Another way to look at it is their reporters on US press have been caught flat-footed on daily news gathering. They don't have the same skills as their non-US counterparts and are rattled.

This is a call to arms. We are facing darkness now, and I believe this will have a lasting impact in what reporters are capable of and willing to do to offer free press.

The press was asking for this though, at least the mainstream press like CNN and MSNBC.

Not only did they push the Hillary Clinton agenda, but it was obvious to anyone with a brain that the liberal news networks didn't mind that they were helping Trump win the republican nominee, because they thought he would easily loose, and be a great figure head to point at next time someone tries to claim not all white men are racist.

Their plan back fired though and now this is what we have.

The left kept saying the right was going to destroy our rights and every day it gets worse and worse. They act as if we're in the end times. What's going to happen when Trump actually does something insane? No one will take the media seriously then (most have already lost faith). It's like the boy who cried wolf, but the media who cried fascism.

Part of me wonders if maybe the media is trying to destroy the American empire, they seem to be spiraling out of control.

It really cracks me up whenever I hear the extreme right lambast the mainstream media, who (at least in the US) is mostly right wing anyway.

Trump should be kissing the feet of the mainstream media, who were the single biggest force responsible for his election. Without "Trump" being the most often repeated word on every mainstream reporter's lips ever since he started running for office, he wouldn't have stood a chance.

Trump got virtually non-stop, world-wide, free advertising -- the kind that even his money couldn't buy. His election is proof positive that there's no such thing as bad publicity.

Trump should be grovelling before the mainstream media. But to pander to his base, who long ago swallowed the "liberal mainstream media" conspiracy theory, and to deflect criticism, he has to pretend that he's a victim of the mainstream media, when he's really their beneficiary.

Look at it this way... they just called Steve Bannon a rank, timid amateur when it comes to intimidating the press. They said, very loudly, we are not afraid of you. Good for them.

I would not underestimate Bannon. He is a very smart guy.

Oh, I don't doubt he's very smart. But there are both laws and traditions in place to prevent the kind of subservient lapdog press he wants to have. And he lacks the cajones to just toss the First Amendment out the window on a broad scale (yet).

Reuters' point was that even without the First Amendment and other protections afforded journalists in America, they're capable of publishing important, relevant news anyway. So that's not just a statement of intent. It's deliberately poking at Bannon's bluster. We are not afraid of you. He's trying to intimidate the press, and Reuters, at least, is having none of that.

So Bannon is smart. So what? That won't keep Reuters from doing their jobs.

edit: I should probably add here that I think assuming one's political opponents are stupid is a pet peeve of mine. Of course Bannon is very smart, or he wouldn't be where he is today.

First, it's cojones. Cajones would be something related to boxes (from "caja" - note that Cajon Pass in California is named for a box canyon).

Second, it may or may not be that he lacks the courage. He may lack the desire to go where you suspect that he wants to go. Mostly, though, what he lacks is the freedom to do so.

Just tossing the First Amendment out the window, at the current time, would not have the support of the courts. It would be declared illegal in no time. It would then require using the power of the office to suppress free speech by force - literally having police or military shut down radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, and the internet (don't forget cell networks and ham radios). The military is unlikely to undividedly follow such a course. Now you very likely have a civil war.

So even if he wants to, he can't blatantly toss the First Amendment out the window, and not because of lack of courage. It's because the people won't put up with it (at least not yet).

My pet peeve is when people assume that being smart is the most important thing in politics (or any other endeavor). Clever people may make fewer mistakes, but when they do make them they are much more difficult to fix. Just as true for software as it is for running a country.

I am not saying that his smartness is a good thing but a thing to consider. Al Capone was a very smart guy too probably. Even if you don't agree with him you should not think he is dumb. He may be smarter than his opponents. I remember the same thing happening with Bush. A lot of people who opposed him called him dumb but in reality a dumb person won't become president. Never underestimate people.

The mainstream media are already lap dogs. They've been taking orders from the rich and powerful for decades, and are a complete and utter joke.

