SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Free press isn't free under White House's onerous rules (Editorial)
Muzzling the press is chapter one in the authoritarian ruler's playbook. By the Founders' design, the president of the United States is not a king or dictator. He doesn't control the media, or get to decide which reporters are assigned to cover him.
A free press isn't free if the government imposes rules on what reporters can ask and how they must ask it. That violates the First Amendment. Period.
Banning reporters from asking follow-up questions or challenging the president's statements, under threat of taking away their access to the White House, hobbles the watchdog function of the media. White House reporters will be looking over their shoulders, calibrating the consequences, every time they ask tough questions. Meanwhile, the president will be able to dodge accountability and lie to the American people with even more impunity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @07:51PM (20 children)
Can someone please clarify - is there any rule that the white house and/or president have to offer certain access by reporters? Does the white house have to answer any questions at all? Would it be illegal if the white house stopped talking to reporters, and only communicated with the public via press release PDFs posted onto their website, and never answered any questions?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @07:55PM (9 children)
Trump would never stop press conferences, he loves the attention (as long as it's an echo chamber).
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:21PM (1 child)
The whole damned thing is just one big reality TV show anyway. The reporters ask fake questions about fake issues to a fake president. Then they broadcast their fake news to paint for us a fake picture of a fake world. Nonstop bullshit, lies, and fake outrage at fake problems and fake crises.
You want a crisis? Our fake president can send fake messages to our phones, but we can't send real evacuation warnings about real wildfires to phones. Real people are starving on the streets because we can't find any fake money or fake credit to shuffle around in our fake economy to build them somewhere to sleep at night. The surplus production of our economy is being concentrated in the hands of a small elite who build this fake world that fake journalists report for fake TV shows like it's the goddamned Truman Show.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Sunday November 25 2018, @11:49PM
Hello there, Mr. Generous With Other People's Money. How'd you like to take one of those homeless into your house some night, and in the morning find thousands of dollars of possessions gone and the rugs soaked with urine? Most of the long-term homeless are that way through their own bad choices.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:24PM (5 children)
He complains about the press incessantly. He badmouths CNN every chance he gets. Yet he calls on the CNN reporters at every press conference just so he can call them "fake news". This is all a show by Trump, for Trump, to placate his fragile ego.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 23 2018, @10:18PM (3 children)
As near as I can tell, he is merely returning the favor. CNN badmouths the pres 24/7. If they don't have anything real, then they manufacture a reason to badmouth him. So, WTF do you expect from Trump?
It would be perfectly reasonable for CNN to publish reasoned explanations about why they disagree with this policy, or that. That is pretty much what the press' duty is. But, the incessant name calling - fascist, Nazi, etc ad nauseum? It's bullshit.
My employer installed televisions in the break room. Enough of us complained about CNN's hate propaganda that HR finally agreed to ditch CNN. Now, we get the weather channel. Nothing was lost - absolutely nothing.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @10:29PM (2 children)
You missed the point.
But on your mild tangent of name calling, what is your opinion of Fox news during Obama's terms?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 23 2018, @10:55PM (1 child)
Fox made itself pretty distasteful, primarily due to it's entertainment of all those citizenship conspiracies. But, Fox never went full-fucking-batshit-crazy like CNN has. They mostly stayed inside of the _plain_nucking_phutts_ perimeter. Today, CNN has left that perimeter far behind.
And, I'll reiterate for you - when CNN was new, I actually liked them. It took years for them to get to their present level of batshit crazy.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:12PM
i felt the same way about fox. it seemed like the 'big three' needed some sort of new competition to keep things interesting.
ill grant fox that fact--they have kept it interesting. i dont like their methods but i would prefer that every titan has a thorn in its side somehow. sometimes fox is a thorn, sometimes fox is the titan
(Score: 3, Interesting) by noneof_theabove on Saturday November 24 2018, @12:26AM
We'll some are starting to call a foul a foul.
Ali Veshi this morning on MSNBC finally started call it right - LIE !
This was only on yesterdays noise from Don "the failed Con".
All MSM need to call bullshit on this idiot.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW ! ! !
Some of those attacked by him should be filing in State Court when he attaches them - ie John Roberts
(Score: 3, Insightful) by UncleSlacky on Saturday November 24 2018, @10:27AM
Exactly - I think the best thing the press corps could do would be to boycott Trump's press conferences. That's what would hurt him most.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday November 23 2018, @08:22PM (3 children)
We are supposed to vote them out if/when they do that. It is up to us to remind them they are public servants. If we don't do it, nobody will. The majority doesn't give a damn, and there is that tribalism thing thing. Pretty basic shit. The brain stem still rules
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:00PM (2 children)
Good luck with that. And don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:22PM (1 child)
In fact, I will blame you for voting for Kodos. Stop voting for the uniparty. The ballot box still seems to be functional, if not for every time that a Fascinator comes on TV and says the hypnotic phrase "two party system" your mind edits all non-uniparty candidates off the ballot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:29PM
If I understand you correct, I agree. It could be a good solution to settle the insanity with more parties in congress.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 23 2018, @10:12PM (4 children)
There is almost certainly no requirement that the WH must allow access to any particular reporter. There are all manner of ways in which a reporter might be excessively rude and obnoxious. Few reporters are going to cross those lines, because being in the WH is so prestigious an assignment. But, if the administration says that an individual has crossed a line, then that is really all there is to it. The news agency assigns a different reporter, or they don't attend. Seems simple to me. Freedom of the press is preserved, because the news agency can publish whatever they like. Even that individual reporter who was banned from the WH can publish whatever he likes. He retains complete freedom to report. He is simply persona non grata at the White House.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 23 2018, @11:35PM
I think TFA is less about any legal requirements and more about a backslide in the state of affairs that should be opposed.
