CNN: Trump emboldens attackers of the media in war zones, puts them in danger

In a segment on CNN, pundits say that Trump’s attacks on the media will embolden people to attack them in war zones, and puts all journalists in danger.

Watch below:



Here’s a transcript of what they said:

CLARISSA WARD, CNN HOST: Chris, at what point does this become dangerous? And I’m not just talking about dangerous in terms of tearing at the social fabric, I’m talking about dangerous as in a journalist gets hurt, because I can tell you working overseas in war zones, people are emboldened by the actions of this administration, emboldened by the all-out declaration of war on the media. If I’m getting it in the neck, Chris, I can only imagine what a person like you is dealing with. At what point does this become reckless or irresponsible, Chris?

CHRIS CILLIZZA, EDITOR AT LARGE, CNN POLITICS: I don’t want to say we’re past that point.

BRIAN KAREM, ‘PLAYBOY’ WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: We are past that point.

CILLIZZA: I think it is already dangerous what the Trump administration is doing, which is Brian’s point. They are trying to taken an honest mistake, or not even a mistake, and turn it into the norm as opposed — the rule opposed to the exception, which is a very dangerous thing because that’s willfully misleading, frankly.

The idea that Dave Farenthold, who was my colleague for a very long time and doesn’t toot his own horn enough, the idea he was attacked for doing what he did had nothing to do with the quality of the journalism he was doing. It was 100 percent about it was a bad story for Donald Trump. In Donald Trump’s world the media is judged by you are good if you write things that are good for Donald Trump. You are objectively bad if you criticize Donald Trump. It is not our job to be liked by Donald Trump. It is not our job to report the news — as Sean Spicer said and Sarah said it yesterday, you guys ignore the news that’s important. You know, I do think the Russian hacking of an election is important news.

CUOMO: Right.

CILLIZZA: We can debate collusion. They’re right, there’s no evidence of that. But this is about the broader hacking of an election. In Dave’s case it was about a charitable organization that didn’t give to charity for the man who was running to be the president of the United States. It doesn’t have to do with the fact Donald Trump is a Republican. I guarantee you a million times over, because I know Dave personally, if it was the Hillary Clinton Foundation doing the same thing, he would have done the same reporting. That’s what’s maddening when you’re watching this.

Well. Yeah. Kinda.

Man I really hate that Cillizza guy he’s so annoying.

So they have a really good point and they’re mostly right about Trump. But they get no sympathy from most conservatives because they have been colluding with the Democrats for decades. So I don’t approve of the insane histrionics that Trump employs against the media in order to cover up his incompetence. But it really is hard to give a damn about the mostly biased media…

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.