"Networks surrendered 2 Trump..ensure coverage consists primarily of single shot of his face"

[kpete]

Two network sources also confirmed the unprecedented control the television networks have surrendered to Trump in a series of private negotiations, allowing him to dictate specific details about placement of cameras at his event, to ensure coverage consists primarily of a single shot of his face.

:large


https://twitter.com/billmon1/status/710906303737176064

MORE:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/how-donald-trump-bent-television-to-his-will?utm_term=.iqLea7Oeq#.wpZ1ZMQ1W

[TDale313]

1. This is how dictators act.

There will be no freedom of the press in a Trump administration.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. Not even elected, and he has free speach zones.

We thought Bush was bad.

[a kennedy]

3. if this doesn't wake up the. Lame stream media.....then I guess it's a lost cause.....

dark ages here we come.

[Person 2713]

4. Well mAybe when his fascist crap turns to dictating what they can film and how

perhaps the mainstream media will stop their love fest with Trump. Maybe they will actually press him on his ideals
Or maybe they better obey

[Sanity Claws]

5. It is no longer press coverage

It is essentially an infomercial. Infomercials are supposed to be labeled as such.

[spanone]

6. our media is no longer our watchdog....it's 'truth' for profit

[tabasco]

7. Doubleplusgood, brother!

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

8. Trump says he would "open up libel laws" so he could sue the Washington Post, et al.

Of course, as president (gag!) he couldn't do that without a compliant congress and state legislatures to amend the Constitution, but during this election cycle anything seems possible.

Trump favors the U.K. model, where the defendant has to prove his statements are true vs. the U.S. one, where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show the statements were false and were known to be false -- a much higher bar to clear.

link

[lancer78]

9. I like that

you talk bad about someone, you better be able to back it up. Now before anyone says that limits "Free Speech", remember that there is no thing as Free Speech. As a victim of Libel, that caused me severe financial harm, but wasn't able to get relief because of the U.S. rules, I hope that if Trump does get elected, he converts this country to the U.K. model.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

10. I'm sorry you were a victim of libel

I can't imagine how horrible that would be -- "unjust accusation" is one of my "triggers" (along with being lied to).

When I practiced law one client had a slander lawsuit filed against him by a mechanic he wrote an angry letter to. Didn't publish it, didn't tell anyone else about it until the lawsuit. The plaintiff had given it to his father to read, and that was the basis of the case.

Other than pointing out to the other attorney the difference between libel and slander, my defense was the truth -- not in what he said (he was complaining about the service he got) but the fact that one of the elements of an action in libel/slander is that the false statement must be made to a third party. In this case my client wasn't at fault (in the end he didn't pay the mechanic damages or attorney's fees), but had he not been the boyfriend of one of our firm's secretaries he would have found himself out several thousand dollars in legal fees.

The technique of suing is currently being used by restaurateurs and other businesses who feel wronged by a bad Yelp review. It has become the verbal equivalent of "open carry," IMHO. If someone had made it their goal to ruin a business through a series of bad reviews, then fine, go after them. But if you had one bad experience -- cold food, bad quality, abhorrent service (although servers often don't have any say about how fast the food is ready) -- then Yelp them accurately and don't go back.

Having Trump as president (gag!) would mean having someone who can't get through a single rally without saying he's going to sue someone. Lawsuits do not a good foreign policy make.

[lancer78]

11. I see your point

but somehow, I think Trump has tapped into an anger that many people I know feel. Bernie has tapped into the same anger, and even though not as violent as Trump's, you can see his supporters (Bernie's) manifest their anger on this site.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

15. Agree. Anger gets people to the polls

but it doesn't guarantee they'll make the best selection.

Lots of anger on DU right now.

[Rex]

12. They want to put candidate Angry Tomato on a jumbo tron. Increase ratings.

[Turborama]

13. Have they banned the audience from bringing in any devices with cameras yet?

[Turborama]

14. Interestingly, it's the polar opposite of what he was saying in December.

Hopefully there are reporters who will go in undercover with hidden cameras to film what he's trying to hide.

Analysis: Trump ‘uniquely obsessed’ with media portrayal of campaign

BY JILL COLVIN, ASSOCIATED PRESS December 26, 2015 at 12:27 PM EDT

=snip=

Trump routinely orders news camera operators to pan the crowds at his rallies to show how large the gatherings are - and then chastises them, with disgust, when they fail to obey. His team has experimented with event setups, often placing groups of supporters on risers behind the candidate so that cameras can’t miss the carefully curated faces.

He’s fumed over television reporters doing live shots from empty auditoriums once his supporters have left. And on Twitter, Trump is one of the most prolific media critics, offering his live commentary of cable news reporters and analysts, lashing out at news outlets he feels have treated him unfairly.

More: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/analysis-trump-uniquely-obsessed-with-media-portrayal-of-campaign/