If USA loses college football or NFL broadcasts, there will be major riots. I'm not joking. NFL just hit new highs for broadcast ratings at 20.7 million. I can't imagine how the USA would otherwise process losing out on broadcast sports overnight. Networks can call his bluff instantly with sports in their pockets. The riots could even be sponsored by DraftKings.
pavel_lishin · 2h ago
This is like that meme, where you explain politics to Americans starting with "Imagine a burger", except "Imagine no football."
quantified · 1h ago
Which is why these events have been performing political rituals like memorials to the slain Kirk.
quantified · 2h ago
Let's see him go after Youtube and Meta for allowing criticism of him and Kirk on their platforms.
java-man · 2h ago
What Constitution?
SilverElfin · 2h ago
Curious what HN makes of this statement from Trump:
> He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”
On the one hand, it sounds like a massive violation of civil liberties to revoke licenses based on journalistic criticism. On the other hand, if there is one-sided coverage, when does that cross the line into something resembling campaign financing, where the rules are different? And leaving out licensed situations like TV, what about online journalism. Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending?
bigyabai · 1h ago
> Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending?
Truth? You seem to act like the only consequences of fraud, sexual assault and associating with pedophiles is the detriment to one's identity.
Have you considered that there are victims to crimes like fraud, rape and pedophilia? That, perhaps, the perpetrators aren't victims in this scenario?
JohnFen · 1h ago
> they’re not allowed to do that.
While I don't think they actually do that, if they did it would be legal. Before 1987, when Republicans successfully got the fairness doctrine revoked, it wouldn't have been.
klaff · 2h ago
Fox "News"?
bediger4000 · 2h ago
Thank you for the opportunity to reply. With all due respect and civility, it sounds like Trump is really thin skinned, and does not remember last year, when we saw nothing but news media hammering on Biden's Age Problem. That's an example falsifying his premise, and therefore by the laws of logic, falsifying his conclusion.
I believe Washington Post did do 1 (one) Trump's Age Problem, as did the Philadelphia Inquirer. I acknowledge the coverage wasn't precisely 100% anti-Biden.
Now that we know Trump started with false premises, we have to ask why? We also have an obligation to point out the falsehoods politely.
quantified · 1h ago
The facts are pretty bad here. Biden was senile. In office. Trump can hammer away with true things, perfectly acceptable.
bediger4000 · 1h ago
Regrettably, I was unclear.
You're certainly correct, thank you for noting this. Yes, Trump can hammer away, although Biden ultimately withdrew from the race, and politics in general, so this seems uncivil and unnecessary.
My point was that news media as a whole was thorough about covering Biden's Age Problem, and almost completely ignored similar problems in Trump's appearance and behavior, thus falsifying Trump's premise that news media only denigrates Trump. Some have gone so far as to say that a lot of mass media was very charitable towards Trump during his 2024 campaign, and very hard on Biden.
quantified · 2h ago
Wtf. You ever watch Fox or Newsmax?
Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.
> He added: “When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that’s all they do — that license, they’re not allowed to do that. They’re an arm of the Democrat Party.”
On the one hand, it sounds like a massive violation of civil liberties to revoke licenses based on journalistic criticism. On the other hand, if there is one-sided coverage, when does that cross the line into something resembling campaign financing, where the rules are different? And leaving out licensed situations like TV, what about online journalism. Is there some strict test that separates journalism from election spending?
Truth? You seem to act like the only consequences of fraud, sexual assault and associating with pedophiles is the detriment to one's identity.
Have you considered that there are victims to crimes like fraud, rape and pedophilia? That, perhaps, the perpetrators aren't victims in this scenario?
While I don't think they actually do that, if they did it would be legal. Before 1987, when Republicans successfully got the fairness doctrine revoked, it wouldn't have been.
I believe Washington Post did do 1 (one) Trump's Age Problem, as did the Philadelphia Inquirer. I acknowledge the coverage wasn't precisely 100% anti-Biden.
Now that we know Trump started with false premises, we have to ask why? We also have an obligation to point out the falsehoods politely.
You're certainly correct, thank you for noting this. Yes, Trump can hammer away, although Biden ultimately withdrew from the race, and politics in general, so this seems uncivil and unnecessary.
My point was that news media as a whole was thorough about covering Biden's Age Problem, and almost completely ignored similar problems in Trump's appearance and behavior, thus falsifying Trump's premise that news media only denigrates Trump. Some have gone so far as to say that a lot of mass media was very charitable towards Trump during his 2024 campaign, and very hard on Biden.
Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.