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: 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....