05-11-2023, 08:11 PM
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
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