EPTThe good old master plan of cutting off access. Except that most press do not care if they don’t have access, they will just write about it anyways and their quotes might be inaccurate.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6963
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The good old master plan of cutting off access. Except that most press do not care if they don’t have access, they will just write about it anyways and their quotes might be inaccurate. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Time to sue the President for violation of the 1st Amendment, no? ? i'm not aware of any action he's taken that would be a violation, the vague descriptions of the prior page stuff doesn't sound like a violation. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:38 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Time to sue the President for violation of the 1st Amendment, no? What section of the first amendment are you alleging he's violating? I mean did he send the Feds to shut down WaPo or is the press just pissy again at everything they don't like being unconstitutional. It's getting a little hard to keep up with the outrage machine. Bad ideas and bad policy are not ipso facto constitutional crises. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On February 25 2017 01:28 KwarK wrote: You understand that Trump went on tv and said that he wanted the Russians to leak stuff that undermined Hillary during the campaign, right? Russia could have release GOP stuff too to create more chaos in America. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:48 RealityIsKing wrote: Russia could have release GOP stuff too to create more chaos in America. the net result may've been less chaos rather than more. trump is a very chaotic person, so a trump win leads to higher chaos. it's also not clear that they acquired anything that would actually hurt trump. and they might also have preferred trump in general, given how he tended to be more pro-russia than hillary. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22703 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:48 RealityIsKing wrote: Russia could have release GOP stuff too to create more chaos in America. Why would I release both sides and have momentary chaos into (prob Hillary) stability when I can instead create chaos, allow the most incompetent President ever to take charge and have a bunch of stuff to blackmail him with after? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But the press is free to respond by reporting on whatever they want and not wait to seek comment from the White House. The reporters will just go to members of congress or other sources. Closing the briefing room or limiting access means the White House gives up a lot of control over their message and the news cycle. But it sounds good if you think the press cares about access. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:50 zlefin wrote: the net result may've been less chaos rather than more. trump is a very chaotic person, so a trump win leads to higher chaos. it's also not clear that they acquired anything that would actually hurt trump. and they might also have preferred trump in general, given how he tended to be more pro-russia than hillary. Do you really think that Putin is going "Yeah because Trump said he wants to be friendly with me, I am 100% going to trust him." Putin is an incredible composed guy, he never let his guards down. And plus Trump is a tougher opponent than Hillary. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:54 RealityIsKing wrote: Do you really think that Putin is going "Yeah because Trump said he wants to be friendly with me, I am 100% going to trust him." Putin is an incredible composed guy, he never let his guards down. And plus Trump is a tougher opponent than Hillary. putin isn't going by what trump says, but by his actions over a long period of time, which are indeed more friendly to russia than hillary. plus there's the possibility that russia has agents/connection in the trump camp they can make good use of. also, hillary is a tougher opponent than trump. Your claim is groundless and false, and would need a great deal of substantiation to demonstrate, especially given your history. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
If Trump's companies are as bad at cyber security as he is, a very real possibility (luxury hotels are seldom known for their cyber security, or for being targeted by cyber attacks for that matter) then I could easily believe that Russian intelligence could compromise his business ventures. But it's best to leave that as a backup. | ||
|
Piledriver
United States1697 Posts
On February 25 2017 04:52 Plansix wrote: I brought this up before, but access to the White House press briefing room is not protected by any law or policy. It is just tradition since WW2 to have the press in the White House for the press secretary to give them daily briefings. If Trump and his staff want to end that system or only choose outlets they like, they are free to do so. But the press is free to respond by reporting on whatever they want and not wait to seek comment from the White House. The reporters will just go to members of congress or other sources. Closing the briefing room or limiting access means the White House gives up a lot of control over their message and the news cycle. But it sounds good if you think the press cares about access. I don't understand who this move is aimed at - The press will continue to report as they currently are, the only difference being that the White House will have less control over the narrative than they already have. Their own voter base doesn't really care about what comes out from Wapo/NYT or Politico anyway, and the opposition will just see this as more evidence that the Government is actively working against the media. Seems like poor decision making to me. