White House hand picks media outlets for Sean Spicer briefing, leaves out CNN/BBC/NYTimes - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The White House blocked a number of news outlets from covering spokesman Sean Spicer’s question-and-answer session on Friday afternoon. Spicer decided to hold an off-camera “gaggle” with reporters inside his West Wing office instead of the traditional on-camera briefing in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room. Among the outlets not permitted to cover the gaggle were news organizations that President Trump has singled out for criticism, including CNN. The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News were among the other news organizations not permitted to attend. Several right-leaning outlets were allowed into Spicer’s office, including Breitbart, the Washington Times and One America News Network. [/QUOTE] [url]http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/321049-white-house-hand-picks-select-media-for-briefing[/url]

Out of all of the objectionable things Trump has done in the few weeks since he was elected, the war that hes waged on the media has been one of the most concerning. It's practically a war on credibility -- discredit, disavow and blockade any opposing media outlets so that you can convince your people that your truths are the only ones that can be trusted. While the mainstream media has had its fair share of problems recently, in the end we are a nation founded upon the principles of the free press being a principle ally of the people, and Trump is trying to turn us against them. Its insidious.

Lies are the truth and any opposing views are fake news.

While the media does have issues, that does not mean they should be barred from those sorts of things. Stinks of tyranny. This administration makes me sick.

Trump's idea of a free and independent press is letting Breitbart, an alt-right rag, into an interview while excluding the motherfucking BBC, one of the most credible news sources in the western hemisphere.

Leaving out the BBC is a really poor choice.

[QUOTE]A number of major news organizations were also let in to cover the gaggle. That group included ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg and McClatchy.[/QUOTE] I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool: [QUOTE]He has adopted a number of changes to the daily briefing format, such as the use of "Skype seats" that allow reporters from outside Washington to ask questions. He also ended the practice of allowing The Associated Press to ask the first question, giving the privilege to a rotation of conservative outlets and some major newspapers.[/QUOTE]

The NYT has been my go-to for general news reading, but I can't say I'm surprised they were left out. This is extremely concerning though, and I'm not sure what legal powers there are for dealing with this. There's certainly the precedent of how every other president has dealt with the media, even media he's sharply opposed, along with the actual constitution, but I don't know if anything can be done or will be done. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] That's not how this should work, ever. Fox news literally dedicated years to questioning Obama, from questioning his heritage, to his family, to his religion, and so on. He never barred them. But are you suggesting he should have? As annoying as they are, I don't think he should have ever done something like that.

the BBC??? [I]really????[/I]

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] I suppose it wasnt an issue when Fox News was targeting Obummer, not just his policies but everything such as "not a real american", "where's your birth certificate", and so on. He can grow some real balls and stop whining about fake news and the biased liberal media while perpetuating an echo chamber of conservative "news" to pander to his biases.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] do you not see a problem with a 'shit list' being a bunch of people simply reporting exactly what you're doing? if the truth is a problem then somethings fucked up.

[QUOTE=paindoc;51869855]The NYT has been my go-to for general news reading, but I can't say I'm surprised they were left out. This is extremely concerning though, and I'm not sure what legal powers there are for dealing with this. There's certainly the precedent of how every other president has dealt with the media, even media he's sharply opposed, along with the actual constitution, but I don't know if anything can be done or will be done. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] That's not how this should work, ever. Fox news literally dedicated years to questioning Obama, from questioning his heritage, to his family, to his religion, and so on. He never barred them. But are you suggesting he should have? As annoying as they are, I don't think he should have ever done something like that.[/QUOTE] I try to avoid platitudinous hypotheticals like "should have," but it's not like that kind of treatment is crossing any lines. The First Amendment gives these organizations the right to speak freely, but not necessarily the right to information; seeking that out is their own responsibility. Given that, the transparency of the administration is ultimately at its discretion; they can share info with whomever they choose. Dick move? Maybe. I'd say it's warranted given the trouble the administration has had with controlling its outflow of information lately. [QUOTE=Crumpet;51869875]do you not see a problem with a 'shit list' being a bunch of people simply reporting exactly what you're doing? if the truth is a problem then somethings fucked up.[/QUOTE] I think you know just as well as I do that no news organization reports exactly what's going on.

In just 1 month, Trump has already attacked the 1st Amendment ("media enemy of the people"), and the judiciary ("so-called judge"), two central pillars of a free society. Our system of checks and balances is being put through probably it's most significant stress test in modern history.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] The President of the United States should not have a fucking media "shitlist". You should NOT have to play nice and never criticize the President to get "press privileges". Holy shit.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]I try to avoid platitudinous hypotheticals like "should have," but it's not like that kind of treatment is crossing any lines. The First Amendment gives these organizations the right to speak freely, but not necessarily the right to information; seeking that out is their own prerogative. The transparency of the administration is ultimately at its discretion; they can share info with whomever they choose. Dick move? Maybe. I'd say it's warranted given the trouble the administration has had with controlling its outflow of information lately.[/QUOTE] "I'm not saying it's OK but they're technically not breaking any laws so it's OK"

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869903] You know just as well as I do that no news organization reports exactly what's going on.[/QUOTE] And you know just as well as I do there is a stark difference between Breitbarts reporting and the BBC. This isn't covering their backs from the evil lies, this is covering up the truth and propagandizing.

