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

Banning the BBC is pretty solid evidence that he's not.just banning liberal slanted media, more so anyone who portrays his bullshit in a critical light or dares to correct his staff's lies.

[QUOTE=CunningHam;51870099]Why even bar them, it's not like anyone who voted for Trump would read that news anyway.[/QUOTE] Trump's fragile feelings

At 7:14 he talks about fake news. [video]https://youtu.be/32vH9pV38Zk?t=434[/video] I don't understand though why BBC is blocked. I know CNN has made some questionable news. Overall I think it's best when as many as possible are able to cover news. But what a lot of people don't know is how biased is any of the News Sites/ TV news stations. You know for example that Breitbart is very right leaning and is not very reputable. A lot of people forget critical thinking and Source criticism. Always think does this make sense or not, sometimes some news sounds very realistic but turns out to be false.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51870041]Do you think Breitbart is more reputable than CNN?[/QUOTE] At least more reputable than Buzzfeed, who is also booted out right now. CNN deserves to get thrown to the back of the press queue too for paddling bullshit too often, such as that whole false rumor of Trump throwing out the MLK bust in the Oval Office.

[QUOTE=Skanic;51870111] A lot of people forget critical thinking and Source criticism.[/QUOTE] They sure do, Skanic, they sure do.

[QUOTE=Jordax;51870114]At least more reputable than Buzzfeed, who is also booted out right now. CNN deserves to get thrown to the back of the press queue too for paddling bullshit too often, such as that whole false rumor of Trump throwing out the MLK bust in the Oval Office.[/QUOTE] I don't disagree that the President and his staff have the right to pass over CNN or other news networks that are just asking bait questions, but stopping them from physically attending a press conference is another matter altogether. This is only going to do two things: 1. Vindicate Trump's remaining supporters and those who believe the "fake news" nonsense 2. Further vindicate Trump's opponents Yay, lets continue increasing the divide in this nation!

[QUOTE=Skanic;51870111] Always think does this make sense or not, sometimes some news sounds very realistic but turns out to be false.[/QUOTE] I agree. It's how Trump became president.

Yeah, this doesn't sound the least bit fascist at all...

[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 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. I think you know just as well as I do that no news organization reports exactly what's going on.[/QUOTE] This treatment is crossing the line of a precedent set by decades of behavior. I wasn't aware that Obama's staff (or Obama himself, i dunno what happened tbh) had attempted to stop Fox News at one point (although, I believe Fox was conducting "ad-hominem" attacks on that president, different from the media now), but that wasn't cool either and it doesn't seem like it stood for long. Time will tell how this ends, but this feels like :bullshit:

[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] You're joking right? How can you possibly think this is an appropriate way for the administration to act?

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;51870206]Yeah, this doesn't sound the least bit fascist at all...[/QUOTE] It isn't fascist at all tbh, because there are a certain amount of press spots available. The only bad thing about is that you will have less angles of news coverage on him.

[QUOTE=Jordax;51870114]At least more reputable than Buzzfeed, who is also booted out right now.[/QUOTE] I'd say they are about the same. Prior to the Russian dossier story I would have said Buzzfeed News was better even, but that really hurt their credibility. [QUOTE=Jordax;51870114]CNN deserves to get thrown to the back of the press queue too for paddling bullshit too often, such as that whole false rumor of Trump throwing out the MLK bust in the Oval Office.[/QUOTE] That was a reporter for TIME magazine, who walked his tweet back moments later. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Skanic;51870243]It isn't fascist at all tbh, because there are a certain amount of press spots available. The only bad thing about is that you will have less angles of news coverage on him.[/QUOTE] I'd prioritize networks based on viewership and and integrity. It seems like Spicer is doing neither, and instead keeping networks who are critical of Trump out in favor of networks who probably don't deserve the access they are getting just because they treat Trump with kids gloves.

