>> "I challenge that the media didn't cover what was wrong with it. They did!"

Of course they explained 'what's wrong' - but they did not explain the motivation for it, and what is 'right' about it.

Here is how CNN 'misrepresented' the EO:

CNN's Fareed Zakara started out by saying that the 7 countries chosen 'made no sense at all' and were 'chosen arbitrarily'. Fareed is a very smart man, and knows fully why those countries were chosen.

When I first heard the list - I knew exactly the reason for it: those were countries in which there was 'open lawlessness' - and areas wherein terrorists can operate out in the open. There is no governance in those regions: Libya has no government. Sudan/Somalia - outside of the city = no government. Northern Yemen is no-man's land. As is most of Syria, and most of Western Iraq. Iran is the only country on the list that is not basically an 'open war zone' - however, there are rational reasons for concern there as well.

More specifically - those countries cannot (or will not, in the case of Iran) provide US Border and Customs with any information about those entering. Who does US Customs contact when they want to know about a 'Libyan' coming to the US? What is a 'Libyan' if there is no state of Libya?

It's a very 'operationally obvious thing'. US Customs wants 'info' on people coming in - those places = no info, ergo, 90 day ban until the issue can be looked at.

Now - I don't agree with the EO - but there are very rational reasons underlying those specific countries.

Fareed definitely knows this - but instead, Fareed went on about conspiratorial issues such as 'The 9/11 perpetrators were from Saudi Arabia'. Fareed also failed to mention that the state of Saudia Arabia is one of the closest anti-terrorism allies that the US has, and works very extensively with the US on terrorism. The Saudis closely monitor their people - and they will definitely work with the US to stop 'terrorists' from trying to enter the US.

Fareed knows this, but did not bring it up - because he was acting as an 'advocate' of 'one side' - not really as a good journalist should.

So - 'the list' of countries has definitely rational underpinning - agree with it or not.

CNN played the role of 'opposition'. They said what I would expect to hear from democrats - a 'truthy' but nevertheless, very one-sided position on the story.

>> "And I saw polls in the NYT about this."

That 'some of the polls' showed 'not full support' for 'sub-items' of the EO - does not invalidate the fact that most Americans actually support the EO overall - a fact which was not highlighted at all by the press. Again - the press created a sense that 'America was outraged'. This was not true. The press was 'leading the story' and 'creating it' - as opposed to being objective.

Do you remember the 'Tea Party' movement's early days? That was very much 'led by' Fox News. Without Fox 'fanning the flames' and leading swaths of Americans to believe in the legitimacy of the movement - it likely would not have been so big.

>> "But if you state the facts, then that looks like bias!"

CNN and others (ie Fox etc.) consistently and deliberately do not simply 'state the facts'.

Example: again on the EO - CNN's headline was "We don't want them here" (in quotes) and the sub-text "Trump bans Muslim".

But here is the 'editorial lie': Trump did not say "We don't want (Muslims) here". CNN took part of a quote from Trump saying: "There are many terrorists in those parts of the world, and we don't want them here".

Trump was definitely implying: "We don't want terrorist here" in that context.

But CNN chose to merge a headline together from a a partial quote + headline - as if to say "We don't want Muslims here".

This was incredibly poor judgement by CNN - and hugely biased.

Now - you could argue that Trump's motivation was to 'ban Muslims'. According to Rudi Guliani, Trump approached him in order to 'find a legal way to ban Muslims'. But it does not matter - CNN cheated, in order to try to counteract Trump's 'cheating' (i.e. by creating a specific country ban that was not exactly a 'Muslim ban').

What CNN should have done was not misquoted Trump.

What they should have done was pushed hard on the fact that Trump, in the past, may have been 'seeking a legal way to ban Muslims'.

Unfortunately - 'doing the right thing' in terms of professional journalism doesn't necessarily make good headlines.

>> "If you have only bad decisions come out of the WH"

I'm sorry, but 'bad decisions' is biased, and not objective. Something is not 'bad' because you, or even 60% of Americans 'don't agree' with them.

Listen - I do not like Trump, and I trust the press more than I do Trump. And I understand why the press is doing what they are doing - but that doesn't make them pristine and professional. They are fairly biased.

Trump makes such crazy statements so often, you'd think it would be easier for the press to just stand back and let him fall on his own words.

Trump made a claim yesterday that "He won by the largest margin of victory since Regan". Which is a lie. They should just run with that obvious lie, and not try to do anything with it.