jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (60 posts)

White House Press Core Banned from Televising

  1. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago

    It's about time the bias of media got a wake up call to return to honesty , accuracy  and media integrity ,
    Certain  segments of press conferences will be banned from being televised .   The left stream -media is being checked  and as it should be , so censured .

    Return to a media of integrity or get out of my White House ?

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      Well, if true, that's freedom of the press being set to the side for one man's vanity and insecurity.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        Perhaps when the media returns to normal [decades later ]  then their presence  can be tolerated again !
        It's the media of the left and nothing else .

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          And what alternative would you suggest in the interim? State run, state censored news?

          1. colorfulone profile image88
            colorfuloneposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            The dinosaur media has been committing suicide for a long time.  Twenty years ago we didn't have the WWW, its still relatively new.  That is where most people go now to find out what they want to know, because they don't trust MSM.  Citizen reporting and alternative news has become the new mainstream. Corporate media is bought and paid for (I see GE is having problems).

          2. ahorseback profile image44
            ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            -- Handing out a daily  press report
            -- Live questioning one day a week 
            -- Banning the extremist  media outlets
            -- Allowing AP , UPI certified anchors only
            -- Limiting the number of questions per person

            A circus act is nothing to do with free speech .
            We can easily allow  a free press without a biased one

      2. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        I don't agree Live to Learn. The press is not being censored or restricted. They are just losing one source of video and audio access. They can still ask questions and take notes. They may be inconvenienced, but their freedom to report has not been denied. They have other options.

        That doesn't mean I think it was a smart move by this administration.

        GA

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          Point taken. But, it puts the American public one step further away from the source.

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            But, but Linda, listen, listen..."

            The reporters are still there, the info source is still there, it's just the cameras and audio that aren't there.

            I think this move could/has backfired on the administration in so many ways... maybe they should be getting the "But Linda..." link. ;-)

            GA

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              I suggest he's doing it so there is no digital proof of the comments that keep getting him into trouble. Without audio and video, he can keep blaming everything on the "fake news" reporters who falsely write down his comments for the sake of their "witch hunt".

              It is very much an attack on the First Amendment.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                I had that thought too, promisem, but I still don't see it as an attack on the First Amendment Freedon of the Press.

                GA

                1. ptosis profile image76
                  ptosisposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                  White House correspondents insist briefings need to be held on-camera as a way to hold administrations accountable.

                  “It feels like we’re slowly but surely being dragged into what is a new normal in this country, where the president of the United States is allowed to insulate himself from answering hard questions,” Acosta said on CNN. “

                  They have also taken the absurd and unprecedented step of making the daily White House schedule "not reportable".

                  Eric Dezenhall, who worked on President Ronald Reagan's communications team and leads a public relations firm in Washington said that while he understands the strategy, "it's terrifying from a democracy standpoint."

                  http://www.triplicate.com/opinion/lette … er=section

                  "Dictators discredit the media. Since the media is available in a democracy to keep politicians honest (tough job to begin with), the really bad ones pass doubt onto the mainstream media. They want the people to believe their words only, maybe have a select news outlet they can call attention to that aligns with their core beliefs. It makes for leading the unsuspecting public easier. "

                  https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fkmov.images.worldnow.com%2Fimages%2F13594934_G.jpg&f=1

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Hey there ptosis,

                    I did say I thought it was a dumb move by the administration. And I do think it will just make reporters more determined, and backfire on the administration. I also think it is a problem, if it is just a first effort.

                    But... I do not see any legal or constitutional issues with it. Which also means I think your comparisons are a bit extreme and unwarranted - at this point.

                    GA

                2. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I agree it's not an attack on print media. Instead, it's an attack on radio and TV media. They can't provide the video and audio to their audiences that is the foundation of what they do as journalists.

                  His move also is part of a broader reduction in access such as the meeting with the Russian ambassador where Russian media was allowed to attend but not U.S. media.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Hi promisem, I agree those primarily visual and audio based outlets will have to compensate, but they can still do the reporting, and I am betting that what they can report will presented in the most anti-administration way possible. And also that they will be sure that the non-Trump supporting viewers are well aware of their actions.

                    But wait... there may be those that think these two types of presenters, (video and audio), are the worst 'spinners' of all, and without the format to spin, there might be improved content. *shrug*

                    Regardless of which side I come down on, I do think the briefing room press has become overly adversarial, and in many cases unprofessionally rude.

                    GA

            2. Live to Learn profile image81
              Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              Who the hell is Linda?

              My point is if the media is so biased this move would give them more power to spin.

