this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
270 points (98.9% liked)

politics

30431 readers
2877 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

CNN refused to broadcast President Donald Trump's White House address on Thursday, July 16, after his "history of false statements."

After the move, CNN was hit with a wave of backlash from viewers as many found the move to be a form of censorship. On X, one person wrote, "Unbelievable and unacceptable, no more 'objectivity' CNN has no credibility……all news outlets should air any President live AND LET THEIR VIEWERS DECIDE THEIR OWN OPINIONS OF LIVE PRESIDENTS NATIONAL ADDRESSES."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 69 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

“Unbelievable and unacceptable, no more ‘objectivity’ CNN has no credibility……all news outlets should air any President live AND LET THEIR VIEWERS DECIDE THEIR OWN OPINIONS OF LIVE PRESIDENTS NATIONAL ADDRESSES.”

But these same assholes cheer when Obama is ignored and Biden's speech isn't broadcast.

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 65 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

If the viewers had the ability to discern propaganda and fake news from legitimate information, we would not have Trump as president.

[–] spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 hours ago

If we had a unbiased, functional 4th estate we would not have Trump as president. Treating made up bullshit as "alternate facts" is partially why we are where we are.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago

So much of this is just the result of turnout. And so much of turnout hinges on how efficiently the campaigns operated.

The big difference between Obama, Hillary, Biden, and Harris is who knew how to organize the machinery to get their supporters to the polls in the highest numbers and who didn't.

After that, you're just living in a country where 45% of the voting base consistently goes with the most naked fascist on the ballot, because they've been programmed to hate hate hate outsiders. And if you can't juice enough of the remaining 55%, fascism is what you get.

[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 12 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

sort of, "Give me both sides of the argument and I'll decide for myself which one is right." That only works if both sides are at least trying to be accurate and thruthful.

[–] Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Thats kind of like one of my former coworkers who would always tout he's one of the most informed people because he reads "both sides". And by that, it meant he'd look at articles posted to the libertarian forums, then glance at the headlines of something he doesn't agree with.

His car radio is tuned in to focks nooz

[–] TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com 3 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I first heard that from the high schoolers who wanted lessons in both evolution and intelligent design so they could make up their own minds which one was right. -eye roll-