I guess it's better than not holding any press conferences for months. Trump may be his own worst enemy, if given a platform to talk.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 23 2018, @11:38PM (2 children)
There isn't a requirement, because we haven't had such a disreputable human being and tyrant in the White House yet. Please, your position here is mostly based on tribalism. Like how easy you're willing to take it on Ivanka, even though she repeated the same damn mistake that Hillary did, and Orange Anus won't even give up his phones with the U.S intelligence agencies directly telling him that they're tapped by enemies. I believe the Clinton's are crooked as shit, but I also believe the Trump's are in competition with them to see who can be more crooked.
Crossing a line? You mean like calling this shithead out on his lies? Calling him out on his policies? Calling him out when he barfs up some word salad and we need further explanation and context on? Crossing a line by keeping people in power accountable to we the people?
It's not like Trump didn't declare war first, without ever providing proof a bad behavior, on the MSM. No, he doesn't get to act like you or me, he was put in the position of President. They need to deal with tough questions by the press, not continually demonize them, talk over them, and refuse to answer the tough questions. We both know there hasn't been a real interview. Just softball'd interviews with Fox News, which isn't even a real news agency (admitted by themselves). So when Acosta repeteadly asks a question that Trump is clearly dodging, he IS doing the job of the press. Nothing fake-newsy about the behavior of that reporter.
That was why he was banned. He stands up to Trump and his propagandist bullshit that peddles fear and hate. Nothing proves that more than the fact we don't hear about the caravan anymore. He only bitched long enough to make it an issue during the midterm elections, and now that it is over with, he couldn't give a shit. Neither does Fox News, or any other White Nationalist propaganda outlet. That's what Trump hates; People that get in the way of his really really great narrative, that other people are saying is great, with such offensive things like facts and the search for the truth.
We both know if it was Hannity being banned from the White House during the Obama administration that your tune would be completely different. It's like Thexalon says, arguments about state rights are entirely dependent upon whether or not people are in agreement with the state being the good guy, or the feds. Never about the real principle at work, just the tribalism.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 24 2018, @12:10AM
Mostly, I see your own flavor of tribalism in your post. But, let's take this:
In actuality, Trump was one of MSM's golden boys, when he was doing that moronic television show. And he stayed golden, right up until he entered a presidential race that would put him in opposition to Hillary. Before the first debate, almost before the first polls, MSM went on the attack. "Oh, he'll never beat Cruz" "He'll never even beat Carson." On and on it went, with MSM casting Trump in the worst light, constantly predicting his failure.
And, when he emerged as the victor in the nomination game, MSM really opened up on him.
From the day he declared his candidacy in the race against Hillary, MSM hasn't had a single good word to say about Trump. Only Fox will say things that aren't outright derogatory about him.
I listened to my favorite radio talk show hosts (who are libertarians) making fun of MSM all through 2015. "The best thing MSM can do for Trump, is to continue lying about him, and badmouthing him. Everything they say he can't do, he does it. I don't know why they don't just shut up, and ignore him, and let people forget about him." Or, words very much to that effect.
(Score: 2, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:11AM
Andrew Jackson: Murderer and slave beater.
Bill Clinton: Rapist.
Barack Obama: Dog eater, supporter of communists and Islamists.
FDR, Truman: communist sympathizers.
So many Presidents have cheated on their wives that I can't keep track.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @01:29PM
From TFA:
It's not about the question if journalists have a right to enter the White House or not, it's about the right of the White House to treat journalists differently based on how much they behave the way the White House likes.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @07:52PM
...further down the same op ed:
> Going forward, if the president or his spokesperson dodges one reporter's question, the next reporter called on should ask the same question until it is answered. If that results in "suspension or revocation" of a journalist's credential, so be it. Let the president shadow box in an empty briefing room.
And from the White House Correspondents Assn:
https://www.whca.press/2018/11/19/whca-statement-on-restoration-of-press-pass/ [www.whca.press]
> The White House did the right thing in restoring Jim Acosta’s hard pass. The White House Correspondents’ Association had no role in crafting any procedures for future press conferences. For as long as there have been White House press conferences, White House reporters have asked follow-up questions. We fully expect this tradition will continue. We will continue to make the case that a free and independent news media plays a vital role in the health of our republic.
