Here’s Brendan Kirby reporting on a segment from President Donald Trump’s speech last night in West Virginia:
“You know, I’d rather have fake news like CNN,” he said, waving toward the bank of reporters in front of him. “I would rather have fake news — it’s true — than have anybody, including liberals, socialists, anything, than have anybody stopped and censored.”
Trump’s mention of CNN, a favorite foil, drew some groans. But Trump brushed them aside.
“We gotta live with it. We gotta get used to it,” he said. “We gotta live with fake news. There’s too many sources. Every one of us is sort of like a newspaper. You have Twitter. You have whatever you have. Facebook.”
Trump continued.
“You can’t have censorship. You can’t pick one person and say, ‘Well, we don’t like what he’s been saying. He’s out.’ So, we’ll live with fake news,” he said. “I mean, I hate to say it. But we have no choice. Because that’s by far, the better alternative. We can’t have people saying, ‘censorship.’ Because you know what? It could turn around. It could be them next … We believe in the right of Americans to speak their minds.”
I was pleasantly surprised. This is actually quite a good pragmatic defense of free speech: we can’t trust the censors and one day the people we distrust will be the censors.
Of course, you could argue that Trump is kissing up to the media he hates because he wants them to go easy on him in his newly vulnerable position. There are two problems with that argument. First, read the quotes again or, even better, watch the video. It’s hard to conclude that he’s kissing up. Second, although I’m not sure how smart Trump is, I’m pretty sure he’s not that dumb. There’s no way, now that they smell blood in the water, that the media will go easy on him.
Moreover, as I said in a piece a few months ago, titled “He’s Good and Bad on Foreign Affairs, Good and Bad on the Economy:”
if Trump really wanted to follow through on his threatened censorship of television networks, he chose the wrong chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Ajit Pai is one of the most deregulatory officials in the Trump administration.
I also pointed out how a smart Donald Trump would really act if he wanted to squash the press. He would emulate Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Consider, by contrast, someone who effectively quashed radio criticism of his policies: Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1934, as University of Alabama historian David Beito has noted, President Roosevelt’s FCC put radio stations on a short leash by reducing the license-renewal period from three years to six months. He appointed Herbert L. Pettey as head of the commission. Pettey had been FDR’s radio adviser during his 1932 presidential campaign. Shortly after this licensing change, NBC announced that it would limit broadcasts “contrary to the policies of the United States government.” CBS went further, announcing an end to broadcasts “in any way” critical of “any policy of the Administration.” Who was more effective—the unsophisticated Trump threatening in public, or the warm and fuzzy (but ruthless and strategic) operator behind the scenes, Roosevelt? The record speaks for itself.
READER COMMENTS
David Boaz
Aug 22 2018 at 3:36pm
You’re very generous. As the Washington Post media critic notes, this is not a bold stand for free expression. He calls independent journalists “the enemy of the American people.” In this speech, when Trump says, “you can’t pick one person and say, ‘Well, we don’t like what he’s been saying, he’s out,’” that’s a defense of Alex Jones.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/08/22/now-trump-is-a-free-expression-advocate/?utm_term=.1f6245939c04
David Henderson
Aug 22 2018 at 3:46pm
You’re very generous.
Thanks, David.
In this speech, when Trump says, “you can’t pick one person and say, ‘Well, we don’t like what he’s been saying, he’s out,’” that’s a defense of Alex Jones.
That very well could be. But then how do you, or the Washington Post, account for this:
I would rather have fake news — it’s true — than have anybody, including liberals, socialists, anything, than have anybody stopped and censored.”
David Boaz
Aug 22 2018 at 5:05pm
He says lots of things, and he rambles on. He says “then let’s just have no tariffs at all” after 30 years of advocating protectionism and hiring the few top protectionists there are. He says he’s opposed to censorship — after pressuring the Post Office to screw Amazon to hurt Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post; suggesting that NBC’s (nonexistent) broadcast license be challenged; suggesting that we “open up” the libel laws; urging his supporters to hate and threaten journalists; threatening to take away security clearances from people who criticize him (there may be arguments for taking away security clearances, but HIS clear aim is to chill criticism); etc. I see a pattern of attitudes and behaviors there that one line in a rally speech doesn’t wipe out. He advocates for the free speech of his friends and supporters (witness his use of the pardon power), while bullying and threatening non-supporters.
And none of this is to say that other presidents haven’t used their power to chill freedom of speech. Though I don’t think many have been so transparent about it. Which might be a good thing, as we have ample warning of his instincts and intentions.
Hazel Meade
Aug 22 2018 at 5:43pm
Yes. I think this is key. He will advocate for free speech in a context when it’s his supporters speech that is threatened, and then advocate the complete opposite when it involves the speech of his enemies. it’s important to remember that Trump feels no need for ideological consistency. It doesn’t bother him in the slightest that his statements are radically inconsistent from one context o the next.
Alan Goldhammer
Aug 23 2018 at 7:30am
I think Hazel has it exactly right. This is the first President that I can remember that disdains news conferences in favor of campaign style rallies in front of supporters. I don’t know if he has prepared scripts for these or just goes out and riffs to the crowd in some sort of stream of consciousness; I suspect it is the latter. I find this very troubling particularly the responses from the supporters.
