"The Enemy of the People" - OK or No? (1 Viewer)

[Bucsfan5493]

It's horrible to say by anyone, let alone the President of the United States. He has a legitimate case to criticize the media for taking things out of context and running with stories that may have agendas behind them, but he could go about it in a much better way. Calling them the enemy of the people is incredibly divisive and a dangerous message to push. 

It's also very important to note how hypocritical this all is coming from Trump who is just as guilty of lying and pushing propaganda as the media is.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think you're right about Leroux, too. Same time? Wiki says so.

I think so, if I get the chance I’ll pick it up in the Socialism thread. FWIW it’s worth noting Leroux was not exactly positive about socialism, I think he was describing an impoverished, powerless populace stuck between two cruel forces. 

 

[rockaction]

I think so, if I get the chance I’ll pick it up in the Socialism thread. FWIW it’s worth noting Leroux was not exactly positive about socialism, I think he was describing an impoverished, powerless populace stuck between two cruel forces. 

To be sure. Individualism was never a positive term until Hayek reclaimed it. Usually, individualism was contrasted with community morality, and was found lacking.

I'll leave that point as the last hijack, too. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

And now they've kicked out Flavor Flav

 

[parasaurolophus]

And now they've kicked out Flavor Flav

I laughed when I saw a headline about Public enemy today.

I was going to point out that when translating between languages public enemy, enemy of the people, enemy of the state, and enemy of the nation all sort of blend together.  

 

[Gr00vus]

Indiscriminately demonizing people to garner political support is not o.k. There's a big difference between "we don't agree" and "they're an enemy of the people." When you're using the later language, it had better be reserved for those who are truly unethical, violent, or in some other way acting against the best interests of society. Giving you bad press isn't that.

 

[parasaurolophus]

This discussion is fairly interesting to me and has a lot of levels. 

There is the association that many people are making to Stalin. There is the flip side to this of arguing that Trump is an enemy of the people.

Then if we remove the soviet associations of the phrase and change it to something like "misleading" or "Unethical" I think the number of people willing to admit the media is not really on the level all the time changes a great deal. In fact criticizing the media is one area that the left and right often agree. 

"The media" is a very large group. So is the field reporter on TV as bad as the executive that decides which stories get the most airtime? Of course not.

But there are literally thousands of people across this country whose job is to make news items as click-worthy as possible. Often being deliberately misleading and violating the same practices that journalism schools across the country teach you. Out of context quotes, parsed quotes, etc. All in the name of selling. 

You have media that makes deals with people and agrees to not ask them questions about certain topics in order to get exclusives. Often working for the same network as somebody that spends three months on the ground in a foreign country asking hundreds of regular people questions in their living rooms.

Now of course most of this can't exist without people consuming these things and being dumb enough to fall for it, but if you prey on the people that fall for this, you no longer have moral high ground to stand on. The ideal of "the press" has been chewed up and spit out. 

The chicago tribune has been on talk radio a lot lately in the chicago area. People talking about how sad it is what has happened. How important papers like that are for fighting corruption, etc. Made me laugh. It is like they forgot they were talking about chicago.

 

[rockaction]

You have media that makes deals with people and agrees to not ask them questions about certain topics in order to get exclusives. Often working for the same network as somebody that spends three months on the ground in a foreign country asking hundreds of regular people questions in their living rooms.

Eason Jordan, CNN, and Iraq, for instance.

Made me laugh. It is like they forgot they were talking about chicago.

Quoteworthy. 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'm OK with it. Not a fan of fake news. I'm seeing a new pattern with all these "OK or No" polls in that I keep coming down on the side of OK with it.

 

[RedmondLonghorn]

Interesting. 

Can you give us the background on the word "Socialist" and/or "Socialism" and let us know the history of that word?  I could've sworn we had a thread in this forum about how some guy calling himself and identifying himself as a Socialist is such a nice guy.  

Not 100% sure, but I think he's running for POTUS.

Sweet whataboutism

 

[adonis]

I'm OK with it. Not a fan of fake news. I'm seeing a new pattern with all these "OK or No" polls in that I keep coming down on the side of OK with it.

Are you equally not OK with our president lying?

If fake news coming from the press makes them the enemy of the people, does fake news coming from Trump make him the enemy of the people as well?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Are you equally not OK with our president lying?