>
> –Olivier Knox, WHCA President
(Score: 2) by BK on Friday November 23 2018, @07:52PM
I thought the first rule specified clear visors for the legions of terror…
I don’t this is even in the top thousand.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @08:02PM (29 children)
It amazes me that everyone has conveniently forgotten how the Obama administration went after FoxNews chief Washington correspondent James Rosen including subpoenaing his phone records. Or how they blocked access to FoxNews reporters when it was revealed that Kenneth Feinberg, then a Treasury Department official was allowing corporate execs who received massive bailouts to also get huge bonuses at the taxpayers expense.
Or the FOIA request email from Obama press secretary Josh Earnest to a Treasury Department spokesperson, saying, "We've demonstrated our willingness and ability to exclude Fox News from significant interviews…"
Or how Stephanie Cutter, White House communications director, went on CNN to denounce Fox as a "wing of the Republican Party" and say that the White House was going to stop treating them as a "news network."
Yea, Orange Man Bad and let's forget history when it's inconvenient.
Why is it the left gets away with so much hypocrisy?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:12PM (9 children)
whataboutism. good for the soul.
(Score: 3, Troll) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @08:16PM (3 children)
The term "whataboutism" is just an invented word to cover for hypocrisy. The past means something, you can't just dismiss it out of hand.
If you want to hold someone to a standard then you damn well better hold yourself to that standard as an example.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:27PM (1 child)
No, whataboutism is a real thing. In this case you are not being a hypocrite because it is good to remind people that this bullshit isn't a partisan issue although you are totally trying to turn it into one.
However your title "Nothing compared to what Obama did" is complete bullshit and comparing Obama/Trump and CNN/Fox is pretty disingenuous to anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention to the actual actions of the various parties.
If you don't want to be dismissed as a partisan hack then next time lay some criticism on Trump while you add on your other points. I doubt you would do that though, your tone is incredibly defensive and obviously biased.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:14PM
"Nothing compared to what Obama did"
Since Obama never actually banned anyone I guess it's true.
(Score: 2, Touché) by RS3 on Friday November 23 2018, @09:50PM
You're correct, but more importantly the term "whataboutism" is yet another tiresome broad-brush used by smug arrogant know-it-alls who are always trying to win a war which only exists in their imagination. It's the new cool.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:18PM (2 children)
whataboutismhypocrisy. good for the soul.I still have popcorn left from yesterday
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:18PM (1 child)
The hypocrisy is freaking the hell out when Obama merely contemplated banning a reporter (but decided against).
And then defending Trump when he actually bans a reporter.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:17AM
(Score: 3, Touché) by Captival on Friday November 23 2018, @09:07PM (1 child)
Oh no. A Liberal invoked the magical words. Now we can't discuss how insanely hypocritical they are. Darn it! He wins again.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:33PM
Nope, the whataboutism term is basically a challenge to stay on topic. If you want to discuss the actions of Obama then don't frame it as a defensive "but she did it firrrst" and more of a "well, then was it ok when Obama did XYZ?" The two approaches generate much different responses.
Discuss away, but start by at least addressing the actual article at hand.
(Score: 4, Touché) by rigrig on Friday November 23 2018, @08:14PM
Also, the Saudis got caught murdering a journalist, so the current US administration is actually doing pretty good!
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:28PM (3 children)
The big difference..
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/ [politifact.com]
Pants on Fire, false and mostly False statements:
9+29+21 = 50 %
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/ [politifact.com]
Pants on Fire, false and mostly False statements
4 +14 +9 = 27 %
And no, press freedom is not freedom to lie.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:26PM
Actually press freedom is anything the press want to write. If it falls under libel or slander then the press can be sued.
You are correct though, there is a massive difference in the quality of news reporting here which definitely makes the comparisons not quite equal.
I'm glad these things are happening and being talked about, our society needs to have these conflicts in the system in order to figure out how to handle them. I think it is pretty unanimous around here that censoring actions are bad.
My question is: will the US right wing stand by their valuation of freedom when it is Trump (jackass of indefensible jackasses) doing it right now?
Do the right thing everyone and when the "other side" goes all totalitarian you will have the high road to fight injustice.
Simply pointing out that all political parties have bad shit is not helpful and emotionally misdirects outrage. It is on-point whataboutism, which isn't really whataboutism at all. Whataboutism is when someone brings up something hardly related to the point at hand, like unconnected criminal behavior by a disliked political opponent, in order to steer the conversation on to another path.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by deimtee on Saturday November 24 2018, @02:08AM
So, 50% and 73% correct respectively. I have a hard time believing any commercial news organization has standards that high. Politifact included.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by DeVilla on Saturday November 24 2018, @09:43PM
Isn't Politifact the site that said "If you like your doctor/insurance you can keep your doctor." was pretty much true in 2008-ish only to eventually back-pedal and until it became "pant's on fire" false by 2013, while not taking down or updating the 2008 article still calling it true?
I'm afraid I don't buy someone throwing around numbers from Poiltifact as though they were some kind of objective truth.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:38PM (2 children)
Obama was to the right of Nixon. The left does not exist in the United States.