Other than some court appointments, a rather horrible tax ‘reform’ law, and some deregulation (most of which will likely be litigated further) it’s difficult to point to any other major accomplishments. I guess we will see what happens with the investigations going on and the November mid-terms to see what the public really feels.
David Henderson
Aug 22 2018 at 7:37pm
David,
You laid it out well and, in doing so, gave the basis for my surprise. With all the threats and bullying that man has done, for him to come out explicitly in favor of their freedom of speech as a surprise.
I can’t remember when he ever explicitly defended the freedom of speech of people whom he sees as his enemies. Do you?
Warren Platts
Aug 23 2018 at 3:10pm
So what? You sound like you are OK with these “platforms” censoring Alex Jones. OK, fair enough, but guess what happened a week later: Prager U gets censored. Are you fine with that! I suspect not.
Khodge
Aug 22 2018 at 3:39pm
One of the most successful state house elections I have ever seen was in my district which had moved from red to blue. The Democrat, also the district chairman, made sure he had a primary opponent. There really was no doubt who would win the primary and that exposure carried into the gerneral election.
Pres. Trump played the press well and that is how he got elected; he continues to play the press so he has continued to stay in the public eye. The press, on the other hand, was treated with well-documented distain by President Obama. Coincidently, Obama was one of the least effective presidents in the last hundred years.
TMC
Aug 22 2018 at 3:41pm
Rhetoric is rhetoric, you have to watch what people do rather than what they say. Trump is very different than FDR in many ways, but one way he’s similar: He’s side stepped the press by going directly to the people. FDR used fireside chats, and Trump uses Twitter.
David Henderson
Aug 22 2018 at 3:47pm
True.
And notice what I said about what FDR did: he used actual censorship.
Khodge
Aug 22 2018 at 5:31pm
I just read Scott’s “Axe to Grind.” His point about one’s position on China is even more true of one’s position on Trump.
Your headline says “shocked,” but your article says ” mildly surprised. TMC says “rhetoric” yet I have read that he is very open when one-on-one with individual reporters. (Really T, rhetoric? Isn’t that a synonym for politician?) I, having been impressed by his accomplishments, would come close to David’s mild surprise.
Scott Sumner
Aug 23 2018 at 3:50pm
The only reason Trump has not yet censored the press is that he lacks the power to do so. He’s clearly stated on a number of occasions that he is opposed to freedom of the press. For instance, he doesn’t believe that the press should be allowed to use anonymous sources, which is an important tool in identifying corruption in government. He also wants to make it easier to sue reporters for libel.
Beyond censorship, he continues to repeatedly joke about violence against reporters, even as hundreds of reporters all over the world are being murdered. Some by dictators that Trump approves of. He’s also a fan of right wing European leaders who censor the press.
David Seltzer
Aug 23 2018 at 5:02pm
Scott,
You nailed it! The pathology of the man is astonishing!
David Henderson
Aug 23 2018 at 5:16pm
Scott wrote:
The only reason Trump has not yet censored the press is that he lacks the power to do so.
I agree, Scott. I think that’s true of pretty much everyone who has a shot at being President. What’s striking, though, is how freedom of speech oriented his main appointee on this issue is, as I pointed out: Ajit Pai.
Moreover, what’s heartening is how little effort he has put into getting those powers, unlike, as noted, FDR, who got them and used them.
Scott wrote:
He’s clearly stated on a number of occasions that he is opposed to freedom of the press.
Exactly. That’s why, as I noted to David Boaz above, his defense of freedom of the press for CNN, etc. surprised me. Are you saying, Scott, that it didn’t surprise you? If not, what exactly are we arguing about? Or are we arguing?
Ken P
Aug 23 2018 at 9:51pm
It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of it’s benefits, than is done by it’s abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.
– Thomas Jefferson
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_speechs29.html
I don’t like Trump, but it does bother me when people conflate being anti press with being anti freedom of the press. I would be more concerned with actions such as prosecuting journalists, a precedent set by Obama.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/30/opinion/sunday/if-donald-trump-targets-journalists-thank-obama.html
Robert EV
Aug 26 2018 at 12:58pm
He’s pretending to magnanimity because there’s nothing else he can do about it. He’s also directly equating news organizations with random citizens tweeting (this may not be an inapt comparison wrt the editorial page, but is wrong about factual issues).
He’s got a personality. There are only so many reactions anyone’s personality allows them to use. He’s using the best he has, but IMO he isn’t doing it in defense of freedom of the press, or free speech in general, but because it allows him a ‘show’ of magnanimity (which comes from power) where he actually has no power at all.
And theoretically, based on the personality he has, I think there’s a real chance he’s trying to angle for the high ground, if not for a quid pro quo from CNN and the like, then as something he can wave to his followers. “See, I said we must defend their right to do it, and now they continue to attack me with their random, uniformed, fake news, twittering articles”.
Patriotism(defending our traditions) is the last refuge of a scoundrel, after all.Comments are closed.