Trump calling them to heel is just a method of pulling the already right-wing mainstream media further to the right. The far right will never settle for anything less than FOX, and for some of them even FOX is "too liberal".

It's not the smart that people should be concerned about. It's if he's going to go as far as some governments do in suppressing journalists: Harassment, imprisonment, or execution.

Covering the current administration is so far not a life-threatening exercise. That's what people mean by "amateur". There are other countries where reporting carries real, immediate risks to one's safety.

Consider the luxury of being a US-based reporter when there's people like Raif Badawi facing execution just for blogging: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raif_Badawi

Exactly. Bannon isn't tossing Wolf Blitzer in jail for saying something bad about the administration. Lesser journalists aren't just disappeared off the streets and never seen again.

Amateur, by standards of suppressing the media.

As much as that's true today, I have no idea what tomorrow brings. They've already terminated a high-level judge for obstructing the administration. What if they "detain" a reporter for "leaking classified information"? What if Manning-like detention becomes the norm for those that speak out?

I'm extremely concerned that in the next few weeks the President will appear with generals flanking him at some big military event and he'll make some incoherent speech about something or other and, at a quick glance, you might not be able to tell him from Muammar Gaddafi.

Once he crosses that line there's no telling what will happen. There are too many utterly terrifying historical examples to draw on.

Are you talking about the firing of the acting Attorney General? Not a judge.

It wasn't really that big a deal, it was as much a political statement on her part as it was on the administration's. It's concerning, but it is unlikely to become part of a pattern, the top officials at the Justice Department will soon be appointees of the administration rather than people that agreed to carry out necessary functions during the transition.

> ...it is unlikely to become part of a pattern...

And that's where we disagree. I think this is the first of many.

What are you talking about? This type of incoherent rambling gives normal liberals a bad name.

People I know who've had to escape tyrannical regimes would say this isn't incoherent rambling.

If Glen Beck and Newt Gingrich are raising concerns this is not a "liberal" problem. Get a grip.

They don't have to suppress the media if they just undermine their credibility. I think this is the strategy and they are successful with it. If people view the New York Times and breitbart.com as equally biased then you have a problem.

That's a very sensationalist way of putting it, especially when they say "Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment..."

I don't find the parent comment sensationalist. The letter compares the current situation in the US to what Reuters has dealt with in Iran and other oppressive countries. It's hardly sensational to point that out explicitly.

Also, "very sensationalist" is not only redundant but itself sensationalist.

But it's true. Reuters is going to treat media reporting in the US like they treat reporting in countries heavy on censorship and hostile to the media. Let's see if that improves the reporting of facts.

Reuters simply said they have experience reporting in authoritarian countries and they don't yet know how 'sharp' Trump will be regarding the media. They're basically saying Reuters is prepared to deal with that, assuming it becomes a reality. They are not saying it's currently the case.

As far as I can tell the 'war on journalists' has almost entirely been words so far. The administration has been light with facts yes but that is a far cry from the type of media control exhibited under authoritarian regimes. So yes the OPs comment is a sensationalist interpretation.

I get the impression that people are a little too eager to characterize themselves as repressed, as if America has suddenly turned into an all-out authoritarian regime in the last week, where they are becoming a bit disconnected from reality, or at the very minimum jumping the gun. Reminds me of the classic Monty Python scene https://youtu.be/Vl4ufIrMtXg

You might be right about things, but there's plenty of time.

Part of the issue, for me, isn't so much what Trump has done so far policy-wise, it's the environment this is all occurring in, and what Trump is setting up and what he has done in the past. If the legislature was in Democratic control, I wouldn't be so concerned. If Trump had actually divested his business, I might rest easier. If Trump weren't so much in the pockets of Russia for obvious reasons, it might not be so bad. And so forth and so on.

Instead, we have all of it happening simultaneously. To summarize:

1. You have a white supremacist in a central position in the white house.

2. There are concerns about Trump's vulnerability to Russia, with reports of his involvement in hacking, and evidence prior to the election that this is true.