Your question should be, "Why does the less extreme right get away with so much hipocracy?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:37PM (1 child)
"Obama was to the right of Nixon"
That is insane. Like orders of magnitude. It is a generational difference in society between those two which might have you confused, the advent of the "turrist!" insanity virus really did a totalitarian number on the US.
The left does exist, just not quite that well in the DNC and certainly not the corporate criminals of the GOP, but it is there. Go away with your "all sides the same give up now!@!" routine.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 23 2018, @10:35PM
Actually, GP isn't all that crazy. The right of the 1960's has splintered, been diluted, but at the same time, moved a little further right. The left of the 1960's has moved very far right of their old positions. Today, the "left" in the US is more authoritarian than the right is.
You can search for terms like "political compass" and "political spectrum", but this page seems to address the issue well enough: http://factmyth.com/the-left-right-political-spectrum-explained/ [factmyth.com]
Americans in general would do well to take one (or more) of the tests, to determine where they really stand. Many of us will be really surprised to learn where they really are on each of the axis. Left and right is just far too simplistic to be useful.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday November 23 2018, @08:44PM (7 children)
Every president before Trump, including Obama and even Nixon, was much politer, and, I daresay, genuinely more respectful of the press. Trump is the outlier here.
Trump has shrugged off the murder of Khashoggi, and he tried to use blatantly doctored footage as reason to kick Acosta out. That we need a certain level of "decorum" and civilized behavior at a press briefing-- you know, no chucking your shoes at the President of the United States-- should go without saying. But somehow, the Trump administration thinks it needs to be said. Just another sad sign of how low this administration has dragged everything.
What's next, Trump brings a poodle to the press briefing and sends it forth to piddle on reporters' pant legs? Even Trump would never stoop that low? Or... would he?
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:20PM (5 children)
Two way street.
Muslim brotherhood propagandist.
Re-encoded != doctored
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:43PM (3 children)
Which codec were they using? Is that the same codec they used to remaster Star Wars so that Greedo shot first?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @10:08PM (2 children)
Haha, re-encoded with a codec problem. Bullshit jargon that might make a less knowledgeable person go "yaaa, it was a codec thing not a deliberate attempt at #fakenews! Damn liberals at it again!" Such a bad editing job too, I guess they realized actually modifying the footage would be pretty to spot with all the other news stations recording.
I mean really, defending fake news as an innocent mistake, or with accusations of fake news? Just astounding.
This is where we're at. Trump actually pushes doctored footage, true blue fake news, and yet the spin is still trying to sell it as "no law saying he has to take questions!" l o l i wish
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday November 23 2018, @10:49PM (1 child)
This is the new normal. And all the RWNJs on this site love it, though they haven't got the balls--it's ALWAYS balls--to say it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @09:22PM
I saw a truck driving in front of me at night with some light swinging around underneath. I quickly realized someone made a lit up version of those truck balls and I then immediately thought that VLM and TMB must be road tripping.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday November 27 2018, @02:45AM
Correct:
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-ugly-terror-truth-about-jamal.html [blogspot.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:29PM
the propagandist pieces of human shit that call themselves reporters and ask contrived, dishonest questions should be grateful i'm not the president. i'd be trying them for sedition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:50PM
Yeah, this is how the White House Press Pool has always operated. The reporters softball things or lose access, and since you can't be a good DC political reporter without White House access, they press has always pussyfooted around, regardless of party in power. Sad that it took Trump Derangement Syndrome to get these dipshits to actually push for a change, but pretending this is different in any way other than trappings around the edges is just sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @10:21PM
Troll? I'll fix that one. Maybe your post is a little whataboutist - but it's not troll material. Some snowflake just got offended at the truth.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:11PM
It amazes me that everyone has conveniently forgotten how the Obama administration
Obama admin DID NOT block Fox reporters.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @08:07PM (10 children)
An opinion piece from a radical left wing nutcase submitted by an Anonymous Coward. Yea, way to keep the standards of content high here guys.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:11PM (9 children)
When were the standards high and how come you are only complaining about a left-wing source when breitbart has been used a bunch of times?
I didn't see you going after THOSE stories. Speaking of hypocrisy in your other comment I have some bad news for you.
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @08:13PM (8 children)
Well, Anonymous Coward, when was the last time Brietbart was ever quoted as a source here? Got a link?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 23 2018, @09:17PM (7 children)
Looks like October 14 [soylentnews.org] and August 7 [soylentnews.org].
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @09:36PM (6 children)
Well that shouldn't be here either then. Two wrongs never make a right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:49PM (5 children)
Well I've read a few breitbart articles, they are hard to stomach. So much vitriol.
I don't doubt syracuse.com has a left leaning nature but that editorial (it was labeled as such) was hardly some media hit piece.
I particularly liked this part
For the types around here that stick up for the freedom of speech there is surprisingly little support for the actual victims here. Ultimately ourselves if we let these things slide through.