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                LOL, in this case, you were Linda. (I hope you watched at least enough of the video to get the joke). You repeated that the ban was an assault on our Freedom of the Press. I disagreed because no content was withheld or censored. It was just the effort of collection that was impacted.

                ps. By the way, I really like that "But, Linda" video. It has so many opportunities for application in political disillusions, (Ha! I meant "discussions," but I kinda like what the spellchecker substituted),  forums. If you tax your memory, I bet you will recall my use of it in the past, and you can bet it will be seen again in the future. ;-)

                GA

                1. Live to Learn profile image81
                  Live to Learnposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  I haven't noticed the Linda thing before and I'm afraid I didn't follow the link. I think I do believe content is in jeopardy of being censored. But, by the press. I've too much experience of having 'what the heck' moments' when I read something in the paper or see reporters on tv after the fact, attempting to boil things down to what they mean. It can get ridiculously warped. The public should have the right to see the footage and make up their own minds.

                  I honestly don't get this move by the administration. It seems to me as if he is attempting to shoot himself in the foot on the one hand but I see threads here advocating shutting down the press, calling for martial law to quash dissent; so the move could be even more sinister than a poorly pointed gun.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Hi Live to Learn, well of course you didn't know who Linda was if you didn't follow the link. Tsk! Tsk! I made all that effort just for you. ;-)

                    I agree with your comment though. Both about the media thinking I can't understand what I see or hear, and about the administration shooting itself in the ass, (the foot wouldn't be as dangerous a wound as the one I see).

                    Here it is again, take a quick peek: "But, but Linda, listen, listen..."

                    GA

    2. colorfulone profile image88
      colorfuloneposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      I watch the press briefings.  Not always the Q&A time because those liberal reporters ask nonsense questions repeatedly, sometimes one after another. Or, they are asking questions repeatedly about issues that are under discussion and no final answer is available yet, but they keep pressing anyway.  Reading their articles and or listening to them talk makes me wonder if they were conscientious during the briefing even though they appeared to be. 

      Maybe the President should hand out briefings in printed form.  But, then they would mis-interrupt that too.  About time they get a little spanking from Daddy.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        Handing out press briefings is a damned good idea .  No thirty  questions about one topic .

        1. colorfulone profile image88
          colorfuloneposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          I watched the reporters ask questions today, the conservative reporters ask good questions, while the liberal reporters are stuck mostly on stupid. 

          CNN’s Jim Acosta went off on a tantrum because conservatives are now being treated equally in the press room and being given the same amount of questions.  He is pissed because his repetitive questions aren’t treated with the utmost importance by Press Secretary Sean Spicer. 

          What an idiot. CNN is the king of fake news.

          https://www.infowars.com/cnns-jim-acost … ive-media/

          Oh horror, its the 'new norm'.  About time!

      2. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        Maybe they wouldn't keep asking questions if he gave honest and coherent answers.

      3. ptosis profile image76
        ptosisposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        Patriarchal are we?  So Obama was the Daddy also?  and if HRC won, you've would of said Mommy?

        1. Live to Learn profile image81
          Live to Learnposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          HRC would have been the evil step mother.

    3. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      We really need to crush all media except for Fox News and Breitbart.

      1. ahorseback profile image44
        ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        While that would be a decent start ,  it wouldn't  be any more fair than the majority ultra - lib  media is now .

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          How should media do its job? Ask easy questions? Ask questions that make certain people happy? Just wondering.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            That one is really, really easy.  Leave the editorializing in the cutting room - nobody cares about the opinion of the random reporter or newscaster.  Report both sides of any controversial subject, and in approximately equal amounts.  Assume the audience actually has and wants to use a mind - actually wants to make decisions themselves rather than have them rammed down their throat.  Remember that in depth reporting is preferable to shallow, slanted and spun opinions that nobody wants to hear anyway.

            That about covers it - competence in performing those tasks will separate the wheat from the pretty faces.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              Does that apply to conservative media as well as liberal?

          2. ahorseback profile image44
            ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

            Problem is ,    They are telling us HOW to interpret what we hear  , AND nowadays , it's mostly  liberal ideology being thrown at us , like it or not -that's the truth .

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

              Except for Fox News and Breitbart? Are they "fair and balanced"?

              1. ahorseback profile image44
                ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                I still say kick the biased media  out of my white house

                Again , Liberals  don't seem to have a problem with the  majority of American media being extremely biased , I know , I know ............"As long as they are biased to your ideology you are just fine with it "!    Obviously Trump is "unpopular "  in the superficial political understanding of the media and  liberal circles , totally aside from his performance of course ,unlike  Obama - much more "popular" and far less effective as a leader .

                The media will change  eventually ,  ' nothing remains unaltered in time ', when they do  the left  will not even have a voice ,  At this time the DNC is effectively dead ,  the democratic party in congress , the house , the white house chances ----are dead  for years to come , all the left owns at present is an extremely  biased , subversive ,  uncouth  ,  ill-mannered , sensationalizing media representation ,  enjoy it !   It's all there is left of the left  , politically speaking .

