world leaders are thinking when reading his charges of the press not treating him fairly!

P.S. I wonder; if he tweets because the press does not treat him honestly and fairly, doesn't that call for his tweets to be honest! Seems like Trump, Ryan, Pence and Trump's other surrogates don't think so!

-- Modified on 12/5/2016 8:55:58 AM

You will have to share that super power with me sometime. Tell you what. I will share my skills for negotiating a hookers price if you toss me some of that mind reading shit you got going on. LOL

Now I would guess that those same world leaders you mention also state the press in their respective countries don't treat them fairly as well, so they may actually respect Trump for having the balls to say it, but who knows?

One thing I can tell you. This is a strategy by Trump and him not just acting like some "whiny little bitch." The media is now seen at an all time low in terms of public trust and Trump is emphasizing something he knows to be true in the voters mind.

There was a time and place when the POTUS needed the MSM, but in todays day and age, Trump can, and has, gone right around them.

Is the left going to obsess with his sm manderings for the next 4 years

They'll have to vote for him in 2020, so the tweets don't stop.

hack Trump supporter doesn't see it.

"There was a time and place when the POTUS needed the MSM, but in todays day and age, Trump can, and has, gone right around them."

Yep! Just like most, if not all, authoritarian leaders do!

You may want to rethink your cheering on of the weakening of the fourth estate. There are biases for sure, but our MSM is fairly good at at least get to the essence of truth in most stories. Better, than what you can get on Facebook, or Pravda!

"There are biases for sure, but our MSM is fairly good at at least get to the essence of truth in most stories."

You couched your reply with words/phrases like "fairly good", "at least" and "most."

And that is from your view, a proud liberal.

Trust me, you would view this differently if you were on my side of the fence. When you have to suffer through CBS and their "fake" news story about GWB just weeks before the election or the NY Slimes POS story about John McCain, again, just weeks before an election, or a myriad of other examples I could give you, your trust in the fourth estate would be considerable less that it is now.

I am not cheering on their demise, I am pointing it out. They no longer deserve the publics respect due to their corruption and partisanship.  

They, like the DNC, need a house cleaning but seriously, are you even somewhat optimistic they will do so when they don't think they have a problem at all?

I come from the Tim Russert and Walter Kronkite school of journalism. Tough, fair, non-partisan. You know those days are LONG gone. Sad to say,

What we have now is not liberal media; we have corporate media.  

If you're serious about bringing back the integrity of the Cronkite era, then you should be all for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, which Reagan did away with. Nixon started the war on the free press, Reagan put the final nail in the coffin, and here we are.  

 

You really think we need an "Unfairness Doctrine" in this day and age of TV, radio, newspapers, internet, magazines, Twitter feeds, Pinterest, Instagram, web sites, mailers, etc etc etc  

At the flick of your phone you can listen to Amy Goodman on the far left and Rush Limbaugh on the far right.  
   
Diana, do you REALLY think massive, federalized, corrupt, Washington DC should place restrictions on freedom of speech? How has that worked with Obama spying on Fox and the Associated Press?

There is virtually NO interest in congress, on either side, nor is there with the folks to have the Feds determine what is "fair" or not.  

Why do you think 16 years of Clinton and Obama presidency's fostered no serious mention of the FD? You conveniently left Dems off the hook. Ahem.  

Sorry, I don't want the feds to slam down our throats some anti-Democratic POS legislation that virtually NO ONE is clamoring for except for a very few devoted leftists all butt hurt about Fox News and talk radio.

Tim Russert existed AFTER the FD expired did he not? And peeps like him could again IF the MSM wanted too be taken seriously.

I'd call it not painting MSM was a broad brush, like you and Trump do, though Trump can change his tune quite quickly if MSM reports what he wants them to report. You point to a few incidences where you believe they were corrupt, or not truthful, but that doesn't stack up to 90 to 95 percent of the time when someone is reporting truthfully, in the MSM. I'll take the MSM over the other sources in the new media landscape.

...you don't know how to spell his name.  Second, you don't know that he was NOT non-partisan.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/culture-civilization/walter-cronkite-roots-of-liberal-media-bias-cbs-fox-news/

And if you can't believe Steve Bannon, AKA Trump's brain, who can you believe?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2012/05/21/new-biography-reveals-cronkite-was-biased-unethical/

Thanks for the laugh about your shallow knowledge!

Cronkite was trusted, by both sides, in large numbers. He was a liberal Democrat but it DIDNT show in his reporting to anywhere near the degree it does today.

Tim Russert was an old school Dem as well, proud of it, but it DIDNT show is his reporting as he received props from both R's and D's.

He WAS biased, as all reporters are and imperfect but was seen as NON-PARTISAN by the vast majority of the viewing public.

Get SOMETHING correct soon please. Your post election melt downs are becoming routine

You are referring to Cronkite's career in retrospect and Jack (i think) was speaking of Cronkite's reputation at the time. My father and grandfather were the biggest republicans I can ever remember growing up and if uncle Walt said it was so, they believed him. He certainly had a non-partisan reputation and that was why he was loved and adored by so many for so long irregardless of political affiliation persuasion.

My older brother was a rock solid conservative (can you imagine the arguments we had together?) and he had great respect for Mr. Cronkite. I believe BigPapasan's examples and views are that of Mr. Cronkite's deeds OFF camera, not on it. Jack mentioned his "journalism" which I took to mean his on air personality, demeanor and reputation. Cronkite was a legendary and almost a mythical figure who transcended typical right/left politics and was above the standard partisan divide, again, based on his on air reportage and what the average American knew of him then.

It was called campaign finance reform. Fortunately the SCOTUS, in Citizens United, saw it for what it really was, an attempt to change the First Amendment.