He's called the media his opposition. In another thread, Herskerstad suggested that the idea of an independent media under attack was simplistic:
Herskerstad wrote:Sure, but preferably less shitty ones than CNN, MSNBC, ect.
I got no problem with these two dogs going against each-other. It would be simplistic to take this as an attack on the idea of an independent media, however much CNN will attempt to make that portrait.
Others, including myself, think of the media as a central part of modern democracy that has to be independent of and critical of the government to serve its function of informing voters. If voters are uninformed, they cannot perform their role in a democracy and the system cannot work. In my view, social media cannot reasonably do the same thing: if journalism is not your career, you are more likely to take short-cuts, jump to conclusions and spread misleading information - and we all know that we are more receptive to information that agrees with our established views and end up living in bubbles.
Again others think that it is misleading to think of "the media" as a thing at all.
So where do you stand? What is the job of "the media"? Is that job being done in your country and/or in the US? Does media have to be independent to do its job or would a country in which most news was distributed through state-run media be just as good? What does media independence even really mean? And in Trump's case, how far could he go in his spat with various news organisations before you think he's gone too far? Legal action? Refusing to speak to particular news organisations? Refusing to let his officials speak to particular news organisations? Or even trying to nationalise, buy out or shut down news outlets he disagrees with?