If fake news coming from the press makes them the enemy of the people, does fake news coming from Trump make him the enemy of the people as well?

That's a really weird question, but whatever.

No, I'm not OK with the President lying. I'm not too bothered by the over-the-top hyperbole - and technically that's "lying" so I guess it depends on context. I doubt I'm going to clutch my pearls and gasp every time we find a politician lying though. I am a little amused that he keeps finding ways to get people to defend things like fake news.

Am I "equally not OK with it" - meaning, equal to the amount I'm OK with the phrase "enemy of the people"? 

I mean, is EVERY commercial a Tide commercial?

 

[adonis]

That's a really weird question, but whatever.

No, I'm not OK with the President lying. I'm not too bothered by the over-the-top hyperbole - and technically that's "lying" so I guess it depends on context. I doubt I'm going to clutch my pearls and gasp every time we find a politician lying though. I am a little amused that he keeps finding ways to get people to defend things like fake news.

Am I "equally not OK with it" - meaning, equal to the amount I'm OK with the phrase "enemy of the people"? 

I mean, is EVERY commercial a Tide commercial?

Didn't mean for it to be weird.

I just find it odd that some people hold news outlets to different standards of truth than they hold their President to.  At least the outlets issue corrections, yet they're labeled the enemy of the people and folks are OK with that.

That's what provoked my question.  Untruth is untruth, and spreading untruth to achieve an agenda is likely what undergirds folks being OK with a bad label for media...yet they continually strive to be as accurate as possible - at least the pure news, MSM does.  Our national leaders right now though, have clearly lied repeatedly, and not admitted the lies, yet they get a pass from the same people that want to hold the MSM accountable for being enemies of the people.  It just doesn't make much sense to me.

It's like eating a bowl of crap while smiling, and pointing to the guy sitting next to you picking a few flakes of poo out of his cereal and saying he's eating ####ty breakfast.

Also, no one is defending fake news and Trump isn't making folks defend fake news.  Every single Trump opponent wants factual news.  We hold our papers and news sources to high standards, and they're forced to issue corrections when they're wrong.  The same isn't always true of right wing media, and it's certainly almost never true with Trump...yet the folks called "fake news" are the very ones actually interested in printing truth and correcting untruths.

Again...hypocrisy seems to be dead these days.  Not that Norville is a hypocrite, mind you...just the concept that fake news is only wrong when it's news you disagree with, regardless of whether a strong effort is made to correct inaccuracies.

 

[Snoopy]

For the Russian overlords. I say Nyet

 

[zftcg]

I find them to be quite social.

What's wrong with being social?

 

[zftcg]

What's ironic is that most people probably think it's the "enemy" part that's offensive. I think it's "the people" part. If Trump were going around calling his favored groups "friends of the people" that would be equally disturbing. Speaks to his whole "L'etat c'est moi" schtick.

 

[MAC_32]

Interesting. 

Can you give us the background on the word "Socialist" and/or "Socialism" and let us know the history of that word?  I could've sworn we had a thread in this forum about how some guy calling himself and identifying himself as a Socialist is such a nice guy.  

Not 100% sure, but I think he's running for POTUS.

But what about.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I actually wasn't aware of the origins of the phrase:

How do people feel about Trump repeatedly using a phrase used to justify the murder of millions of political enemies?

Nevermind that this is incorrect, but even if it was, it answers the question of why the connection is irrelevant. 

You are a pretty well informed person. You didnt know of the connection, which means it isnt universally known or accepted as the only usage. On its own it isnt very objectionable unless you are uber sensitive. Bad taste for sure, but unless you feel the media is some amazingly ethical entity, i dont understand the upheaval over this one. I imagine that the only reason you learned of the association was because the media has written so many articles making the comparison. 

That's pretty self serving if you think about it. 

This is more like the hitler youth cut rather than the hitler moustache. If you walked around with a Hitler moustache that would instantly be the first comparison almost everybody thought of. If you walk around with a hitler youth cut most people just think you have a bad haircut. 

So sure both are in bad taste, but only one has an instant and almost universal association with a terrible regime. 

Side note to anybody offended by my analogy, you should try and get your money back for your haircut. 

 

[lazyike]

Of course it is not ok.