Just another check mark on the fascism list.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;51870244]I'd say they are about the same. Prior to the Russian dossier story I would have said Buzzfeed News was better even, but that really hurt their credibility. That was a reporter for TIME magazine, who walked his tweet back moments later. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] I'd prioritize networks based on viewership and and integrity. It seems like Spicer is doing neither, and instead keeping networks who are critical of Trump out in favor of networks who probably don't deserve the access they are getting just because they treat Trump with kids gloves.[/QUOTE] I've read a critical articles about Trump by Reuters. In the video I posted he even praised them. Does this make Reuters now illegitimate?

fascists and censorship go hand in hand. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Skanic;51870243]It isn't fascist at all tbh, because there are a certain amount of press spots available. The only bad thing about is that you will have less angles of news coverage on him.[/QUOTE] breitbart is not press, washington post has been surprisingly pro trump suddenly and they suddenly get invited

[QUOTE=Sableye;51870296]fascists and censorship go hand in hand. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] breitbart is not press, washington post has been surprisingly pro trump suddenly and they suddenly get invited[/QUOTE] The Huffington post also posted a postive article about Trump, which got suddenly taken down.

well i mean CNN for one is pretty crooked can't argue there

If he bans the BBC there might be potential he'd ban RTE. Imagine if he does this for St. Patrick's day. That'd cause *chaos*. Be very afraid Americans, this shitlist is only going to be the start of Trump's attack on the media.

[QUOTE=Skanic;51870363]The Huffington post also posted a postive article about Trump, which got suddenly taken down.[/QUOTE] What does this have to do with the President disinviting legitimate journalists like the BBC?

[media]https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/835219520541364225[/media] hey sean buddy, maybe everyone wouldn't have whiplash if you didn't do all these 180's.

[QUOTE=Fort83;51870738]If a Democratic president was doing this to news outlets that were critical of him/her you'd be foaming at the mouth over it and you know it.[/QUOTE] Maybe, maybe not. This "imaginary Republican" stance doesn't mean much. Really I'm not too bothered by this since it wasn't just conservative outlets being invited to this "gaggle." Whatever was discussed, it's certainly going to be reported on regardless of the presence of outlets like BuzzFeed. It makes me wonder, why do we need these other news outlets anyway?

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;51871158][media]https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/835219520541364225[/media] hey sean buddy, maybe everyone wouldn't have whiplash if you didn't do all these 180's.[/QUOTE] Dear Mr. Spicer, how does it feel to be the mouthpiece for a dictatorship? [QUOTE=Chonch;51871457]It makes me wonder, why do we need these other news outlets anyway?[/QUOTE] Are you fucking attached to reality? Do you even understand what you're saying?

[QUOTE=Fort83;51870738] Also Sean Spicer himself said in December that the Trump White House will not be banning any news outlets once Trump is in office and that having respect for the press when it comes to the government is what makes "a democracy a democracy, vs a dictatorship". [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Gamerman12;51871158]tweet[/QUOTE] They aren't banning them from press conferences (yet lol), they are excluding them from behind closed doors meetings with the press secretary. It's still bullshit, but that's the response you'd get. [QUOTE=Chonch;51871457]Maybe, maybe not. This "imaginary Republican" stance doesn't mean much. Really I'm not too bothered by this since it wasn't just conservative outlets being invited to this "gaggle." Whatever was discussed, it's certainly going to be reported on regardless of the presence of outlets like BuzzFeed. It makes me wonder, why do we need these other news outlets anyway?[/QUOTE] Agreed, hopefully Trump does something to crack down on the lugenpresse in the next four years. The only news you need to here should come from the outlets hand-picked by the administration.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51869903]I try to avoid platitudinous hypotheticals like "should have," [B]but it's not like that kind of treatment is crossing any lines.[/B] 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. I think you know just as well as I do that no news organization reports exactly what's going on.[/QUOTE] Source if "no news source tells the whole truth" is your reasoning behind why this shit is okay, how does it not bother you that only news agencies who suck the orange cock are being allowed to report? Are they telling a more favorable lie than non-Trump-fanboy news outlets?

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;51871568]Are you fucking attached to reality? