:I am also wondering about what is happening at CNN--are they really going after a share of the Fox viewership? in Don Lemon's old slot.

This is why this forum is horrible with false statements and I try to restrict commenting here.

But this was a whopper.

Kaitlin Collins never worked for Fox, so why lie?

A Tulsi Gabbard supporter is suddenly upset by "false statements" and "whoppers"; and this forum is "horrible" with them??

I heard someone on MSNBC yesterday say "when she was at Fox," then showed this clip of her on Fox and Friends. 
That's why I "lied." https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/13elpiv/cnns_kaitlan_collins_started_her_career_at_fox/

She also appeared at least once Tucker's show when he worked for Fox different Fox shows as a paid (I'm assuming) commentator presenting right wing views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GmCwH8sj3c

Your post prompted me to check her CV, where I found out she began her career at Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller--"the Conservative Answer to Huffington Post." Then went to CNN, so was never a reporter for Fox. So yes, WHOPPER for sure.  Can't be ex-Foxie if you only appeared a few
times on Fox. 

[BengalYankee]

(05-13-2023, 05:11 PM)Dill Wrote: A Tulsi Gabbard supporter is suddenly upset by "false statements" and "whoppers"; and this forum is "horrible" with them??

I heard someone on MSNBC yesterday say "when she was at Fox," then showed this clip of her on Fox and Friends. 
That's why I "lied." https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/comments/13elpiv/cnns_kaitlan_collins_started_her_career_at_fox/

She also appeared at least once Tucker's show when he worked for Fox different Fox shows as a paid (I'm assuming) commentator presenting right wing views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GmCwH8sj3c

Your post prompted me to check her CV, where I found out she began her career at Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller--"the Conservative Answer to Huffington Post." Then went to CNN, so was never a reporter for Fox. So yes, WHOPPER for sure.  Can't be ex-Foxie if you only appeared a few
times on Fox. 

Appearing on Fox makes you an ex-Foxie???

There have been a ton of liberals AND conservatives appearing on Fox, doesn't make them an ex-Foxie!!! Duh. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-13-2023, 05:59 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Appearing on Fox makes you an ex-Foxie???

There have been a ton of liberals AND conservatives appearing on Fox, doesn't make them an ex-Foxie!!! Duh. 

I'm forced to agree with your general point, simply appearing on Fox News does not make you a Fox employee.  If there is evidence she was a paid Fox contributor that would be different.  Such evidence may exist, I don't know, but it has yet to be presented here.  Glenn Greenwald has been on Tucker's show numerous times, I don't know any rational person who could describe him as a right winger.  He's anti-establishment, to be sure.  But most journalists were back when journalism was still questioning and challenging those in power instead of buttressing them.  

[Dill]

(05-13-2023, 05:59 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Appearing on Fox makes you an ex-Foxie???

There have been a ton of liberals AND conservatives appearing on Fox, doesn't make them an ex-Foxie!!! Duh. 

No. I assumed she had been a Fox reporter because I heard a commentator say something to the effect of "while she was at Fox," while
playing a clip of her on Fox and Friends.

That was a mistake, so I am not arguing here or above that those appearances made her a regular Fox employee.

Even if I were, that would be immaterial to the issue of MSM negotiation of journalistic standards and the 1st Amendment in the
wake of Trump's town hall, which is the subject of this thread. 

And there would be little ideological gain in pointing out that she worked for the Daily Caller instead. 

[GMDino]

(05-13-2023, 05:59 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Appearing on Fox makes you an ex-Foxie???

There have been a ton of liberals AND conservatives appearing on Fox, doesn't make them an ex-Foxie!!! Duh. 

Agreed...it was worse.

She appeared on FOX because she worked for the Daily Wire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaitlan_Collins

https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/cnns-kaitlan-collins-roasted-on-twitter-over-past-soros-attacks-anti-gay-tweets/

[Dill]

(05-14-2023, 01:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: Agreed...it was worse.
She appeared on FOX because she worked for the Daily Wire.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaitlan_Collins

https://nypost.com/2023/05/11/cnns-kaitlan-collins-roasted-on-twitter-over-past-soros-attacks-anti-gay-tweets/

Yeah, her right wing credentials were pretty clear back then. She was a Tucker Carlson protogee.

She has diverged from that somewhat, though, since her many dust ups with Trump over asking forceful questions at press briefings back in 2018.  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/10/trump-cnn-kaitlan-collins-00095114

She offered Trump some softball questions at the Town Hall, and allowed him to say that Dems accepted the killing of babies AFTER they were born without challenge. But she pushed back hard on his claim that he had "completed" the wall, and asked him at least three times if he would 
support a national abortion ban, making clear he would not answer that question. She let him get away with way too much though, including
his calling her a "nasty person" for challenging his lies--to the cheers of the crowd. 

So she's lost her MAGA credentials, but seems safely right of center, when she can be. That may be changing though, as CNN works to find
a new identity.