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On February 25 2017 05:16 Piledriver wrote: I don't understand who this move is aimed at - The press will continue to report as they currently are, the only difference being that the White House will have less control over the narrative than they already have. Their own voter base doesn't really care about what comes out from Wapo/NYT or Politico anyway, and the opposition will just see this as more evidence that the Government is actively working against the media. Seems like poor decision making to me. I don't know what they're aiming at; and it's quite possible there isn't an actual sound, well-thought out plan behind it. If I were to try to create one (which is more spin than fact ofc, and pure speculation), it'd be that stirring up hatred from the press makes it easier to attack the press, by claiming its a counterattack, and they want their base to feel the press is attacking them so they can counterattack. Or something else of note is happening and they want to create a distraction. in terms of non-plans, the simplest answer I see would be that trump doesn't like those news groups and thinks they're being unfair, so he doesn't want them involved. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On February 25 2017 05:16 Piledriver wrote: I don't understand who this move is aimed at - The press will continue to report as they currently are, the only difference being that the White House will have less control over the narrative than they already have. Their own voter base doesn't really care about what comes out from Wapo/NYT or Politico anyway, and the opposition will just see this as more evidence that the Government is actively working against the media. Seems like poor decision making to me. You have to get into the mind set of Bannon and Trump. The press is the enemy. Outlets that print thing you don’t want printed are bad and need to be punished. You see the White House press corps as a cushy job for lazy journalist(even thought they write their stories in a basement). Denying them access shows that you have the power to take away what they want, so ask questions. And it makes your base happy because you are “fighting the media”. And it will scare the other publications. It is crowd pleasing, but won’t get them less combative press coverage. The NYT, CNN and Politico do not give a shit. They will file stories from a back alley in dumpster if required to. Other outlets won’t give a shit either, because they know they will lose access the instant Trump is mad at time. So why care? The problem is you are thinking rationally and long term. This White House doesn’t do that. They live in the moment and off emotion. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Spicer decided to hold an off-camera "gaggle" with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. The HillAmong the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were news organizations President Trump has singled out for criticism, including CNN. The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News were among the other news organizations not permitted to attend. So funny this coming right on the heels of the Obama administration. Yin to the yang of purposely excluding Fox from interviews and railing against that media organization alongside talk radio hosts during his administration. The good news is everybody gets a chance to revisit the history of presidents and the media. And like others have said, you don't need that level of access to do good journalism. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On February 25 2017 05:44 Danglars wrote: thehill So funny this coming right on the heels of the Obama administration. Yin to the yang of purposely excluding Fox from interviews and railing against that media organization alongside talk radio hosts during his administration. The good news is everybody gets a chance to revisit the history of presidents and the media. And like others have said, you don't need that level of access to do good journalism. Trump is going over and above anything Obama did by a wide margin. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The bipartisan, nearly full-political-spectrum tsunami of factually unverified allegations that President Trump has been sedi-
tiously “compromised” by the Kremlin, with scarcely any nonpartisan pushback from influential political or media sources, is deeply alarming. Begun by the Clinton campaign in mid-2016, and exemplified now by New York Times columnists (who write of a “Trump-Putin regime” in Washington), strident MSNBC hosts, and unbalanced CNN commentators, the practice is growing into a latter-day McCarthyite hysteria. Such politically malignant practices should be deplored wherever they appear, whether on the part of conservatives, liberals, or progressives. The allegations are driven by political forces with various agendas: the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, which wants to maintain its grip on the party by insisting that she didn’t lose the election but that it was stolen by Russian President Vladimir Putin for Trump; by enemies of Trump’s proposed détente with Russia, who want to discredit both him and Putin; and by Republicans and Democrats stunned that Trump essentially ran and won without either party, thereby threatening the established two-party system. Whatever the motivation, the ensuing slurs against Trump, which are already producing calls for his impeachment, pose grave threats to US and international security and to American democracy itself. So far, no facts have been presented to back up the allegations. (Without facts, all of us are doomed to malpractice or worse.) An impartial investigation might search for such facts, if any exist, which should then be evaluated objectively—but neither may be possible in the current political atmosphere, only a witch hunt. For now, six allegations pass as evidence that Trump has been compromised, or worse, by the Kremlin: Cohen for The Nation Just to put the allegations in context, and for some here, a simple roundup of why the other side really isn't coming on board the Russia narrative. | ||
| ||