3. To make (2) worse, you have a visible schism developing between Trump and the people who would know about those things, the intelligence and military communities. The president is actually essentially siding with Russia and distancing himself from US military and intelligence.

4. At the same time, he's bringing the FBI, who is in charge of domestic enforcement, more under his control, and eliminating segments of it that disagree with him. He rewards Comey, who arguably was complicit in using his position to sway the election.

5. The FBI itself reports concerns about white supremacy in law enforcement. So now you have white supremacists cuddling up to the people who are supposed to do something about white supremacy.

6. The other person who might be in a position to do something, the AG, also has a history of white supremacist positions.

7. Trump refuses to actually divest of himself of his business interests, creating huge conflicts of interests.

8. He places people with massive financial conflicts of interest in certain cabinet posts, essentially letting foxes run the henhouses.

9. He's actively hostile toward the press, who are simply doing what they should be doing and holding public officials to the high standard of scrutiny they should be held to.

Do I need to go on?

Essentially, there's no checks and balances anymore. At all. The person in the white house, who lost the popular vote, is behaving as if he's an organized crime boss. And the GOP is acting as if the ends always justifies the means, even if it means dismantling democratic processes. See NC for an example of this playing out.

This is why some people are freaking out. Because even if it's not currently fascism nationally, it's feeling very similar to it. I know those terms were used by those on the hard right about Obama, and maybe diluted the meaning of the term, but at the moment there's too much unchecked power. Way too much.

My political beliefs actually don't align well with either major party, but to me this is a very very very bad situation.

We shouldn't have to worry about whether or not we're jumping the gun. That's the point.

I should note that if you lean to the Right and/or don't worship the Clintons and the Democratic party, then most of the US media has seemed like a third-world Party Line news for a long time.

If you view people who don't agree with you politically as strawmen who "worship" your least favorite politicians, then you've already failed at understanding the world. Everyone disagrees on stuff, but if you want to understand people and the world, the only way to do that is to see things from other peoples' perspective. They have plenty of reasons for voting the way they do that have nothing to do with being brainwashed or worshipping false idols or whatever. You may or may not agree with those reasons, and those reasons may be based on true or false premises, but if you don't understand your opposition you will never defeat them, if that's your goal. You might even find that better government is a higher goal than beating whatever group you've lumped into a single hate bucket. What you said is no different from how you think "those people" view you.

I don't object to people disagreeing with me politically. Yes, the "worship the Clintons and Democratic party" part is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Are you sure your own political position isn't blinding you?

I do object when those who disagree with me politically smear my side, or even anyone on their side who doesn't agree with them enthusiastically enough, as racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, redneck, while they claim to be the most intelligent people in the world and the sole source of compassion and tolerance.

I'm happy to have a reasonable discussion with anyone who has at least put some thought into their position and doesn't devolve to slinging insults around when they see facts they don't like.

I don't think parent poster has a problem with people having opposing views, but with media organisations affirming they are unbiased while they are not. And this criticism is not limited to the right wing -- see Chomsky.

It's a damn shame that our country is so split into two parties (or worse -- "moderates") that we assume you're either Left or your Right. I know many people who would feel more involved in the political system if there were viable parties that represented beliefs that cross (or often are completely unrepresented in) party lines.

The two party system coerces us into false dichotomies far too often.

So long-running papers such as the Wall Street Journal, regional / local newspapers with long conservative histories (example: the Chicago Tribune, Dallas Morning News, etc.), several long running political analysis magazines (National Review, Weekly Standard, American Spectator), even the vast tabloid (New York Post) and AM talk market, are Clinton / Democratic party worshipers? News to me.

Heck, Fox News itself is over 20 years old. So I'm not sure what "long time" you are referring to.

I note what you picked (newspapers and news magazines, plus talk radio and Fox). But you left out MSNBC, CNN, and even the New York Times for some reason...

