https://tw.news.yahoo.com/美媒大反撲-逾300家報紙社論齊轟川普-090954500.html
美媒大反撲 逾300家報紙社論齊轟川普
Yahoo奇摩（即時新聞）
13.2k 人追蹤
2018年8月16日 下午5:09
美國總統川普稱部分媒體是美國人民的敵人，超過300家美國報紙誓言，今天將在社論齊批川普，以捍衛新聞自由。
美國總統川普。（中央社／資料照）
「波士頓環球報」（The Boston Globe）發起這項行動，大報「紐約時報」（New York Times）和一些較小報都加入，包括川普在2016年贏得總統大選的部分州出刊的小報。
波士頓環球報昨天在網路上放上的一篇社論，指控川普對自由媒體發動持續攻擊。
川普去年2月就曾發推文說，「假新聞媒體（失敗的紐時、美國國家廣播公司新聞網、美國廣播公司新聞網、哥倫比亞廣播公司、美國有線電視新聞網）不是我的敵人，而是美國人民的敵人」！
白宮代表尚未對此社論行動發表評論。
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trump-and-the-enemies-of-the-people
Trump and the Enemies of the People
By David Remnick
August 15, 2018
The refusal to bend to President Trump’s assault on the press is essential to the future of American democracy.
Photograph by Damon Winter / NYT / Redux
Nikita Khrushchev, in his memoirs, observed that Joseph Stalin, his despotic and bloody-minded predecessor, referred to “everyone who didn’t agree with him as an ‘enemy of the people.’ ”
“As a result, several hundred thousand honest people perished,” Khrushchev said, underestimating the number of dead from Stalin’s mass repressions by many millions. “Everyone lived in fear in those days. Everyone expected that at any moment there would be a knock on the door in the middle of the night and that knock on the door would prove fatal.” Countless men and women—artists, journalists, farmers, intellectuals, engineers, scientists—were shot in the back of the head or banished to the vast system of labor camps that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described in “The Gulag Archipelago.”
As a military and Communist Party leader, Khrushchev himself had played a role in that butchery. He dutifully signed arrest records. He turned a blind eye to the executions of innumerable Party comrades. And yet, in 1956, three years after Stalin’s death, he bravely delivered a secret speech to the Communist Party’s Central Committee, in which he repudiated Stalin’s “cult of personality.” He described in shocking terms how the term “enemies of the people” had been an instrument of the “physical annihilation” of so many human beings now buried in frozen earth, from Murmansk to Magadan.
Khrushchev’s “thaw,” his project of de-Stalinization, quickly met with firm resistance from within the Party. He barely survived a coup attempt in 1957, and he was finally ousted in 1964. The manuscript of his memoirs had to be smuggled to the West; it finally ended up in the hands of editors at Little, Brown, & Co. and Life magazine. But in that fleeting period of liberalization a new generation came to maturity. A very small number of men and women became dissidents, incurring tremendous risks as they typed up forbidden manuscripts, spoke out against the crushing of the Prague Spring, in 1968, and protested other acts of violence against human rights and dignity. Many more became the so-called shestidesyatniki, men and women who came of age in the sixties and who worked within the system, making myriad compromises of the spirit, all the while searching for openings to change Soviet society. Their great chance came in 1985, with the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev’s crucial insight––his ideological foes would call it his ruinous insight—was that the Soviet Union, for all its success as a nuclear military power, was otherwise frozen in time, economically and technologically backward. “Upper Volta with rockets” was how the joke went. Without an honest reckoning with history, without truthful reporting on contemporary realities, without intellectual freedom, the Soviet Union would fall deeper into a state of isolation and torpor. And so Gorbachev initiated a policy known as glasnost, or openness. That meant the publication of forbidden authors: Akhmatova, Mandelstam, Solzhenitsyn, Bulgakov, Brodsky. Historians began to scrutinize not only Stalin but also Lenin, the regime’s founding father and ideological deity. Foreign writers who had previously been considered threats to Soviet security—Orwell, Huxley, Havel—were published. And, perhaps most essential to the political moment, Gorbachev and his liberal allies in the leadership sanctioned the editors of the Moscow News, Ogonyok, and other publications to print articles on corruption, poverty, the war in Afghanistan, homosexuality—a range of subjects that had not previously made their way past the censors.
