In Front of Our Noses: Threatening the Press

Say what Trump wants or he'll threaten to sue!

Source: The White House

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”-George Orwell.

For previous entries, click here.

Amidst the continuing malestrom of news, let’s note this via the NYT: Trump Threatens to Sue The Times and CNN Over Iran Reporting.

President Trump on Wednesday threatened to sue The New York Times and CNN for publishing articles about a preliminary intelligence report that said the American attack on Iran had set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months.

In a letter to The Times, a personal lawyer for the president said the newspaper’s article had damaged Mr. Trump’s reputation and demanded that the news organization “retract and apologize for” the piece, which the letter described as “false,” “defamatory” and “unpatriotic.”

While I suspect that a suit will not be filed, this is not the action of a democratic, constitution-respecting politician. It is the action of an autocrat wannabe. It is, at a minimum, an attempt to intimidate news outlets for not reporting what Trump wants reported the way he wants it reported.

On social media, Mr. Trump has called for journalists at both news outlets to be fired; he has also claimed, without evidence, that the articles were intended to demean the military personnel who participated in the attacks.

[…]

The legal threat against The Times and CNN marked another escalation in Mr. Trump’s ongoing effort to demonize and delegitimize the independent news media that reports on his administration’s actions.

You know, exactly how the Founders intended!

FILED UNDER: Democracy, In Front of Our Noses, Media, The Presidency, US Politics, , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.

Comments

  1. charontwo says:

    It is, at a minimum, an attempt to intimidate news outlets for not reporting what Trump wants reported the way he wants it reported.

    Or an opportunity for bribery by settling these suits, e.g. Paramount+ and it’s desire for merger approval.

    10
  2. Gustopher says:

    @charontwo: An enterprising State AG should remind the fine folks at Paramount that bribery is against the law, and that charges can be levied against individuals in the company along with the company itself.

    11
  3. CSK says:

    This what bullies do. Trump once said that he loved suing writers because “it costs me only a few dollars a year and bankrupts them.”

    4
  4. Michael Reynolds says:

    Some reporter should push back to his face in a televised press conference. Why do they sit there like sheep as he abuses them? Call him out. They are succumbing for access. Challenge him. Shame him. For god’s sake grow a pair. The meekness is disgraceful. You don’t beat bullies by bending over. Fuck access, fight!

    13
  5. Bobert says:

    Hypothetically,
    Trump issues an executive order that hence forth network administrators at all federal facilities shall only allow wifi access to Fox News. All others will be blocked.
    It would certainly appear that the Trump administration would be interfering with free access to “the press”.
    In response, CNN (for example) files suit in Georgia and the Federal district judge determines that the administration is, in fact, suppressing access to CNN in violation of the US Constitution, and so issues a temporary restraining order.
    From what I’ve understood the recent SCOTUS decision, the Georgia’s Federal District order would only be applicable to the Georgia district.
    For CNN to be available nation-wide (at federal facilities) they would have to file and argue in all 97 federal districts. Not only would this be a substantial burden to CNN, but the administration’s lawyers would be defending the EO in 97 different jurisdictions virtually simultaneously.
    Is this what SCOTUS has decided?

    4
  6. Slugger says:

    I’m an alumnus of a Big10 university. Can I sue anyone who doesn’t rate my school as number one in football or academics? Of course, I am aware that Trump is simply using the power of his office to punish any opposition.

    3
  7. just nutha says:

    @Slugger: As the host of Handle on the Law always notes, the question isn’t “can I sue,” it’s “can I prevail” (win). Trump’s administration is simply several more steps in that direction.

    1
  8. Scott says:

    a personal lawyer for the president

    Does this imply that this action is not an official act and not subject to any presidential immunity?

    1
  9. de stijl says:

    @Scott:

    Yes. (IANAL) I think so, as far as I understand.

    A personal lawyer represents Trump, not the President.

    Trump, historically, very much likes to push minor public squabbles into a lawsuit declaring defamation. If someone disses him, he sues.

    IOW, he is the dickish litigant R’s routinely rail against as an example of how the US legal system is flawed.

    He’s also declared bankruptcy six times prior, BTW.

    1
  10. Daryl says:

    @Michael Reynolds:
    Can you imagine Sam Donaldson siting on his hands like this? Mike Wallace?
    The 4th Estate, never perfect but never as pathetic as today, is failing this country.

    3
  11. al Ameda says:

    Even by my standard of cynicism, it is truly amazing.
    Serious opposition to Trump completely collapsed – CEOs of the dominant companies in our economy, prominent law firms, flagship media companies, major public and private universities – they’re all checking their cash resources to see if they can afford the shakedown.

    8
  12. Kurtz says:

    On social media, Mr. Trump has called for journalists at both news outlets to be fired; he has also claimed, without evidence, that the articles were intended to demean the military personnel who participated in the attacks.

    Troubling that NYT feels the need to use this language for any claim made by Trump, et. al.*

    a.) Regardless of this language, they will still be accused of bias.

    b.) It caters to a hostile demographic unlikely to consume the information directly. Rather, the information will either be ignored or distorted by those who wish to attack the credibility of the authors and outlet.

    c.) It encourages bad faith actors to make baseless, outlandish, even outright false claims by implying that there is reason to believe that credible evidence may exist.

    d.) those whose issue-by-issue preferences and priorities do not line up easily with the current partisan fights are likely to entertain some percentage of those claims, even if most immediately dismiss the vast majority.** One need not persuade 100% of those people on 100% of the claims. But make enough claims . . .

    It is these features of a particular view of objectivity that authoritarians exploit to normalize their behavior.

    All for no fucking reason, from the perspective of NYT, because it’s not like they can ever win the credibility game when a significant portion of the electorate is the Soviet judge.

    *I would be interested in a statistical analysis of the frequency of this phrase in news stories by outlet, partisan lean, subject matter, whether it appears in op-eds, etc.

    3
  13. Slugger says:

    @Slugger: Let me agree with you and add some ideas that everyone already knows. Under our system a lawsuit can be a big burden even if you win. A litigant with big bucks can seriously harm someone with fewer resources. Just mounting a defense against a wily opponent is very expensive. My solution? Bring back dueling!

    2
  14. Grumpy realist says:

    One of the companies I worked at was the target of another, much larger company that used accusations of patent infringement to sue competitors, drag the process out to drain the victim into bankruptcy, then snatch up any competing technology and stuff it on a shelf. By the time they got around to my company there were a lot of really ticked-off scientists who didn’t take kindly to advances in the technology being squelched. Hence, a lot of prior art getting left on our doorstep in the dead of night….

    2
  15. Kurtz says:

    @Grumpy realist:

    ticked-off scientists who didn’t take kindly to advances in the technology being squelched. Hence, a lot of prior art getting left on our doorstep in the dead of night….

    Very nice.

    2