                1. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

                  You didn't answer my questions.

  2. Will Apse profile image91
    Will Apseposted 4 weeks ago

    US media is remarkably polite and respectful when compared to UK media. Heavyweight political journalists at the BBC are little short of attack dogs. If a politician tries to avoid answering a question, the question will be repeated and repeated. I find it hard to watch, it is so cruel, lol. But then, it is good training for anyone who wants to wield power -- know your stuff or get out.

    Trump obviously does not know his stuff and needs to be kept in cotton wool.

    There is a genuine leadership vacuum.

    1. ahorseback profile image44
      ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

      There is no leadership vacuum , what there is is an interpretation vacuum ---------of the media !

      1. Will Apse profile image91
        Will Apseposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

        Trump has failed to fill over a hundred top jobs in government including many ambassadorships and is seeing significant numbers of scientists and advisers quitting.

        He has handed over  all operational decision making to the military in Syria.

        Tillerson takes an entirely different policy line to Trump in relation to Qatar.

        The guy cannot handle critical press questioning.

        How is any of that leadership?

        1. ahorseback profile image44
          ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago in reply to this

          --Fed government is too fat anyway , fire half of them and it would change nothing
          --Syria , other than manifest terror should fight its own wars
          --In spite of what little liberals know of government , Trumps people are united
          --critical press questioning is stuck in bias  1969
          --Trump is changing politics and "leadership ' right before your eye's
          --Stop believing  all of the liberal  media childishness

    2. Marisa Wright profile image94
      Marisa Wrightposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      +1

  3. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 4 weeks ago

    Jeees ,, I never thought I'd wish  for a Helen Thomas  again !

  4. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    As biased as the Media has been to  the entire Trump  team ,   I think it's one of the most positive moves a leader has ever made to the "press "   If they speak and  promote bias - turn off their mike ,  if they televise  only  the  negative and divisive video - shut off the camera .   All of it exactly what this media deserves , AND also what the American public see's right through .

    Simply put ,hey have been feeding on the sensationalizing  of phony  free speech  ,  so stuff it down the media's  throats and watch them choke on it .

    Tweet on Trump .

    1. ptosis profile image76
      ptosisposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      http://15130-presscdn-0-89.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/rabies-alert-sign-485x291.jpg

  5. AshtonFirefly profile image83
    AshtonFireflyposted 3 weeks ago

    I feel as though it would be literally impossible to force any news station to be fair and unbiased. How would one determine if they were "fair" and "un biased?" Through biased means, of course. It's unfortunate that the press is biased, but it seems far too convenient that news outlets known for their favor of the right, are the only ones being praised here. What one considers stupid or unreasonable in media is going to vary greatly. This is why, although unprecedented, I'm glad Trump uses Twitter to state his thoughts, because unless he's hacked, he's in control of how he presents material. I watch as many news channels as I can to get multiple facets of coverage (both sides) but it's never going to be truly accurate. I think doing this restriction only damages Trump's credibility by making him appear like a tyrant censoring what people say about him, even if it's not a complete restriction. It just looks bad. Yeah media is cunning and has an agenda, and unfortunately most people are too naive to see it, but it's either let the media be the way it is and report freely, or restrict it according to a set of standards which are probably not that unbiased, and create suspicion of his credibility. There's really no way to win here.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      People lump all media into one pot. The rules for newspapers are far tougher than the rules for television when it comes to managing bias, which is an instinctive human behavior.

      TV people have far greater freedom to say what they think even if it means they reveal bias. One reason why is that they speak spontaneously rather than go through an extensive editing process like print.

      News reporting is far too complicated for the people who put it together to have much cunning or an agenda. They just report what people want to hear. Yes, the reporting is often flawed. But perfection doesn't exist anywhere.

      I say this from 30+ years of experience working with conservative, independent and liberal media outlets.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        "News reporting is far too complicated for the people who put it together to have much cunning or an agenda.

        They just report what people want to hear."

        These two statements do not go together.  If it is too complicated to have an agenda, then that station will report everything and not search for what is politically what their audience wants to hear.  Yet that is exactly what is done; ergo it is NOT too complicated to have an agenda or obvious bias.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          I guess it depends on how you define agenda. If agenda means that news networks want higher ratings, then yes, they have an agenda. If it means that an individual reporter, editor or producer has an agenda, then I would say no, it's highly unlikely. At least I've never seen it.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Yes, they want higher ratings.  The road to which they perceive as presenting biased, partisan, one-sided "news" that their current audience likes.  So that's what they do, whether left or right.

            And that means they take the time to censor their "reporting" and turn it into partisan politics more than news.  The idea that they don't have time for that is ridiculous - a little choosing as to what stories to present, a little spin to turn it into something it isn't, a little exaggeration to make mountains out of molehills is all it takes.

