Trump threatens to 'close' down social media platforms

Can this even be considered a free speech issue? They aren't deleting his tweet, only displaying it alongside a fact check. Of course you can try to call into question the impartiality of the fact check but that is a long way from not deciding not to show the content.

A fact check would be fine if it led to objective analyses of some sort, or even Wikipedia. But when I clicked it, it displayed some highly partisan sources, including a CNN article with its usual "Trump bad" vitriol. Maybe it was an algorithm's fault, but it didn't work at all.

How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light?

> How do you objectively report on trump without it painting him in a bad light?

You are missing the point. Using objective reporting to paint a bad person in a bad light is exactly what "the media" should do.

I went to cnn's homepage and clicked on this article[1]. Lets look at the first paragraph:

> President Donald Trump's use of the bully pulpit to defy his own government's advice on face coverings has turned into the era's latest ideologically motivated assault on science and civility. His noncompliance is a symbol of his refusal to adopt the customary codes of the presidency during a crisis and his habit of turning even a dire national moment to political advantage.

You can't possibly call that objective reporting. The factual content is true, but highly highly subjective and filled with inflammatory language.

Saying "Trump refuses to wear a facemask in defiance of $HealthExpert's advice" is objective. Calling that act "an assault on science and civility" is a heavily inflammatory and subjective stance.

To be clear, I don't disagree with CNN here. Trump is being dumb. But you can't pretend like CNN is objective or unbiased.

CNN, like all news media, is a private, profit seeking corporation who will pander to their audience to generate ad revenue. And there is nothing inherently wrong with that. But turning around and treating this multi-million dollar corporation as the sole arbiter of absolute, objective truth is plain foolish.

[1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/politics/donald-trump-covid-m...

EDIT: Some argue that this is an opinion piece and so my point is invalid. Up in the top left corner, this article is marked as "Analysis by $Author" instead of just "by $Author". They don't label it as an opinion, and they don't place it differently on their home page. It is an analysis on current events, written by a CNN reporter, hosted on the CNN front page. This is an explicit endorsement of the content of the article, and it's crazy to say that CNN is absolved of all journalistic integrity because this article is an "analysis" versus "regular" news. The only difference is the addition of the single word "Analysis" hidden in the top left corner. This article is clearly meant to be treated as any other.

I suppose that is the problem with using examples, though. People would rather pick apart the example rather than face the larger claim. Without examples, of course, the point would be dismissed as unsubstantiated. It's just not possible to change people's minds, I guess.

EDIT 2: This is what an actual opinion piece looks like: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-m...

They disclaim that the article is the authors opinion, they host it in the opinions section, and have opinion in the header, etc. The article I linked is not an opinion piece.

You clicked on an opinion article and caught the vapors when you found that it contained an opinion.

This is an "Analysis", not an opinion. This is what a CNN opinion piece looks like:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/21/opinions/trump-racist-tweet-m...

It is at a /opinions/ url, it has the word "Opinion" in the header, and it has this disclaimer above the article:

> The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own

Most importantly, it is not posted directly on the CNN home page. You have to click a link to go to the opinions section to see opinion articles.

The article I chose as an example is not an opinion piece. It is presented to the user the same way every other news piece is, just with the word "Analysis" tacked on in the corner. No reasonable person would say "Oh, this is just an analysis, I shouldn't take it seriously".

> It is presented to the user the same way every other news piece is, just with the word "Analysis" tacked on in the corner.

The word 'Analysis' is right there in the title on their web site, it's not confusing in the slightest to a reasonable person imho.