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.