After a millennium of tsarist autocracy and seven decades of Communist totalitarianism, this was a revolution of consciousness, a period of liberation and potential without precedent. As if out of nowhere––and with great inspiration from the West—a free press, and a freer Russia, was being born. “The difference between ‘the thaw’ and ‘glasnost’ was a difference in temperature,” Len Karpinsky, one of the leading liberal journalists of the Gorbachev generation, told me, in Moscow at the time. “If the temperature under Khrushchev was two degrees above zero centigrade, then glasnost pushed it to twenty above. Huge chunks of ice just melted away, and now we were talking not only about Stalin’s personality cult but of Leninism, Marxism, the essence of the system.”
This was three decades ago. It’s nearly impossible to relay now how thrilling that time was, how disorienting it was, and what a challenge all this truth was to millions of people raised in the Soviet system. It’s even harder to imagine having so much of that progress taken away—which is what happened in Russia not long after Vladimir Putin rose to power. To watch Russian television news now is to be thrown back in time; the level of propaganda and the slavish fealty to the Great Leader is familiar to anyone old enough to have lived in the years before Gorbachev.
All this foreign history should not feel quite so foreign now. It should serve as a warning to Americans in the era of Donald Trump about the fragility of principles and institutions, particularly when those principles and institutions are under attack by a leader who was ostensibly elected to protect them. This week, dozens of American publications are publishing editorials in ardent opposition to President Trump’s assault on the press and his use of that poisonous phrase “enemies of the people.” The refusal to bend to that assault, and the protection of practices and institutions that are more fragile than we usually care to acknowledge, is essential to the future of American democracy.
Video From The New Yorker
The Immigrants Deported to Death and Violence
Nearly every day, Trump makes his hostility clear. He refers to reporters as “scum,” “slime,” and “sick people.” They are cast as unpatriotic––“I really think they don’t like our country,” he says. They are “trying to take away our history and our heritage.” Trump has smeared critical news organizations as “fake news,” a term gleefully adopted by Putin, Bashar al-Assad, and other autocrats who are delighted to have their own repressive reflexes endorsed by an American President. Trump has threatened to sue publishers, cancel broadcast licenses, change libel laws. He betrays no sense of understanding, much less of endorsing, the rudiments of American liberty. During a visit from the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Trump told reporters that he thought it was “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write.”
By casting the press as an “enemy,” Trump is not merely joining a long list of Presidents who have bristled at criticism. He goes much further than his predecessors, including paranoiacs like Richard Nixon, who assembled a secret “enemies list” and raged in the Oval Office to his chief of staff about barring the Washington Post from the White House grounds. Trump’s rages are public. They are daily. And they are part of a concerted effort to undermine precepts of American constitutionalism and to cast his lot with the illiberal and authoritarian movements now on the rise around the world.
Trump’s assaults are, of course, hardly limited to the press. His targets include immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, judges, environmentalists, and any person––foreign or domestic––who dares to question him. While the world overheats, Donald Trump feels it imperative to slander LeBron James. The assaults are part of his effort to cultivate—at any cost—a core political following, turbocharged by resentments, and thereby to boost his bid for reëlection.
It would be easy to dismiss Trump’s behavior as farcical, a subplot in his reality-TV Presidency. And yet it is essential to recognize what damage the President is doing, and how intent he is on eroding inviolable rights. What the Russian experience makes plain is the fragility of press freedom. This week’s editorials on this topic, here and elsewhere, aim to maintain American vigilance in defense of that freedom. This is not a matter of the press seeking to protect itself as an interest group. The interest group in question is the United States.
Because Trump knows little about policy or history, it is tempting to imagine that he knows nothing at all. This is a mistake. He knows well that the American press is hardly popular and, in many ways, is on the defensive. He knows that many news outlets are, in his pitiless term, “failing,” or at least struggling for survival in the wake of vast changes in technology and in the advertising market. He knows that the ecosystem of information and its distribution has changed radically, and he has figured out how to exploit that change. He has seized on the capacities of right-wing radio, cable television, and social media to form an alternative, fact-free, Trumpian universe. For decades, Trump took little interest in matters of state, but he has studied the media for years. Even as a real-estate mogul, he was not a master builder; he was a master manipulator. He spent decades honing his self-aggrandizement in the pages of the New York tabloids and on local television. Then he took his graduate degree in media studies as the central figure on “The Apprentice.” He learned the dark arts of misdirection, bullying, and lying. He came to believe that he could fool enough of the people enough of the time to suit his purposes. He learned how to render himself as a distinctive and “colorful” character. He sensed the weaknesses in lesser reporters: their laziness; their willingness to cut a deal or make a trade; their desire to please an editor with cheap sensation, a “story.” He even made “catch and kill” deals with tabloids such as the National Enquirer, which protected him from carnal and financial scandal.
