The Hegseth Press Conference On The B-2 Iran Mission

1. 83

   GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago

   That was a helluva start to the day. It may be the best, most genuine, and most appropriate presser I've seen.
   
   45 minutes that should embarrass the press that was involved (and named on camera by Hegseth) in pushing the failed mission message.
   
   The worst press example came at the end when a reporter, after listening to 45 minutes of explanation, asked the general if he was pressured by the president or Hegseth to change his analysis. Geesh, still pushing the negative inferences.
   
   Kudos to Hegseth. This presser was a home run.
   
   GA

   replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

   All Pete did was stand there and cry about how nobody was celebrating their great mission.
   
   Then he cried about why is everybody asking such tough questions.  Totally invaded the questioning on the uranium being moved...
   
   That presser was all about trying to patch Trump's giant ego.
   
   Hegseth is too volatile and arrogant. His body language and tone are overly defensive and demeaning…he loses all credibility. That press conference was a disaster except for General Caine.
   
   The number of manifestly psychologically unwell people in the highest levels of this administration should be unsettling to the world.

   replyreport
3. 82

   Sharlee01posted 4 weeks ago

   GA,   Totally agree, that presser was solid from start to finish. One of the most straightforward and honest briefings I’ve seen in a long time. Felt like actual clarity for once. Hegseth did a great job calling out the nonsense, and yeah, that last reporter’s question… just embarrassing. After all that was explained, still fishing for something negative? Unreal. Honestly, it was a breath of fresh air, and yeah, a definite home run.
   
   This reporter came looking for hot mush, to serve up — and instead got served a big helping of cold hush up! Loved it.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      The 'back story' of the plan, presented by General Caine, was impressive — 15 years of planning. The criticism of the press was satisfying to see. I think Hegseth was right in his condemnations.
      
      [EDIT]
      As a side note, Hollywood's Top Gun: Maverick looks like it drew on that back story.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         It’s clear the parallels are there, stealthy planning, surgical strikes, and a healthy jab at the media. And this morning, Pete might’ve added a little Maverick of his own, confident, sharp, and just rebellious enough to make it entertaining. I certainly enjoyed this presser, no script, and no bull.
         
         Just Had To Do This --- LOL
         

         replyreport
4. 60

   Willowarborposted 4 weeks ago

   Uncalled for, unprofessional. This is not the behavior of someone who is being transparent and honest.
   https://x.com/Ronxyz00/status/1938219341448626341

   replyreport
5. 82

   Credence2posted 4 weeks ago

   Now that is what I like to see, a little backbone, give it to Trump and crew right in the breadbasket….
   
   https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-t … 68e51c502a
   
   Can this be considered as press-censorship, the news media has no obligation to be patriotic giving Trump a good face that he does not deserve.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      What's the backbone that was shown? Why click a blind link just to guess what you mean? Is the discussion with you or the article?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 82

         Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         Both, you cannot follow the hyperlink? It works for me.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Okay, as long as it works for you.
            
            GA

            replyreport
   2. 82

      Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      I could not resist a look-see at the article--- Breadbasket, backbone?
      
      This article opens with a clear attempt at emotional framing rather than honest reporting. The first paragraph zeroes in on the word “unpatriotic”, claiming that Trump may bring a lawsuit for this reason. It immediately paints the situation as Trump trying to silence patriotic journalists, when in reality, the actual legal basis, clearly mentioned just a few lines later, is defamation.
      
      That’s a legitimate legal claim tied to reputation and damages, not some vague accusation of insufficient nationalism. But the article leads with “unpatriotic” as if that were the core of the lawsuit, setting the tone for readers to view the entire action as petty or authoritarian.
      
      This is classic low-grade narrative engineered mush: twisted context just enough to warp some reader’s perspective without technically lying. Then they throw in melodramatic phrases like “the Gray Lady hit back hard” to turn it into a gladiator match, not a legal dispute. It’s not journalism, it’s spin with a press pass. If they wanted to be straightforward, they’d lead with “Trump sues for defamation over claims about the Iran strike.” But that wouldn’t get clicks or the fuel outrage they were going for. Well, it appears some fell for it.
      
      Not even close to press censorship,  that claim doesn’t hold water. There’s no government agency shutting down printing presses here. This is a private citizen, Trump, using the civil courts to address what he claims is defamation, not trying to criminalize the press.
      
      It’s really unfortunate. When journalism twists facts or context like that, it doesn’t just misinform, it shapes people’s mindsets in a way that can deepen division or mistrust. Instead of fostering understanding or honest dialogue, it ends up reinforcing biases or creating confusion.
      
      It’s a shame because solid, fair reporting has the power to inform and bring people together.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         The manner in which you describe the words and tone of the article apply to Trump and pretty much everyone in his cabinet....

         replyreport
      2. 82

         Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         Why is it emotional framing? Are you questioning whether Trump lawyers actually made the threat or not? The article said that he did, what do you have to dispute this? There are several reliable sources that claim that Trump bombing spree did not damage the Iranian capacity to build a nuclear weapon to the extent that he claims.
         
         Is it defamation merely because Trump says that it is or is he making a fuss about a free press that does necessarily parrot every word that he utters as gospel truth.
         
         In a society with a free press, the President is not immune from criticism regardless of what Trump might believe. The struggle to maintain the rights of free speech is a gladiator match against those that would snuff it out. I don’t care what Trump says or thinks, he will be scrutinized, critically, if so merited.
         
         There is no government agency shutting down the press, YET…
         
         Great oratory, Sharlee, but you have not convincingly refuted the article nor the claims against Trump as a part of it. Listening to you, anything critical of Trump is automatically not fair reporting.

         replyreport
         1. 82

            Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            " Are you questioning whether Trump lawyers actually made the threat or not? The article said that he did," Cred
            
            "President Donald Trump on Wednesday got a defiant reply from The New York Times after his lawyer wrote a letter threatening to sue the newspaper in part for “unpatriotic” reporting on the U.S. bombing of Iran." Quote from article
            
            My second sentence, not the word, MAY.  I did not question the threat in any respect.
            
            "This article opens with a clear attempt at emotional framing rather than honest reporting. The first paragraph zeroes in on the word “unpatriotic”, claiming that Trump MAY bring a lawsuit for this reason." Shar
            
            "There are several reliable sources that claim that Trump's bombing spree did not damage the Iranian capacity to build a nuclear weapon to the extent that he claims." Cred. This has been clearly and strongly debunked.
            
            I shared my view. We have exhausted the conversation.

            replyreport
            1. 82

               Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               You have exhausted it, debunked by who?
               
               But, so be it this is where I stand.

               replyreport