northshorebamaman

quote:

---

So you were hiding out upvoting all of Northshore's posts?

You two are two of the biggest bitches on this board.

---

quote:

---

The same thing he's always done.

The NYT's gave themselves awards for reporting on the Russiagate hoax!

They smeared his family. Report 95% negative on him.

Are you really trying to come in this thread and tell us the NYT's is a bastion of journalism after the last 12 years?

It's insulting to people's intelligence

---

So... he is done?

And the fact that you actually think that’s what I’m saying is your problem.

Pointing out that Trump targeting newspapers is the wrong response does not imply the NYT is a “bastion of journalism.” You’re collapsing criticism of a response into a defense of the target.

That false either/or is what actually insults people’s intelligence. You can think the NYT has been biased or dishonest for years and still reject the idea that the government gets to decide which press outlets must be “dealt with.”

quote:

---

And he has already addressed and took measures about the taxpayer monies going to the media. His DOGE team took care of that months ago.

.

---

Then his job on the matter is done.

quote:

---

Again. This is what you said.

quote:
You keep pretending I argued that a free market can fix government corruption


You did when you said this:

quote:
If a newspaper is corrupt, the answer is to break its credibility through exposure and competition.

I then asked you how the market will break the credibility when it's propped up by the government. And I asked you how that could happen.

You still haven't said how.

---

Here is your how for the fourth or fifth time: if a newspaper is corrupt, you challenge its credibility through exposure and competition. If government money is corrupting the press, you expose and stop the government action doing the corrupting.

Notice how you only quoted half of that? Doesn't look very "good faith."


BTW, I typed a few thousand other words that you not only failed to quote but have failed to respond to. At this point I can only conclude it's because you lack the ability to do so.

If you’re just going to repeat yourself and recycle the same disingenuous question, forgive me for just copy-pasting my prior replies. It may be entertaining for you, but dismissing the same claim over and over while you ignore the answers is getting repetitive on this end.

If you ever feel equipped to move past that and make an actual argument, I’m happy to engage. :cheers:

Answer


That is your premise, not mine, and you keep inserting it because without putting words in my mouth you don’t have an argument.

My position has been consistent from the start: if a newspaper is corrupt, you challenge its credibility through exposure and competition. If government money is corrupting the press, you expose and stop the government action doing the corrupting. Those are distinct claims with distinct remedies.

You keep pretending I argued that a free market can fix government corruption, which I did not say. I argued that free enterprise governs newspapers, while government is responsible for policing its own spending. Conflating those domains is the only way you can claim I’m being inconsistent.

Agreed :cheers:

quote:

---

So, my question is still "how do you expect to break the credibility of a newspaper or let it fail on its own for bad reporting; if it's being propped up by the government?

---

Do you think putting it in a quote box makes it my argument? :lol:


Again. My actual argument. Not what you wished it was:

Newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition, while government corruption is addressed by exposing and stopping the government actors doing the corrupting.

which directly answers your question:

quote:

---

"how do you expect to break the credibility of a newspaper or let it fail on its own for bad reporting; if it's being propped up by the government?

---

You keep demanding an answer to a premise I never accepted. I never argued that “the entire system is corrupt,” and you keep inserting that claim because without it you can’t make me inconsistent.

My position has been the same throughout: newspapers rise or fall through exposure and competition, while government corruption is addressed by exposing and stopping the government actors doing the corrupting.

Treating necessary distinctions as “tangents” because you don't understand them doesn’t rescue your argument, it just avoids the fact that you’re asking me to justify punishing speech for a problem you claim originates with the state.

Until you explain why Trump targeted newspapers instead of the government officials you say were responsible, you’re not engaging my argument at all.

quote:

---

There is no IF to it. They are and the DOGE investigations revealed CNN and MSNBC received federal tax funds.

Trump knows this and has already and has taken steps to remedy it.

And targeting a biased media agency accepting the funds would be the same as targeting a climate scientist in a scientific journal with bias towards his funding.

Doesn't matter at this point if both parties are corrupt.

---

Then stop speaking in generalities and be specific.

Saying “DOGE investigations revealed CNN and MSNBC received federal tax funds” is meaningless without clarifying what funds, for what purpose, under what authority, and whether they were discretionary subsidies or standard contracts. Those distinctions matter, and you skipped them because you either don't know (my theory) or they collapse your argument if examined.

Your analogy to a climate scientist fails for the same reason. A scientist publishing biased research does not get labeled a “national security threat” or told they must be “dealt with.” Their funding gets scrutinized, conflicts are disclosed, grants get pulled, and their work is challenged. The remedy targets the funding and the process, not speech itself. That's exactly what I'm arguing for.

Which brings us back to my point: If Trump already knows the government is corrupting the press and has taken steps to remedy it, why is he publicly branding newspapers as enemies instead of naming agencies, budgets, and officials? Why attack speech rather than the state action you say is the cause?

Declaring “both parties are corrupt” doesn’t answer that. It just avoids you having to explain why expanding government power over the press is your chosen remedy.

You’re now attributing your point to me while still avoiding my conclusion.

Yes, government money distorts markets. I agree, but that was your claim, not mine. My argument has consistently been about the remedy. If the state is corrupting the press, the target should be the government actors authorizing that money, not the press outlet publishing speech.