Just as he has made enemies of women, Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, Trump has calculated that it is to his political advantage to isolate skeptics in the press and declare them “enemies of the people.” At a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in December, 2015, he sarcastically set his limits where his view of the press was concerned. “I would never kill them, but I do hate them,” he said. “And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.” His supporters at such rallies take their cue from the President and shake their fists, scream epithets, make threats, and threaten violence. It would be reckless to assume that, over time, all those supporters, incited to the point of fury, of violence, will contain themselves.
Recently, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that this demagoguery could have bloody consequences, setting in motion “a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship.” He observed that, globally, the United States “creates a demonstration effect, which then is picked up by other countries where the leadership tends to be more authoritarian.” But, then, the language of Stalinism has always come at a cost. If it persists, a toll will be extracted from journalists, from the institutions of liberal democracy, and—here and elsewhere—from the people.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...erts-the-press-is-not-the-enemy-of-the-people
Senate rejects Trump, asserts the press is 'not the enemy of the people'
by Pete Kasperowicz
| August 16, 2018 12:28 PM
Print this article
The Senate quickly considered the resolution from Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and passed it unanimously in a voice vote.
(Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
Sign up for News from Washington Examiner
The Senate on Thursday approved a resolution asserting that the press is "not the enemy of the people," as President Trump has claimed, and condemning Trump's ongoing attacks against reporters.
The Senate quickly considered the resolution from Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and passed it unanimously in a voice vote.
The resolution doesn't specifically mention Trump, but a statement from Schatz's office said the resolution was offered in the wake of Trump's effort to "attack journalists and news organizations."
Don't forget all those other judges
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
[Opinion: The press is not the enemy of the people, but it sometimes acts like it]
The resolution noted the importance of freedom of the press from the founding of the United States, as well as efforts by "tyrannical and authoritarian governments" to "undermine, censor, suppress, and control the press to advance their undemocratic goals."
"The Senate ... affirms that the press is not the enemy of the people," it read. It said the Senate "reaffirms the vital and indispensable role the free press serves to inform the electorate, uncover the truth, act as a check on the inherent power of the government, further national discourse and debate, and otherwise advance our most basic and cherished democratic norms and freedoms."
It concluded by saying the Senate "condemns attacks on the institution of the free press and views efforts to systematically undermine the credibility of the press as a whole as an attack on our democratic institutions."
美媒大反撲 逾300家報紙社論齊轟川普
Yahoo奇摩（即時新聞）
13.2k 人追蹤
2018年8月16日 下午5:09
美國總統川普稱部分媒體是美國人民的敵人，超過300家美國報紙誓言，今天將在社論齊批川普，以捍衛新聞自由。
美國總統川普。（中央社／資料照）
「波士頓環球報」（The Boston Globe）發起這項行動，大報「紐約時報」（New York Times）和一些較小報都加入，包括川普在2016年贏得總統大選的部分州出刊的小報。
波士頓環球報昨天在網路上放上的一篇社論，指控川普對自由媒體發動持續攻擊。
川普去年2月就曾發推文說，「假新聞媒體（失敗的紐時、美國國家廣播公司新聞網、美國廣播公司新聞網、哥倫比亞廣播公司、美國有線電視新聞網）不是我的敵人，而是美國人民的敵人」！
白宮代表尚未對此社論行動發表評論。
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trump-and-the-enemies-of-the-people
Trump and the Enemies of the People
By David Remnick
August 15, 2018
The refusal to bend to President Trump’s assault on the press is essential to the future of American democracy.
Photograph by Damon Winter / NYT / Redux
Nikita Khrushchev, in his memoirs, observed that Joseph Stalin, his despotic and bloody-minded predecessor, referred to “everyone who didn’t agree with him as an ‘enemy of the people.’ ”
“As a result, several hundred thousand honest people perished,” Khrushchev said, underestimating the number of dead from Stalin’s mass repressions by many millions. “Everyone lived in fear in those days. Everyone expected that at any moment there would be a knock on the door in the middle of the night and that knock on the door would prove fatal.” Countless men and women—artists, journalists, farmers, intellectuals, engineers, scientists—were shot in the back of the head or banished to the vast system of labor camps that Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn described in “The Gulag Archipelago.”
As a military and Communist Party leader, Khrushchev himself had played a role in that butchery. He dutifully signed arrest records. He turned a blind eye to the executions of innumerable Party comrades. And yet, in 1956, three years after Stalin’s death, he bravely delivered a secret speech to the Communist Party’s Central Committee, in which he repudiated Stalin’s “cult of personality.” He described in shocking terms how the term “enemies of the people” had been an instrument of the “physical annihilation” of so many human beings now buried in frozen earth, from Murmansk to Magadan.