 

[Bucsfan5493]

That's a really weird question, but whatever.

No, I'm not OK with the President lying. I'm not too bothered by the over-the-top hyperbole - and technically that's "lying" so I guess it depends on context. I doubt I'm going to clutch my pearls and gasp every time we find a politician lying though. I am a little amused that he keeps finding ways to get people to defend things like fake news.

Am I "equally not OK with it" - meaning, equal to the amount I'm OK with the phrase "enemy of the people"? 

I mean, is EVERY commercial a Tide commercial?

So you'd be cool with Democrats calling Trump the enemy of the people considering he's just as guilty as the media for spreading lies and propaganda, correct?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

So you'd be cool with Democrats calling Trump the enemy of the people considering he's just as guilty as the media for spreading lies and propaganda, correct?

Not sure if you've been paying attention but people have been saying much worse about Trump and I'm cool with it.

 

[zftcg]

Nevermind that this is incorrect, but even if it was, it answers the question of why the connection is irrelevant. 

You are a pretty well informed person. You didnt know of the connection, which means it isnt universally known or accepted as the only usage. On its own it isnt very objectionable unless you are uber sensitive. Bad taste for sure, but unless you feel the media is some amazingly ethical entity, i dont understand the upheaval over this one. I imagine that the only reason you learned of the association was because the media has written so many articles making the comparison. 

That's pretty self serving if you think about it. 

This is more like the hitler youth cut rather than the hitler moustache. If you walked around with a Hitler moustache that would instantly be the first comparison almost everybody thought of. If you walk around with a hitler youth cut most people just think you have a bad haircut. 

So sure both are in bad taste, but only one has an instant and almost universal association with a terrible regime. 

Side note to anybody offended by my analogy, you should try and get your money back for your haircut. 

I get your point that most people probably don't know the history of the phrase, but given that a) Trump continues to use it even after that history has been pointed out, and b) he has a history of using "America First" despite its similar historical baggage, at a certain point it starts becoming like the famous NSFW headline from The Onion: Why does Trump keep using phrases made famous by racists and authoritarians? 

 

[BladeRunner]

Sweet whataboutism

And hyprocrisy. 

 

[BladeRunner]

But what about.

Right?  I mean, if your're going to come up with some crazy nonsense to try and imply Trump is "Stalin!", then you need to look at the guy that actually is, y'know, like Stalin.

 

[zftcg]

Right?  I mean, if your're going to come up with some crazy nonsense to try and imply Trump is "Stalin!", then you need to look at the guy that actually is, y'know, like Stalin.

You mean this guy?

 

[BladeRunner]

You mean this guy?

Nope.  I mean this guy.

 

[Mookie]

I think the President should be articulate, diplomatic, honest, and measured, which I consider important leadership traits.  Trump is none of those things and I am not OK with his constant attacks or his incessant trolling.  

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I just find it odd that some people hold news outlets to different standards of truth than they hold their President to.

Politicians are of course biased and have an agenda.  Ideally news sources should be reporting and not promoting an agenda.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Politicians are of course biased and have an agenda.  Ideally news sources should be reporting and not promoting an agenda.

I don’t think that’s right. Private citizens have a right to speak as they like. Public officials have a duty to the people to honestly report facts.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Public officials have a duty to the people to honestly report facts.

Are you sure you're not talking about journalists here? 

 

[Mile High]

Politicians are of course biased and have an agenda.  Ideally news sources should be reporting and not promoting an agenda.

There's a difference between reporting the news and publishing opinion pieces 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

There's a difference between reporting the news and publishing opinion pieces 

 Thank you. No argument there. Which do you think is the Presidents job?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are you sure you're not talking about journalists here? 

I do obviously think they have a moral, ethical, professional duty to report the facts. - But public officials have an even higher duty to the public. That’s concerning money, conflicts, contracts, emergencies, projects, finances, you and it, and what’s more I think the people have a right to obtain that information and as much as they want. That’s way beyond the responsibility of journalists.

 

[parasaurolophus]

There's a difference between reporting the news and publishing opinion pieces 

The line is increasingly blurred. 

 

[Kal El]

 Thank you. No argument there. Which do you think is the Presidents job?

Telling the truth, not bullying children/opponents/anyone who dares disagree, doing what the American people want. That would be a good start.