Who Trump came for first is an issue open to debate. Muslims would have a good claim. So do women. And Mexicans. And the LGBTI community. As well as those who tell the truth.
Now we know he is quite specifically targeting the media. He has banned many of them from a White House briefing. It wasn't because of lack of space. Nor was it because of urgency that some could not make it. No, they were banned because they were not on message.
That's an assault on press freedom.
But it's not going to end there. Apparently Trump is planning to ban the press quoting unattributed sources, which is the basis of much of the news and vital to the way the media holds governments to account.
In whatever order Trump came for many already now he is coming for the press. Any semblance of freedom is now at risk. In my worst moments I did not really think this would happen. And it is. And be sure, May will follow.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
What press freedom would that be?
The BBC is not accountable to the people in the United Kingdom who pay for it. We know this because no board member or trustee or director has ever been elected by the licence fee payer. It must be hurting them to be told they are the enemy not of the British people but of the American people.
I m sorry this is ridiculous. You think we can afford eloectiins for BBC directors?
Please get real
And realise it may not be perfect but it’s a lot better than you think
People hated Kuendberg, then she slaughtered Trump
Having an elected Board of Governors for the BBC seems like an attractive option at first glance, and yes, we could certainly afford it. But on second thoughts it’s not such a good idea. The people who are best at running in elections are political parties. We would end with an even more politicised BBC.
Breibart, meanwhile, will continue to peddle half truths and lies.
Presidential dictatorship, if this persists. I will be shocked if Republicans do not act against this behaviour, albeit behind the scenes, or will they leave him undo his presidency. If Trump persists that would be transformational.
Where is T_May’s front of camera posturing as Trump bans her Govt’s voice, the BBC. Where is her Churchillian essence or the special relationship?
What’s next? Actually I think he’s in his standard bullying phase, but that might morph to an authoritarian presidential office as he internalises the issues and experiences – who are ‘the enemies of the American People’. There’s a universe of choice to fill in a Trumpian darkness.
As I reported, in preTrumpian times, a colleague was fearful to travel to the US. He had followed Wikileaks and the Intercept.
This year I cancelled my subs to two American scientific societies, a small gesture, and I will likely not attend a major US meeting as I normally do.
Whatever Trump says, he is going to find it hard to stop the press doing anything. The First Amendment is pretty unambiguous, although it does ultimately rely on the Supreme Court striking down any law that attempts to abridge freedom of speech of freedom of the press.
What he can do – and it seems is doing – is deny access. But I am heartened that Associated Press and Time refused to participate in the restricted press briefing.
Is Trump making money from the weekly excursions to his Florida resort? Is everyone put up there for free?
Press solidarity is going to be key: it is good there are signs of it
If you watch Bannon’s speech/talk to CPAC as I’ve done, and then Trumps, the situation is actually far more frightening than even you imagine, Richard. See this report for example, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/27/steve-bannon-white-house-official-media-keep-mouth-shut-threat or it’s worth watching pretty much any one of Rachel Maddox’s shows from this past week on MSNBC (all available on YouTube).
That should have been Rachel Maddow (The Rachel Maddow Show, MSNBC)
Following on from my previous comment, this report from Maddow’s Friday show demonstrates one of the main reasons why Bannon and Trump and trying to suppress the media. The first report is about attempts to spike an intelligence reporty that demonstrates there’s no basis for the Trump ban on people from certain countries and efforts to instead produce a report that proves it’s value (as Bush did with Iraq after 9/11). The second is about attempts to ‘persuade’ the FBI to talk down the investigations in Russian contact with the Trump campaign.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
I am afraid Trump has a point and I am thankfull for the free press, as long as the free press is not churning out Givernment propaganda. CCN has added a small dose of balanced but then they come out with the Government line which is fake news and not true to the facts. In amongst the dross there is normally some truth.
I need to convince you with facts right Mr Murphy ?
CNN 23rd Feb. 2017 mention problems but swing to the Governments line – minor problems here:
” But police here challenge the idea that refugees are responsible for crime in low-income neighborhoods like Rinkeby.
“I can’t see any connection between refugees and this situation in these areas,” says Varg Gyllander, a press officer with the Stockholm police.”
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/europe/sweden-trump-refugees-integration/index.html
The Truth about Sweden on citizens media. Unpaid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPtNON6sHXw
While I accept that neither publication ( as with all ) should be swallowed hook line and sinker, certainly the Youtube convinces me more. It may have been better if they had invited a Government spokesperson however CNN did that already.
Thanks for an excellent non MSM blog Richard.
I candidly find your comments bizarre
The media ban is diversionary. Bannon was at CPAC (like the KKK but without hoods) being interviewed:
“there will be 102 (federal) judges to eventually pick”
his point being that one of the targets of Bannon is the judiciary & if a good bit of that has an ideologicaly profiles similar to that of Bannon & his new-nazis then the US really does have a problem.
“Defying Hitler” by Sebastian Haffner provides a good view of what happens when nazis get into power – & what Bannon is saying is very much from the “1933 play book”.
I think you are right
I don’t have the link but it was on the Independent web page a state, I think Arizona, is / has just passed a law allowing the arrest of anyone planning a demonstration- on the basis that the demonstration might become violent!