I suspect we have authoritarian shills (paid users who push agendas) and a surprisingly supportive base of nationalists. I guess it makes sense, most nationalism is born out of the fear of being taken over so people look to "their strong guy" and are led more by emotion than reason. If this statement annoyed you then all you have to do is pay attention to the lies Trump tells. Even if you like what he is doing overall you should still be getting pissed at some of the other things.
I know, its hard to stay up to date, especially when your guy tells you that everything else is a bunch of lies. Yet we have hard data proving Trump lies almost by habit. That should make you angry and suspicious, but that gets misdirected towards other people. Just look at the caravan story, how much of an emergency is it now? How much money got wasted on it again?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday November 23 2018, @11:30PM (3 children)
I highly doubt that anyone is getting paid to post here. Not enough impact. I suspect there are very few, if any, shills at Slashdot either, since the site is less influential than it once was.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:19PM (1 child)
oh it is
its just that the market there is not as intellectual, wealthy, and intellectually wealthy.
the masses are more receptive to advertising; they now are just sort of an in between placed above reddit and below wired. neither of which are shining lights of brillant journalism or news.
reddit just has too much noise and wired has and always has been a shill that tries to promote itself in whatever the current generation of 20 something discretionary incomes seem to like to see on screen. go back to mondo 2000 and up through today and its always been a junk tech ezine.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:38PM
Reddit has noise, but specific subreddits do a good job of cutting through the noise and giving you what you want. Maybe you have to do a little work to find valuable content there, but it's there.
Wired on the other hand has its own problems [salon.com], but it has nicely closed itself off from the outside world with a paywall. If we're lucky, it will wither and die like other magazines (print and online) have.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @09:32PM
My guess is SN is a high level target. Simple canned responses don't work that well here, but influencing the opinion of users here will cause a ripple effect. If I were running a shill-farm I would 100% get the best trolls on Slashot, Hacker News, and SoylentNews. Basically any site on lists like this one https://alternativeto.net/software/slashdot/ [alternativeto.net]
It isn't hard to manage, just set up your shill with a news feed and have them jump into any discussion where they can push political angles. On top of that it was noted that shills targeted conservative leaning sites and SN definitely fits the bill there.
I remain skeptical, and part of doing so means keeping in mind that there could be true shill accounts around here. Various narratives have been pushed and it is difficult to tell where exactly they come form. Maybe they are coming from true idiots, but possibly they are coming from organized groups trying to make the true idiots into their own useful idiots.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @11:37PM
Marxism in Our Time [wsws.org]:
(Score: 5, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:10PM (11 children)
Didn't you get the memo ? The first amendement only applies to conservatives, not liberals.
When big bad evil liberals try to take away the platforms of Nazis, white supremacists, conspiracy-theorist sociopaths like Alex Jones, conservatives climb the walls in outrage and claim that "liberals are trying to suppress our freedom of speech !".
But when a liberal journalist, a member of the free press, talks to the President of the United States, our employee, and asks him tough questions, confronts him with his lies and disinformation, and demands explanations, he gets kicked out of the White House, and conservatives cheer and applaud.
And to prove my point, watch how quickly conservatives on this forum will try to downmod this post to hell. Hypocrits.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by The Shire on Friday November 23 2018, @08:28PM (10 children)
Two things you clearly do not quite understand:
First, the President is NOT "our employee". He is a duly elected official who we have granted the temporary powers of the Office of the President. No government official is under any obligation to answer questions from the press nor does any one reporter have a right under the law to have a whitehouse press pass.
And second, you don't have a grasp of what "Freedom of the Press" actually means under US law - it does not grant the press any more rights or privileges than it also grants an ordinary citizen. The press is not a special class of american with more rights than others. If you act like an ass infront of the President you can be removed at his discretion.
And it seems to be a tired trope of the left to decide that half this country who consider themselves conservatives are automatically Nazis and White Supremecists. Never mind that the GOP has a very diverse group of supporters of all races, creeds, and both genders all of whom get a chuckle when you try to label them as white supremecists. And the real irony is, Nazis were socialists. Their thinking is more in line with the radical left than any other.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @08:39PM
Calling someone a socialist does not make it so.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:59PM (7 children)
Oh wow, "the real irony is, Nazis were socialists" is ignorant. You are misinformed, as political propaganda is meant to do. The Nazi used the term "socialist" the way the "patriot act" uses patriot or "citizens united" used either of those words.
So parroting the Fox talking point "Nazis were socialists haha evil socialist liberals are the real nazis lolol" shows your own ignorance. Now you know, maybe learn something about the actual terms and history behind them.
"If you act like an ass infront of the President you can be removed at his discretion."
Ah yes, he's YOUR little dictator and it just tickles your fancy watching him behave like a spoiled child. Not to go all whataboutism on you, but Fox tore into Obama for 8 years solid with the flimsiest bullshit and boy oh boy did you conservatives freak out when there was a whiff of the White House excluding Fox. Stand by your convictions.
