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.
quantified · 6m ago
Which is why these events have been performing political rituals like memorials to the slain Kirk.
pavel_lishin · 51m ago
This is like that meme, where you explain politics to Americans starting with "Imagine a burger", except "Imagine no football."
quantified · 1h ago
Let's see him go after Youtube and Meta for allowing criticism of him and Kirk on their platforms.
java-man · 1h ago
What Constitution?
SilverElfin · 1h 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?
JohnFen · 23m 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 · 1h ago
Fox "News"?
quantified · 1h ago
Wtf. You ever watch Fox or Newsmax?
Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.
bediger4000 · 1h 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 · 8m ago
The facts are pretty bad here. Biden was senile. In office. Trump can hammer away with true things, perfectly acceptable.
> 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?
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.
Maybe the facts support on side more than the other, anyway.
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.