SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In the past two weeks, the Democratic presidential nominee has faced increased scrutiny from critics to take questions at a news conference — something she hasn't done in 273 days.
[...] New York Times columnist Jim Rutenberg criticized Clinton for her aversion toward the press in a searing piece on Sunday, and CNN senior media correspondent Brian Stelter has not been shy when offering his opinion.
"She is acting in some ways as if she is already president," Stelter said in a recent CNN appearance. "By not acknowledging the importance of a press conference, the uniqueness of a press conference — it makes me wonder how accessible she'd be in the White House as president."
[...] The campaign, which did not return requests for comment for this story, frequently cites a figure that asserts Clinton has granted more than 350 interviews this year.
[...] Holly Shulman, a former spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, told Business Insider that technology has changed the way candidates run for office and suggested there was less of a need to lean on the press to disseminate a message.
"Campaigns have changed," she said, noting that candidates can now reach voters directly through social media. "[T]his type of direct engagement has a much bigger impact on voters' decisions."
[...] Trump has continued to spotlight Clinton's refusal to take questions from the media in an open setting.
In recent weeks, the New York businessman's campaign has sent out an email each morning reminding reporters exactly how many days it has been since "hiding Hillary" last held a press conference.
[...] Brian Fallon, the campaign's top spokesman, seemed to acknowledge the importance of one on Friday. He promised ABC News that if elected, "Hillary Clinton will hold press conferences."
Source: Business Insider
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday September 05 2016, @12:23AM
The pursuit of power without merit.
And we're paying for it one way or another....
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Monday September 05 2016, @12:30AM
So, do you support or oppose publicly funded elections [wikipedia.org]?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 05 2016, @01:33AM
Publicly funded elections is code for "we want the government to pick who gets elected".
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:07AM
Some countries use that, or a mixed system at least (they can get private money, but they get an public assigment too if they get at least a small % of votes), if I understood the article (it seems to only care about USA)... and in some cases, they old politicians are getting some nasty surprises by new parties eating their meal, or at least threating to do so.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CirclesInSand on Monday September 05 2016, @02:20AM
I don't know anyone that opposes publicly funded elections. I and many others oppose government funded elections.
Can we stop pretending that "government" and "public" are the same thing?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @04:22AM
I think instead we should work hard to make sure they are the same thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 05 2016, @02:35PM
But but but! Gubbermint! Doesn't by the people and for the people mean that the people should constantly undermine it like an enemy???
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Monday September 05 2016, @01:31PM
I would think an election system where the only funding come from CITIZENS that pay tax, would seem reasonable.
How about the contribution limit would be like the tax deduction? $3500?
Then, throughout the year, you could proportion your donations (no rollovers!), to whichever campaign you want - local, state, federal.
So candidates would not be a allowed funds from any other place - and if you're rich, you still can't spend your money. Money is not free speech, because it allows you to speak more than once, and allows others to speak for you...
On the flip side, the corporate donors, would be forbidden from contributing to candidates or campaigns. They would however, be allow to spend as much $$ as they want on media. Cut out the middle man entirely.
The problem with this collection of ideas, it looks nice on paper. But surely this would all go wrong when implemented?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday September 05 2016, @03:57AM
“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, absolute power attracts the corruptible.”
― Frank Herbert