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 23 2018, @10:46PM (4 children)
I think what you miss with the Nazis is, they gained power partly through the promise of socialism. It's what the people wanted, it's what they supported. The Nazi's did indeed deliver on some aspects of socialism. Those who worked for the glory of the state got a lot of benefits, while those who worked against the state lost benefits. It really worked out very much like Stalin's style of socialism.
And, both Hitler and Stalin helped to demonstrate that socialism ain't such a great idea. If that isn't enough for you, you should look at Red China.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @11:30PM (3 children)
Saying socialism is a bad idea because the Nazis falsely promised it to trick the population into voting for them makes about as much sense as saying candy is a bad idea because strangers will lure your children away with candy to kidnap them.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @11:46PM
Or for that matter the Stalinism example.
But get a load of democracy! Surely you've heard of the German Democratic Republic [wikipedia.org] or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! We'd better avoid democracy at all costs! Especially when organized as a republic!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Saturday November 24 2018, @12:14AM (1 child)
But, you missed the fact that both the Soviet and Red China used the very same playbook. They promised a socialist utopia, then proceeded to genocide half of their own population. It's a common theme with socialism. Promise the chumps whatever you think they want - you can always kill them off after the election or coup or whatever.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:03AM
As opposed to Capitalism which promises the chumps whatever it thinks they want then kills them off with the next cost-cutting decision.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:25AM (1 child)
You're just hiding a "No True Scotsman" argument. Nazism is a variety of socialism, and you're rejecting it because it's unpopular and because it defeats your viewpoint.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @09:36PM
You wish I was.
The Nazis were not socialists. As Runaway pointed out they enacted some social programs but that is not the same thing at all. By your definition apparently the US is a socialist country.
Keep being ignorant Chris Maple and suck on the teat of propaganda. Sorry bub but you are the epitome of the "useful idiot" who parrots the most inane bullshit.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Saturday November 24 2018, @01:17AM
You know, before I read the background on this case, I would likely have agreed with you. But it turns out that might not be quite true in this case (as I've just found out in researching what's going on here), at least not in the DC Federal Circuit.
That last statement is definitely false, at least according to court rulings. I suggest this story [theatlantic.com] as good background reading on the law here.
You see, something like this has happened before. In 1966 a reporter with a major source (The Nation) was summarily denied a press pass to the White House. The Secret Service refused to offer grounds. In 1972 (now more well-known), he applied again and was summarily denied again. After many years of lawyer discussions and lawsuits, in 1977 a federal judge ruled in his favor, and he was then granted a press pass after it turned out the grounds for denial were minor.
The judge in the case (Sherrill v. Knight) started out by saying what you did: the Freedom of the Press from the First Amendment doesn't grant anyone the right to access to the President or to ask questions or whatever.
HOWEVER, once the government decides to grant this privilege to members of the press then the court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment requires Due Process in stating reasons for denial of such a privilege. In the words of the ruling:
The judge in the Acosta case last week seemed to indicate that he would follow similar reasoning, particularly along Fifth Amendment grounds. Otherwise, allowing a President to remove a reporter "at his discretion" with no clear reasoning or procedure to challenge the decision could deny access to portions of the Press while granting it to others, which is pretty clearly interfering with the Press. I personally still don't quite buy the First Amendment argument here, since no one in the government is forcing CNN to run a story or censoring them from running a story. But I can see why a strong Fifth Amendment argument could be made about the need for procedural denial to exist in a Press forum officially established by the federal government.
Digression: Of course, to me, that should lead to more worrying issues once you grant that premise. If journalists are somehow granted this "special privilege" to enter this public forum to question the President, on what grounds should it be determined whether a reporter is sufficiently qualified? I'm sure there are lots of random bloggers -- probably many with journalism degrees -- who would love to sit in the White House briefing room. I'm guessing they are almost all summarily denied admittance unless they are affiliated with a major network, newspaper, magazine, as well as several major online news sources.
But why? Because the room is too small to house all of them? Is that a sufficient reason to deny what a court has apparently ruled a Constitutional right?? If we are to be fair to all journalists (including someone writing for the small local newspaper in Upper Bucksnort, Tennessee, as well as news blogger with a small audience but journalistic standards and background), shouldn't they all get an equal chance to question the President? Otherwise, isn't the government by default interfering with the Freedom of the Press now by privileging reporters from sources that are often corporate affiliates or those with big enough cash to make it on the national scene??
Seriously, if CNN is going to argue all press members should have access to this privilege without a procedure to deny them, why should CNN get a seat at the briefing every day? Make it a lottery with tens of thousands of reporters, and maybe CNN gets in one day a year... wouldn't that be more fair, if this is really a Constitutional right offered to journalists?? Maybe CNN should be careful of what it wishes for. In the 1970s when this was first challenged legally, you didn't have every other random person on the internet with a news blog arguing they could be a journalist....
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by bradley13 on Friday November 23 2018, @08:23PM (3 children)
The first amendment provides freedom of expression. A journalist can write or broadcast whatever they want. Funnily, it doesn't say anything about providing them with material.
