EPTOn June 19 2016 14:14 Danglars wrote:
Show nested quote +
As already said in this thread, they can publish what they like. Censorship isn't even involved.On June 19 2016 13:23 Plansix wrote:
Not the presidents job to censor the press the president doesn't like. It decides who gets to be called press. If he doesn't like the questions, don't apply for the job.
On June 19 2016 13:19 Danglars wrote:
On June 19 2016 12:58 Plansix wrote:
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Maybe his best move is to let even news outlets totally devoted to crushing his presidential ambitions have their seats in the press box and press conferences. I'm undecided on that one. Hell, maybe we can have Hillary campaign staff ask him questions and cut the middleman. Hell, even calling them "reporters" in these times is a misnomer.On June 19 2016 12:52 Danglars wrote:
On June 19 2016 09:59 oBlade wrote:
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
I'd give Trump AZ just knowing Hillary will continue her present course and alienate AZ voters. 45 to 41 Georgia is enough to convince me contested, Michigan is +/- five latest I saw, so I can see it gray at the moment.On June 19 2016 09:37 Danglars wrote:
Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
Everybody I've talked to from NJ hates Trump for Atlantic City business. All these hopes are too far-out looking at things right now. I'm more looking at something like RCP's map and the fight of his life even in states Bush won easily.
It's definitely not the most likely state to be competitive for him, but he doesn't need it to win anyway. But RCP's map doesn't even follow their own polls. Graying Michigan and Georgia? It's not in the evidence so far that Clinton and Trump are in any danger there. AZ is a red staple and I don't see evidence yet that would reverse that, not sure why NH is marked toss-up either.
On June 19 2016 09:56 Toadesstern wrote:
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable.
But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
On June 19 2016 09:31 zlefin wrote:
W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism.
Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
W Post isn't a joke last I checked; it has its biases, but it's still a credible and decent place of journalism.
Do you have a quote of the exact headline the Post used? Trump certainly implied Obama may have been involved iirc
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/
You decide if that's a fair interpretation of what Trump was saying.
I consider it a website of campaign attack-ads, not a legitimate source of journalism.
kind of hilarious comming from the right side considering all the shit about facebook and how censoring media is intolerable.
But the other way around is just fine. Ban them all if you don't like what they write~
On June 19 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
[...] Good riddance getting their press pass revoked.
But nobody's taking their right to publish - in fact, they've promised to cover Trump even more.
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote:
it's also not just the WashingtonPost
It sounds like they were listing every outlet who had at least one reporter banned, to gain strength to oppose the move. I'm simply looking at the exact paragraph from your un-linked source.it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
On June 19 2016 10:18 Plansix wrote:
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Univision still employs Salinas and Ramos. They're what you see when you look up political hacks in the dictionary. Politico is biased in the normal trend these days and I don't recall any specific problems lately. If he's going to prevent any reporters at all from covering his events, the DNC latino mouthpiece is an obvious choice. I'm pretty curious who from Politico was banned.On June 19 2016 10:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
On June 19 2016 10:14 Toadesstern wrote:
it's also not just the WashingtonPost
it's also not just the WashingtonPost
Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
LOL oh no not BuzzFeed
What a madman
That's it you've convinced me to vote Hillary
Buzz feed does pretty reasonable reporting. They straight up say that their click bait pays for the real reporting. They have said it in a ton of interviews about the site. The White House would give them a press pass.
And the fucking clown blacklisted Univision and Politico? What a fucking joke. Thin skinned baby who can't deal with the press. Can't even deal with Buzzfeed, but he expects us to send him to deal with other nations. What will he do if the British PM says something mean?
Or you could be a Presidential candidate and not ban reporters like a baby? I hear that is what all the cool candidates have been doing for decades. I don't care what they report or how they do it, its not President's job to decide who gets to report on them. We decide who we read, not the President or anyone running for that job.
Not the presidents job to censor the press the president doesn't like. It decides who gets to be called press. If he doesn't like the questions, don't apply for the job.
I would argue that getting information on the event you want to cover is somehow involved in publishing stuff about aforementioned event.
If you're banning half the media from entering the White House because they're on the left side of the spectrum you are effectively censoring... Granted we're not even close to that scenario but you're basicly arguing that banning media from doing their job is okay because you're not specifically banning their publications.