Khrushchev’s “thaw,” his project of de-Stalinization, quickly met with firm resistance from within the Party. He barely survived a coup attempt in 1957, and he was finally ousted in 1964. The manuscript of his memoirs had to be smuggled to the West; it finally ended up in the hands of editors at Little, Brown, & Co. and Life magazine. But in that fleeting period of liberalization a new generation came to maturity. A very small number of men and women became dissidents, incurring tremendous risks as they typed up forbidden manuscripts, spoke out against the crushing of the Prague Spring, in 1968, and protested other acts of violence against human rights and dignity. Many more became the so-called shestidesyatniki, men and women who came of age in the sixties and who worked within the system, making myriad compromises of the spirit, all the while searching for openings to change Soviet society. Their great chance came in 1985, with the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev.
Gorbachev’s crucial insight––his ideological foes would call it his ruinous insight—was that the Soviet Union, for all its success as a nuclear military power, was otherwise frozen in time, economically and technologically backward. “Upper Volta with rockets” was how the joke went. Without an honest reckoning with history, without truthful reporting on contemporary realities, without intellectual freedom, the Soviet Union would fall deeper into a state of isolation and torpor. And so Gorbachev initiated a policy known as glasnost, or openness. That meant the publication of forbidden authors: Akhmatova, Mandelstam, Solzhenitsyn, Bulgakov, Brodsky. Historians began to scrutinize not only Stalin but also Lenin, the regime’s founding father and ideological deity. Foreign writers who had previously been considered threats to Soviet security—Orwell, Huxley, Havel—were published. And, perhaps most essential to the political moment, Gorbachev and his liberal allies in the leadership sanctioned the editors of the Moscow News, Ogonyok, and other publications to print articles on corruption, poverty, the war in Afghanistan, homosexuality—a range of subjects that had not previously made their way past the censors.
After a millennium of tsarist autocracy and seven decades of Communist totalitarianism, this was a revolution of consciousness, a period of liberation and potential without precedent. As if out of nowhere––and with great inspiration from the West—a free press, and a freer Russia, was being born. “The difference between ‘the thaw’ and ‘glasnost’ was a difference in temperature,” Len Karpinsky, one of the leading liberal journalists of the Gorbachev generation, told me, in Moscow at the time. “If the temperature under Khrushchev was two degrees above zero centigrade, then glasnost pushed it to twenty above. Huge chunks of ice just melted away, and now we were talking not only about Stalin’s personality cult but of Leninism, Marxism, the essence of the system.”
This was three decades ago. It’s nearly impossible to relay now how thrilling that time was, how disorienting it was, and what a challenge all this truth was to millions of people raised in the Soviet system. It’s even harder to imagine having so much of that progress taken away—which is what happened in Russia not long after Vladimir Putin rose to power. To watch Russian television news now is to be thrown back in time; the level of propaganda and the slavish fealty to the Great Leader is familiar to anyone old enough to have lived in the years before Gorbachev.
All this foreign history should not feel quite so foreign now. It should serve as a warning to Americans in the era of Donald Trump about the fragility of principles and institutions, particularly when those principles and institutions are under attack by a leader who was ostensibly elected to protect them. This week, dozens of American publications are publishing editorials in ardent opposition to President Trump’s assault on the press and his use of that poisonous phrase “enemies of the people.” The refusal to bend to that assault, and the protection of practices and institutions that are more fragile than we usually care to acknowledge, is essential to the future of American democracy.
Video From The New Yorker
The Immigrants Deported to Death and Violence
Nearly every day, Trump makes his hostility clear. He refers to reporters as “scum,” “slime,” and “sick people.” They are cast as unpatriotic––“I really think they don’t like our country,” he says. They are “trying to take away our history and our heritage.” Trump has smeared critical news organizations as “fake news,” a term gleefully adopted by Putin, Bashar al-Assad, and other autocrats who are delighted to have their own repressive reflexes endorsed by an American President. Trump has threatened to sue publishers, cancel broadcast licenses, change libel laws. He betrays no sense of understanding, much less of endorsing, the rudiments of American liberty. During a visit from the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, Trump told reporters that he thought it was “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write.”
By casting the press as an “enemy,” Trump is not merely joining a long list of Presidents who have bristled at criticism. He goes much further than his predecessors, including paranoiacs like Richard Nixon, who assembled a secret “enemies list” and raged in the Oval Office to his chief of staff about barring the Washington Post from the White House grounds. Trump’s rages are public. They are daily. And they are part of a concerted effort to undermine precepts of American constitutionalism and to cast his lot with the illiberal and authoritarian movements now on the rise around the world.
