this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2026
128 points (97.8% liked)

AntiTrumpAlliance

1732 readers
453 users here now

About

An alliance among all who oppose Donald Trump's actions, positions, cabinet, supporters, policies, or motives. This alliance includes anyone from the left or the right; anyone from any religion or lack thereof; anyone from any country or state; any man, woman or child.

Rules

-No pro-Trump posts or comments

-No off topic posts

-Be civil

-No trolling

-Follow Lemmy terms of service

Social Media

Discord

Reddit

Other Communities

!desantisthreatensusa@lemmy.world

!antifascism@midwest.social

!politicus@kbin.social

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] fireweed@lemmy.world 51 points 1 week ago (2 children)

The decision not to carry the speech live is not actually unusual: Networks usually weight the subject matter and context, and all have in the past declined to run speeches from Presidents Biden, Obama and Bush, among others.

Because the headline alone makes this sound like a bigger deal than it is.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 19 points 1 week ago

Not airing his planned election “adjustments” probably is a big deal.

[–] ryper@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

None of those presidents were as vindictive or as easily triggered as Trump. Not giving him attention is somewhat risky.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 13 points 1 week ago

None of the other presidents made speeches gathering the world press at the four seasons landscaping, or to promote their new hotel.

Giving him an all access mic at all times is also dangerous.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 10 points 1 week ago

ITT: People who didn't read the article.

These stations are still planning to cover the speech. They're not ignoring it.

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 week ago

Baby is getting fussy... baby wants attention on The White Crib from national news networks.

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

In this case, it probably should be aired the general public hears how he intends to interfere with elections.

[–] WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 13 points 1 week ago

The ones who need to understand the impact of it... won't.

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you read the article, it explains that they will still cover the speech, just not air it life without commentary.

[–] Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Thanks, I don't have the energy to engage with this and read the article right now and that's helpful context

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

I was watching his stuff before because I wanted to know what new craziness was going to happen but I realized I can't immediately do anything about it and its easier to go through after all the lies are fact checked. Man I did see his. Why does it take so long to count ballots. Counting faster does not make election counts more accurate. It takes time when you follow custody rules and such in a large city. ugh.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'd prefer they air it. While it's true that it's just an advertisement for his same old bullshit, it's also important. He should be allowed to further make an ass of himself by any means necessary.

Not carrying it folds into the MAGA narrative and is worse than just showing the thing.

[–] ericatty@infosec.pub 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'll repeat my comment above. I'd rather they cover it the next day or however much time they need to present it fully fact-checked.

Airing it without side by side fact checking is irresponsible with midterms coming up.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 1 points 1 week ago

I don't disagree with you in principle. That is a better way to handle it overall.

But MAGA will run with "Trump was not allowed to speak on mainstream media", and I'd argue that's worse than being principled here. The reality is more nuanced.

[–] f1error@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not carrying it folds into the MAGA narrative and is worse than just showing the thing.

That's a good point. I didn't think of it in those terms.

[–] bigbangdangler@reddthat.com 3 points 1 week ago

I definitely don't like it, but I can already hear the MAGAs bitching.

[–] BigMacHole@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good! I would MUCH Rather have the Anchors explain WHY this is all a Good thing then to Watch it LIVE without someone Telling me WHAT to Think!

-Free Thinkers!

[–] ericatty@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago

I'd rather they run it later, with it fully fact-checked, instead of letting dubious statements be reported as facts because they can't keep up.