Mind, government transparency is important. But White House press conferences are not, and never have been a great source of reliable information.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:51PM (1 child)
So by your own logic, ISPs and service providers who refuse to host sites of alt-right extremists or con-artists like Alex Jones are perfectly entitled to do so, as are the likes of Facebook, Twitter, etc, who decide to delete the accounts of such people, and conservatives who complain about this and claim that their "freedom of speech is being suppressed by the evil liberals" are just snowflakes themselves.
Or is it only liberals who complain that are snowflakes ?
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:33AM
Yes, service providers should be free to reject anyone they desire. And customers should be free to complain and bring public pressure when their ISP bans someone.
The major complaint by conservatives has been that popular social media sites have been shutting down the accounts of mild conservatives and quietly deleting conservative posts.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:44AM
Please use language accurately. The First Amendment deals with religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. The First Amendment does not protect freedom of expression, which would include things like masturbating in front of a group of first-graders and nuns.
"Free expression" is far too open a category because hardly anything is excluded.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by legont on Friday November 23 2018, @09:00PM (5 children)
Journalists are people who give us facts. That's changed and most so called journalists give us their opinions.
Guess what, I don't give a shit about their opinions. I have my own sources for opinions, this forum being a nice example.
Furthermore, I don't see why paid delivering of opinions should be protected. We need to separate journalists who reports facts from the slime stuck to them.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Friday November 23 2018, @09:28PM
There is an old saying, "You can't fight fire with ignorance."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @09:59PM (3 children)
So according to you, people who are employed by a recognised news organisation, who sit in a press conference called by the White House, who ask questions to the President of the United States, and who report verbatim both their questions and the President's replies/reactions in their news outlet, are NOT journalists ?
For fuck's sake, you trumptards live more and more in your own little version of reality. This is starting to look less and less like political polarisation or even fanatism, and more and more like downright mental illness, a.k.a. schizophrenia.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by legont on Friday November 23 2018, @10:31PM (2 children)
Yes, they are not journalists. They simply push their ideas (right or wrong does not matter) enjoying extra protection they got and without any consequences.
There is now a label for them out there IYI - *Intellectual Yet Idiot* https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=IYI [urbandictionary.com]
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:02AM (1 child)
Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Sep 16, 2016
The Intellectual Yet Idiot
(Chapter in Skin in the game )
https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.ntt8r6u7f [medium.com]
"Beware the semi-erudite who thinks he is an erudite. He fails to naturally detect sophistry.
The IYI pathologizes others for doing things he doesn’t understand without ever realizing it is his understanding that may be limited. He thinks people should act according to their best interests and he knows their interests, particularly if they are “red necks” or English non-crisp-vowel class who voted for Brexit. When plebeians do something that makes sense to them, but not to him, the IYI uses the term “uneducated”. What we generally call participation in the political process, he calls by two distinct designations: “democracy” when it fits the IYI, and “populism” when the plebeians dare voting in a way that contradicts his preferences."
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @03:43PM
Or, IYI is a fictitious term coined by the clueless ignorant masses to make themselves feel less inferior to those who actually know what they are talking about.
I'm sure flat-earthers also have some kind of derogatory term to designate those "brainwashed, delusional" people who actually believe that the earth is round.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Entropy on Friday November 23 2018, @10:24PM
These interviews were always scripted. Clinton, Obama, Bush, the press has never really been allowed to ask real questions and no politician has really ever answered real questions. Politicians (and now the press) are fundamentally dishonest. The press acting like this is some sort of new Trump thing is one of the many examples of their dishonesty.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by epitaxial on Friday November 23 2018, @10:51PM (5 children)
People keep acting like Trump kicked out all of CNN. It was the pass of *one* reporter. Whoever else has a pass is free to be there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @12:38AM (4 children)
If the President gets to chose which journalist free news organisations get to send (or not send) to press conferences for them, then this is a clear and evident violation of the spirit of the first amendement. Only a total and complete fanatic blinded by pure tribalism cannot see this.
How much longer are you going to try to polish that turd ? Trump is filth. Pure filth. He is a compulsive liar, con-man, psychopath, narcissist and chronically immature man-child. And he's been that way for more than four decades. He has no compassion, no empathy, not a single redeeming quality.
Look, I get it. He was the only choice, in your eyes Clinton was worse, yada yada yada. I could marginally understand that you felt like you had no other choice, that he was the lesser evil, etc.
But that you keep defending that sack of pus is beyond logic, beyond reason, beyond common sense, beyond the most basic shred of human decency.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:02AM (1 child)
What makes you assume I support Trump? I'm just pointing out it was one single press pass and not the entire network.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @04:01PM
I felt bad for the lady responsible for passing the microphone around when she attempted to get her microphone and the selfimportant asshole though he was more important than that. If I was there I would have punched him in the face and handed her the microphone and then say something cool to the guy like "Here's a tissue, you've got blod on your face". Then she would be impressed by me and we would get married and fly away on my dragon to the forgotten land of Eternia where He-Man would be welcoming us.