Free speech is passing and fascism has arrived in USA and I fear we are not very far behind now May has been so emboldened by the Copeland victory.
Our press may well be far from perfect- the distortions peddled by the Mail, and the Sun must be a large part of why anyone in Copeland voted Tory. If they didn’t like Labour they could at least have abstained!
I looked at the article oddly it did not quote the USA first amendement. One of the commenters did:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.”
Is a demonstration a “petition” – you would certainly need to organise a petition & you may wish en-mass to present it. So it does sound as if the republican nut jobs in Arizona have passed an illiegal law. This raises the question: how well do they know US law and thus is this a deliberate provocation? Do these senators take legal advice prior to passing such laws? – You would think so – otherwise you would look like idiots.
You are right to be angry about what Trump’s spokesman was up to in the white House. I don’t think Theresa May will follow. She doesn’t need to. She has a very large section of the national print media as a political ally along as she toes their line. After all Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch virtually selected her as PM.
Much more likely is another assault on the BBC if the Tories get back in. In the meantime the prospect of this keeps the BBC from straying too far from the agenda of these very same newspapers on too many occasions.
In other words Britain is already part of the way down the road of the political/ media elite you see in countries like Russia.
All the more important therefore not to lump together the BBC (for all its imperfections) and good papers like the Guardian with the Mail and Sun as mainstream media.
Agreed
8th November 2016 was a coup for president Bannon. I’m half expectng to hear an attempt to remove the two term limit for presidents and then it’s president for life.
Trump’s trajectory is very worrying but let us not forget that support amongst his own Republican party is sketchy and the more liberal element may cause him trouble.
Well – I hope so at least.
Personally I think that it is some of the excellent satire on his administration that is emerging in the USA that is really winding him up.
Keith is right about May though – there is no popular revolt against the Tories anywhere that I can see as the popular media supports the Tories far too much.
Mind you I heard that at Copeland there were only 2000 votes in it? Hardly concrete backing for the Tories.
But it still amazes me that there is almost this sort of economic self-flagellation by voters when they vote for this nastiest of modern British parties.
I live in Copeland. It is a predominantly post-industrial area. The centres of population Whitehaven, Egremont, Cleator Moor, Frizington and Millom all depended upon the extractive industries of iron ore mining or coal mining. The coal and iron ore supported significant ironworks. All of these have gone and successive governments have put nothing in its place except Sellafield.
The area is also bedevilled by appalling transport links to the rest of the country. The A595, in particular, is a national disgrace.
I voted Labour in the recent by-election but I have to ask myself what would Labour do if in power? On the evidence of 1997-2010, it would not be a lot for areas like Copeland. John McDonnell sings from the same neo-liberal hymn sheet as Philip Hammond but promises a kinder austerity! Until Labour can offer places like Copeland a positive vision for the future I expect the Tories to remain in power.
See my tweets this morning
And I agree with you re John McDonnell
Well John, what a revealing tale.
It seems that as we have de-industrialised, Labour has increasingly gone after the white collar asset rich voter instead. It says something quite loudly about the state of our politics.
This happened in Labour before Corbyn but sure enough he does not seem to have offered an alternative and McDonnell………………..oh dear.
It seems that we mirror something here from the States called ‘sacrifice zones’ that I first read about in a book by Chris Hedges called ‘Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt'(2012).
These zones were once vibrant, productive places that are allowed to decline and then essentially forgotten about whilst wealth and productivity is moved offshore or to large regional centres so that the problems left behind are out of site and out of mind.
This sort of thinking is deliberate. And it shows a level of capriciousness within our politicians that is sickening to be honest.
If equality is not at the heart of politics, then what is politics here for?
You have every right to question your choice.
But you and places like yours also present an opportunity to a party with a vision that includes these forgotten places – that works for everyone. It’s certainly not the Tories.
Uncanny prescience:
“In 1944, an article called “American Fascism” appeared in the New York Times, written by then vice president Henry Wallace. “A fascist,” wrote Wallace, “is one whose lust for money or power is combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his ends.” Wallace predicted that American fascism would only become “really dangerous” if a “purposeful coalition” arose between crony capitalists, “poisoners of public information” and “the KKK type of demagoguery”. Those defending the new administration insist it isn’t fascism, but Americanism. “
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/03/americanism-us-writers-imagine-fascist-future-fiction
Thank you
Even if horribly prescient
I think you’re missing the scary part of this. This Guardian article skims the surface of what the real issue is
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/26/robert-mercer-breitbart-war-on-media-steve-bannon-donald-trump-nigel-farage.
Mercer is the co-CEO of Renaissance Technologies, the most successful hedge fund in the world. The’ve use an army of science and math PhDs to develop statistical models to trade financial markets. With 70%+ compounded returns on their main fund over almost 30 years these guys really make Buffet look mediocre.
The issue is that Mercer is now using his wealth to fund research is areas of behavioural modelling and machine learning to be deployed as strategies for propaganda and mass influence.
When I was a kid I read Isaac Asimov’s Foundation novels. He invented a fictional science called pyschohistory which combines history, sociology, and mathematical statistics to make general predictions about the behavior of very large groups of people. I really wonder how fictional this really now is.
Andrew Dickie discussed this on the bog recently at length
You might want to edit your response to add in an extra “l”!
Do you have a link to his blog?