Obama never shut fox news out even though they disagreed afaik. Why is it okay for trump to do this to CNN Chonch?

[media]https://twitter.com/bretbaier/status/835206562549493760[/media]

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges.[/QUOTE] Gross. If you can get on an administration's ~shit list~ simply by reporting exactly what they do without trying to put a favourable spin on it, then something fucking stinks. At the very least it's pretty obvious that the administration is simply attempting to silence it's critics. The press isn't there to suck up and play sycophant to the people in charge, The press is there to keep the people informed. If the only information [i]allowed[/i] to be published is information with a favourable spin, otherwise the publisher gets put on a ~shit list~, then the public are getting a skewed, altered view of events. Why would a government be taking such lengths to control the narrative if they weren't doing anything wrong to begin with?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] The entire reason they got on that list is because they've spent the past month demonstrating how much of a fool Trump really is. They're reporting facts, and it just so happens that they hurt Trump's feelings. There's no universe where that should be allowed. The Skype seats are a neat idea, though. Make use of the technology now that we have it.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]Given that, the transparency of the administration is ultimately at its discretion; they can share info with whomever they choose.[/QUOTE] Do you not see the inherent danger of a President declaring with impunity which news broadcasts are true and which are false, without any sort of accountability? Just to recap: This is a guy who literally [I]made up[/I] a terror attack. Who dismisses undeniably true information (like vote tallies and crowd sizes) as fake news. His censorship of the press is motivated purely by his own selfish agenda, not because of a legitimate credibility problem.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]Given that, the transparency of the administration is ultimately at its discretion; they can share info with whomever they choose.[/QUOTE] in democracies the government is usually transparent in all of its dealings and should be opaque ones don't tend to be effectively run - especially since its so hard to hold them to account

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. [/QUOTE] if the barred news sites were turning up to press conferences violent and aggressive you'd have a point but in this instance they're being critical of [I]the leader of one of the world's largest superpowers[/I], which i dunno bout you but i think they're well within their right to be critical of someone whose decisions can change the future for decades to come.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges. Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] Yeah you really don't see a problem with banning any opposing viewpoints and only letting in the conservative circlejerk? Are you real?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]I don't much see the problem with this. You get on the shit list of the administration, you start losing press privileges.[/QUOTE] The BBC, LA Times, and NY Times are all well-respected sources, which tells me they aren't on the shit list due to bad journalism, but due to journalism that isn't convenient to the administration. You should absolutely have a problem with that if you have anything resembling standards for the White House. [QUOTE=Chonch;51869854]Also, this is pretty fucking cool:[/QUOTE] It has potential but there is something amusing about Trump and Spicer whining about fake news then inviting Lars Larson of all people to share time with the presidents spokesperson in a room full of actual journalists. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]Given that, the transparency of the administration is ultimately at its discretion; they can share info with whomever they choose. [/QUOTE] As it's your discretion to decide when this is a bad thing whether or not Obama or Trump is in office. It's painfully ironic to read this after you talked about voting twice (two more times than I did!) for Obama and only finding regret. [QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]Dick move? Maybe. I'd say it's warranted given the trouble the administration has had with controlling its outflow of information lately. [/QUOTE] Apples and oranges. Internal leaks aren't the same as a press briefing.

Anyone that covers up fact in order to ignore the responsibilty of admitting their faults and fixing their mistakes is setting themselves up for colossal failure in the long run. If somebody kept ignoring a festering wound, saying that it's fine and not a problem, and telling all medical experts to fuck off because they're wrong, that person would die. This is exactly what this administration is going to do to itself, and worse, the country as a whole. They already ignore fact if it doesn't get them a quick buck. What will happen if an impending disaster is ignored and leads to serious destruction that can be directly blamed on them?

Would be better to still have them all there even if they are twats. (Not all of them like the BBC though)

[QUOTE=Tudd;51870031]Would be better to still have them all there even if they are twats. (Not all of them like the BBC though)[/QUOTE] Do you think Breitbart is more reputable than CNN?

Just another bit of proof Trump is a massive fucking baby who can't deal with people who may have a critical eye to his policies and who wants a massive hugbox supporting him.

This shit is hilarious, and to be fair, most media outlets have been shitting on trump since he announced he would be running, so they kinda had it coming. And it's not like these outlets are withouth problems. That said, he really should be the bigger man, and let them in, he is the president now. Also, the fucking BBC? The one media outlet that has been praised in the fucking cold war, by the russians, as being impartial and providing facts, is on the shit list? That is just silly. I mean, has the BBC changed that much?