(Score: 1) by ChrisMaple on Monday November 26 2018, @12:48AM (1 child)
Trump is frequently rude, and he tramples on your sacred beliefs. Suck it up; most people don't share your sacred beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @09:54PM
Found the incel.
I'm guessing your romantic approach is similar except in your mind YOU are Der Trumpfenfuhrer.
Suck it up, some people view you tards as the 2nd coming of the Nazi Party.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 23 2018, @10:55PM
https://xkcd.com/1357/ [xkcd.com]
(Score: 2) by Username on Saturday November 24 2018, @07:22AM (1 child)
How was accoster's freedoms infringed on? He can print, say whatever he wants, before and after he got kicked out. Why does he need to be in the white house to journalize?
They should hire huge male bodybuilders to be in charge of the microphones. accoster wouldn't be pushing them around like that one girl. He was completely dismissive and demeaning towards her. That should be enough grounds to kick anyone out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @04:54PM
Let me ask you one simple question (not that I expect an honest answer anyway):
If it had been Barack Obama that would have acted the same way towards a Fox News journalist, would you be equally apologetic of him ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @02:05PM
i suppose the idea is that "the people" voted for him, thus he can act on their behalf or rephrased: do what he wants.
thus the press briefs are more of "i confirm that my beliefs are the same as the beliefs of the people
that voted me to be pres and here is more of the same".
it's like a TV screen that is being mis-used as a light bulb by showing a white picture all the time and nothing else.
also, the press seems lazy. the hard research and reporting cannot be shown because "hand-that-feeds" so the reporting leaves
little wiggle room and only bone and no meat.
tip: see all those proud signatures? report about those?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 24 2018, @05:08PM
While POTUS may benefit from talking to reporters, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels him to do so. The relationship may have been symbiotic when it was a matter of whistle-stop tours and local news papers. Now it is more parasitical, where large corporate interests miscontextualize events for no other reason but to sell consumer eyeballs to industrial psychologists.
Bad journalism has always been around. But when nationally, so much of it is beholdent to a small group of industrial interests, it becomes a hegemony that constrains the ability to redress grievances. The trinity of cabal news, it itself a threat to the 1st amendment because the din of corporate propaganda drowns out reasoned discourse between the state and the people. IOW, the odds of a journalist elevating the debate is inversely proportional to the size of the institution he is working for.
There is an obvious way to fix this problem. Simply give CNN's press pass to a minority interest newspaper like the Washington D.C. Gay Blade. Or maybe make the seat rotating, and offer it to highschool and college newspapers on a weekly basis. It isn't descrimation if the incoming journalists have more diverse views that CNN does. (which isn't difficult)
Personally I think the correct solution is to put the press out on the lawn. Millions of Americans work outdoors in bad weather. Why should a bunch of soft handed mobbed up drama queens get free office space on the most expensive real estate in the country at taxpayer expense? It is kind of hard to bloviate when you're shivering, so it would compel more concise debate if nothing else.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by jmorris on Saturday November 24 2018, @06:28PM (1 child)
Eighty plus posts and nobody has a fricking clue yet. So here is one for free.
The Accoster abused a White House intern on live TV, in the presence of both POTUS and the WH Press Sec. Afterward they banned Jim Accosta from the White House. Entirely reasonable decision. Accosta is uniformly rude, crude and monopolizes far more than his share of time at these things, but he was not banished for that uncivilized behavior, it was crossing the line to physically interfering with the staff.
As usual, a friendly court was quickly found that made an absurd ruling demanding the press pass be returned. Trump and Sanders, wisely, decided to flip the script and use the court's flimsy pretext as an opportunity to deliver an object lesson. The court ruled that since there were no formal written rules of behavior for the WH press The Accoster couldn't be punished for violating them. That my friends, is called a layup. Trump whacked it good and hard. They can whine like bitches about it but after a Federal Court all but ordered the creation of formal rules, at the urging of the press itself, nobody is going to feel the slightest pity for them.
Had the White House Correspondents Association and the other media loudmouths acted responsibly and agreed that Accosta crossed a line, admonished both him and CNN and generally policed their own, nothing with lasting consequence would have resulted. After a few weeks in the penalty box Accosta would have delivered a pro-forma apology to the intern, he would have got his pass back and everybody would have carried on, except no more knocking a young lady around because she dared reach for the microphone.
Trump is beating the media like rented mules because they are stupid. They keep making it easy. They grew fat and lazy over the decades because they had successfully terrified all of the people they "cover" into fearing their power to the point most of the actual political power was in the hands of the media. But it was an illusion of power only, now destroyed and they refuse to accept it.
The media and the universities are the principle enemies of America. President Trump has succeeded in driving the trust ratings of the media from horrid to barely measurable. Now all he need to do is attack the academy. Don't think he will be the one with the stones to drop the nuke on em. Cleaning that out is basically the victory condition for saving Western Civilization.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 26 2018, @09:57PM
For a techie who dislikes false accusations of sexual assault you are really going for the gold here.
Gold fucking shower from your moron POTUS.
You have finally become unhinged. I wonder which little straw broke the camel toe's back?