That is: Yes, there are center-right or right-wing press organizations. Despite that, it is still true that the bulk of the "mainstream" press is no longer center - they have become biased, and sometimes even actively helping Democratic campaigns. That's not what "mainstream" used to be.

The United States traditionally has enjoyed a wide variety of opinions in its various regional daily newspapers, and some studies in the past have shown very little bias overall (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000....). Obviously there was individual bias, but not in the meta.

Maybe something has happened of late (would love to see data, aside from cable news which I think has obtained strong bias of late). But personally, I believe that if there is a problem, it is more the consolidation of media outlets into very large corporations.

This is a lack of diversity problem, not a bias problem. If "mainstream media" is defined by Big Corporations, you have to include Fox News (News Corporation) and AM talk radio (largely Clear Channel) with the liberal side of MSNBC (Comcast), Time Warner (CNN), Disney (ABC), and CBS. I can easily buy that the fact we have much fewer voices than we used to driving the narrative might lead more to monolithic opinions and groupthink.

Incidentally, I personally find the charges you are making about media actively helping campaigns a bit weird as well, given Steve Bannon's role in the Trump campaign.

I never considered Breitbart as part of mainstream media, so I ignored that. CNN is in a completely different position than Breitbart.

"Mainstream" used to be NBC, CBS, and ABC, plus AP and UPI. Of those, UPI's gone; NBC, CBS, and ABC have more-or-less abandoned their role. Fox and CNN are new-ish (at least to a person of my age). So to claim that "the mainstream media" all abandoned the center means "almost all the original ones did" - not counting Fox (or even CNN) in the reckoning. Never the less, CNN and Fox are far more mainstream than Breitbart, which is a marginal fringe player.

Surely, Trump mouthing off couple of guys from White House press corps makes US media as tightly state-controlled as in Russia and Iran. How does it even make sense? Media environment in US is nowhere nearly similar to Russia or Iran, and is not "becoming" anything like it, regardless of what Trump tweets. If Trump nationalizes CNN or bans access to NYT website, then it would be one small step towards where Russia and Iran is. That kind of exaggeration is exactly why it is so hard to take many MSM outlets seriously.

America is a country where you can read Hillary's emails (via wikileaks, that you won't get in trouble for visiting) but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.)

> but she can't read yours. (Nor can Trump.)

Lol, how quickly we forget: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

They can read your email at their discretion, via a warrant from a secret court whose proceedings you can neither contest nor attend, and order companies to comply without exposing who for or why they are doing said orders.

Only truly off-the-record end-to-end encrypted communications are safe channels in the United States. And email ain't one of them.

We can really only read those emails due to leaks.

Public officials' communications should be in the domain of the public by default unless there is a real urgent need to keep something secret.

I would actually strongly disagree with that. Officials need to be able to exchange ideas freely amongst themselves and within confidence in a non-media environment. They need to be able to say things to each other in person, on phones, and in email communications in less discrete terms that otherwise would need to be crafted to appease their political coalitions and oppositions. They need to be able to ask and say stupid things. If you take that away from officials they lose their ability to actually deliberate and think about policy in terms of the merits of the policy. There is a balance to strike in terms of transparency and public accountability, but a transparency free for all in which no communication is private can easily lead to bad policy and outcomes.

Its not too different from not having a client see your business's internal communications. 99% of the time you aren't trying to screw your client and are trying to do a good job for them, but you really don't want to show them the sausage factory in any case because it will make it harder to do a good job for them if everything you do or say is presented to the client.

However, the public should have the ability to request through Freedom of Information channels access to emails or documents about particular topics. Not necessarily in real time or in short time frames, but being about to oversee the political sphere is important too.

Wow, that is a pretty extreme position. (I can't dismiss it outright as obviously the senate can debate things and come to conclusions and make policy, even if all the debates and hearings are public.)

In your opinion should politicians be allowed to meet each other and talk privately (about politics) at all? Or should there be no private meetings allowed? (Or at least no talking politics if they do meet.)

The impossible grey area would be what defines 'urgent.' Nevertheless, I would welcome less abuse of state secrets privilege.