Trump’s assaults are, of course, hardly limited to the press. His targets include immigrants, African-Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, judges, environmentalists, and any person––foreign or domestic––who dares to question him. While the world overheats, Donald Trump feels it imperative to slander LeBron James. The assaults are part of his effort to cultivate—at any cost—a core political following, turbocharged by resentments, and thereby to boost his bid for reëlection.
It would be easy to dismiss Trump’s behavior as farcical, a subplot in his reality-TV Presidency. And yet it is essential to recognize what damage the President is doing, and how intent he is on eroding inviolable rights. What the Russian experience makes plain is the fragility of press freedom. This week’s editorials on this topic, here and elsewhere, aim to maintain American vigilance in defense of that freedom. This is not a matter of the press seeking to protect itself as an interest group. The interest group in question is the United States.
Because Trump knows little about policy or history, it is tempting to imagine that he knows nothing at all. This is a mistake. He knows well that the American press is hardly popular and, in many ways, is on the defensive. He knows that many news outlets are, in his pitiless term, “failing,” or at least struggling for survival in the wake of vast changes in technology and in the advertising market. He knows that the ecosystem of information and its distribution has changed radically, and he has figured out how to exploit that change. He has seized on the capacities of right-wing radio, cable television, and social media to form an alternative, fact-free, Trumpian universe. For decades, Trump took little interest in matters of state, but he has studied the media for years. Even as a real-estate mogul, he was not a master builder; he was a master manipulator. He spent decades honing his self-aggrandizement in the pages of the New York tabloids and on local television. Then he took his graduate degree in media studies as the central figure on “The Apprentice.” He learned the dark arts of misdirection, bullying, and lying. He came to believe that he could fool enough of the people enough of the time to suit his purposes. He learned how to render himself as a distinctive and “colorful” character. He sensed the weaknesses in lesser reporters: their laziness; their willingness to cut a deal or make a trade; their desire to please an editor with cheap sensation, a “story.” He even made “catch and kill” deals with tabloids such as the National Enquirer, which protected him from carnal and financial scandal.
Just as he has made enemies of women, Muslims, Latinos, and African-Americans, Trump has calculated that it is to his political advantage to isolate skeptics in the press and declare them “enemies of the people.” At a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in December, 2015, he sarcastically set his limits where his view of the press was concerned. “I would never kill them, but I do hate them,” he said. “And some of them are such lying, disgusting people.” His supporters at such rallies take their cue from the President and shake their fists, scream epithets, make threats, and threaten violence. It would be reckless to assume that, over time, all those supporters, incited to the point of fury, of violence, will contain themselves.
Recently, Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, warned that this demagoguery could have bloody consequences, setting in motion “a chain of events which could quite easily lead to harm being inflicted on journalists just going about their work and potentially some self-censorship.” He observed that, globally, the United States “creates a demonstration effect, which then is picked up by other countries where the leadership tends to be more authoritarian.” But, then, the language of Stalinism has always come at a cost. If it persists, a toll will be extracted from journalists, from the institutions of liberal democracy, and—here and elsewhere—from the people.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...erts-the-press-is-not-the-enemy-of-the-people
Senate rejects Trump, asserts the press is 'not the enemy of the people'
by Pete Kasperowicz
| August 16, 2018 12:28 PM
Print this article
(Jacquelyn Martin/AP)
Sign up for News from Washington Examiner
The Senate on Thursday approved a resolution asserting that the press is "not the enemy of the people," as President Trump has claimed, and condemning Trump's ongoing attacks against reporters.
The Senate quickly considered the resolution from Sens. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and passed it unanimously in a voice vote.
The resolution doesn't specifically mention Trump, but a statement from Schatz's office said the resolution was offered in the wake of Trump's effort to "attack journalists and news organizations."
Don't forget all those other judges
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
[Opinion: The press is not the enemy of the people, but it sometimes acts like it]
The resolution noted the importance of freedom of the press from the founding of the United States, as well as efforts by "tyrannical and authoritarian governments" to "undermine, censor, suppress, and control the press to advance their undemocratic goals."
"The Senate ... affirms that the press is not the enemy of the people," it read. It said the Senate "reaffirms the vital and indispensable role the free press serves to inform the electorate, uncover the truth, act as a check on the inherent power of the government, further national discourse and debate, and otherwise advance our most basic and cherished democratic norms and freedoms."
It concluded by saying the Senate "condemns attacks on the institution of the free press and views efforts to systematically undermine the credibility of the press as a whole as an attack on our democratic institutions."
