The president of the United States of America views the media as his enemy even as he pretends not to and deflects it to the people of America. He would list only a few news outlets in his tweets, who have been critical of his administration, calling them fake, when the American people who listen, read and watch the news believe what is seen, read and heard, including some of his diehard supporters. Noticeably absent among the choice of the media list is Fox News who had to pony up $787M settlement to Dominion Voting System over stolen election lies. The president himself has a legacy of lies. The Washington Post documented 30573 false or misleading claims during his first term alone. The litany of lies continues today.
He has always utilized this statement, a pet locution of autocrats, in times when he has faced heavy criticism from the media. Expressing discontent over leaks from the FBI and equally not happy with criticism for separating children from their parents as a result of his immigration policy intended to deter illegal migration to the United States, on June 17, 2018, he wasted no time to repeat what is now expected to be heard anytime he speaks: “the enemy of the people,” pointing to the press in attendance. Unwittingly, he has never realized that the use of this line has a horrid history.
The statement cannot be helpful to him as the American media have evolved from an authoritarian principle to one of libertarian with prime functions to advance the interests of its citizens. This happened in the Eighteenth century. By the end of that time, it was preserved in a form that ensures it will be protected and respected, in our constitution.
The First Amendment provides proof to this, in the following lines: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.”
The media are commonly deemed the messenger, however because reporters and editors make judgments on the news of particular stories, it becomes easy for anyone to think that such decisions could be based on personal values, discounting the concern of large segments of their audience.
But despite the media’s unhealthy position relative to all government officials, few in the mainstream media will take comfort from diminishing the office of the presidency without a reason of constitutional proportion. Reporters’ task is to directly reflect the world to the reader or viewer without any of the distortions or biases that will alter the real view. The BBC’s error in their documentary last year was not intentional, a matter the courts, I expect to agree with.
The press sometimes adopts specific values to evaluate the status quo. It is within the rights of the media to do so. As our current president compromises the freedom of the press, one of his predecessors, Thomas Jefferson had this to say: “Let everyman who has something to say on public issues express himself, regardless of whether what he had to say is true or false and let the publiic ultimately decide.”
Jefferson is said to have remarked that, “he would prefer newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers.” But our current president would praise a Republican congressman, Greg Gainforte, for slamming a reporter to the ground, calling him a “tough cookie, that’s my type of guy,” he went on.
There is every reason for the current president of the United States to dislike the press and in the process, attack the 1st amendment. “He lies, cheats, betrays, and behaves cruelly and corruptly.”

Former Republican governor, Jeb Bush in the 2016 presidential debate referred to Donald J. Trump as, “a chaos candidate and he will be a chaos president.”
It is ironic that the US presidency and the country itself no longer command the respect they once had around the world for practicing democracy. In fact, as a test of democracy and the rule of law, the country—despite its troubled history with racism—has long served as a model for others striving for a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people,” in the words of Abraham Lincoln. Today, however, both the US presidency and the US are under scrutiny as a global leader.
Amid his numerous legal issues, irrational tariffs, neglect of inflation, and hesitation to end Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, President Trump has been troubled by a potential cover-up of the Epstein files that seem to connect him to Jeffrey Epstein’s (deceased) pedophile network, despite his efforts to distance himself from his former close associate for over ten years. Therefore, it is no surprise that the president uses any means necessary to divert public attention from his campaign promise to release the Epstein files now that the Trump-appointed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Justice Department know that Trump repeatedly appears in the files in ways that could damage his image as president. This explains why Trump believed that suing the BBC over an editorial decision, which all media outlets make (even if it presents information in a biased way), would generate big headlines and draw the international public’s attention, at least temporarily, and distract from the Epstein files.
Having a habit of suing both individuals and companies, even without cause, it should not be surprising that Trump has threatened to sue the BBC for at least $1 billion over a Panorama documentary that edited his January 6, 2021, speech, which he believes was misleading. While the BBC apologized to Trump, it rejected any demand for compensation, meaning the corporation did not intend to follow in the footsteps of ABC, which agreed to pay $16 million to settle a defamation case brought by Trump. This is what the BBC stated: “We accept that our edit unintentionally created the impression that we were showing a single continuous section of the speech, rather than excerpts from different points in the speech, and that this gave the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action.” And the statement concluded, “While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim.”
In short, unlike ABC, which capitulated to Trump’s demands, the BBC has so far stuck to its stance, arguing that “the clip was not designed to mislead, but just to shorten a long speech, and that the edit was not done with malice.” Furthermore, the BBC understands that “an opinion on a matter of public concern and political speech is heavily protected under defamation laws in the US.” Therefore, while Trump may have temporarily diverted public attention from the Epstein scandal, he might not cause the BBC to cave in as ABC did in December 2024 with its $16 million settlement.
LikeLike
Tams, the BBC will not stand for a shakedown by way of threats, from a convicted felon, deceptively claiming he experienced harm emotionally or financially, when the documentary was not available for the US audience who voted him into office.
Donald J. Trump is a gold-digging/loving, money-grabbing, (what else does he grab?) vengeance-seeking, grudge-bearing president.
LikeLike