            1. ptosis profile image76
              ptosisposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              Faux 'News' is entertainment not news.
              The Hill is the least unbiased either way.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                Frankly, I watch the local news to see what's happening in my neck of the woods.  I watch international news to see what's happening around the world.

                And when the political news comes on I turn it off.  I don't search for another channel as NONE of them are anything but political flaks promoting their own right or left viewpoints and hang the actual news.  I can get a better idea of what is actually going on, politically, from facebook and the links there. Three seconds of reading tells me whether there is something of value to be learned or just more drivel instead of listening to some idiot spout opinions disguised as fact.  sad

                1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                  PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                  Interesting. I have systematically blocked news links from my Facebook page due to the indiscriminate sharing of dubious information by well meaning, but uninformed, friends.

                  I get most of my news online, and I supplement it by watching live coverage of notable events, such as the Comey testimony or Trump's overseas trip.

                  I have a new app on my tablet that provides links to articles from a variety of sources. Right now, for example, the sources on its front page include Business Insider, NBC News, Fox News, Politico, People, The Independent, CNN, Fast Company, Heat Street, Associated Press, The New York Times, Center for American Progress, National Geographic, Los Angeles Times, ESPN, Decider, Huffpost, and more.

                  I like it, because I read information from websites I might not otherwise visit. It is interesting to see how most news websites agree on the facts that are reported. Some will report some information and leave out other important information, resulting in a particular slant. My observation is that this happens much less often on the major news sites like CNN or NBC, and more often on sites like Breitbart or Huffpost.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

                    Hi PrettyPanther, I do just the opposite. CNN is on non-stop, as background noise while I am siting here online. Now, I don't accept their reports as 'the' word on the news, but I do use their reporting to point me to stories to look into.

                    So, my favorite news source is Google, because when a topic is raised by CNN, I Google it to see what others are saying about it. That way I get to see both sides. And, form my own opinion. I usually don't need a CNN or Fox  interpreter to tell me what I am hearing.

                    Although I can't remember who recommended them, I am finding "TheHIll.com" to be a fairly good source.

                    I tried your method - setting multiple news source notifications, and I found I just couldn't keep up with the notifications. It was overwhelming. So now I listen for "breaking news" announcements, and then go find my own sources.

                    GA

  6. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 3 weeks ago

    Little Donnie throws temper tantrums when Saturday Night Live lambasts him, Spicy, and Baby Huckabee.  His little candy ass can't handle the scrutiny and ridicule that every president and his administration has had to endure since this country was founded.  Ford was parodied for being dumb and clumsy, Nixon was ridiculed mercilessly for his "I am not a crook" comment and his sweaty face.  Bush Sr's puking moment and "read my lips" comment were aired ad nauseum.  Carter's brother Billy (remember Billy Beer) and his "I lust in my heart" comment were all over the airwaves. 

    Little Donnie and his crybaby staff don't want video out there because they can't handle it when the media replays what they say.  Other presidents and their staff didn't whine and cry like Little Donnie and his babies about the mean old press. They were grownups with more important things to worry about. 

    Another reason they are doing this?  Because Little Donnie can't stay on message and contradicts his communications team almost daily.  The news runs video of what they say, then video of what Little Donnie says, and it infuriates them, because it makes all of them look incompetent.  So, they do what any spoiled brat would do, they take their ball and go home.

    Big crybabies.

  7. ahorseback profile image44
    ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago

    The problem isn't so much the bias , discredited news media  as it truly is the fact that the majority  Americans of especially younger generations have lost the ability to discern   fact from fantasy ,   reality from cartoon media ,   social media from  unbiased media .

    Grow up America !

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
      AshtonFireflyposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

      Now THAT I can agree with.
      Democrat or Republican, people believe what they want to believe, and rarely fact check their sources.

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

        Now wait... I am sensing a 'dig' in there somewhere.

        Ah... I see it. Tsk! Tsk! AshtonFirefly. It's not nice to take advantage of someone.

        GA

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
          AshtonFireflyposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

          I'm quite lost. I not typically discreet if I'm making a dig

          1. ahorseback profile image44
            ahorsebackposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Ignore them ,You have to learn to appreciate the slyness of some peoples  need for a "dig "  even when there is none required,   I believe its a regressive  psuedo- intellectual   thing . For instance ,  If you can't   win a debate , do  your Steven Cobert thang.

          2. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

            Well then, I guess ahorseback nailed me then. I guess it must be my "regressive  psuedo- intellectual thing" Although I am far from a Colbert fan.

            GA

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image83
              AshtonFireflyposted 3 weeks ago in reply to this

              I could see people using that as a dig. The first time in the history of my life I couldn't see the potential sarcasm in something. Eh well.

 
working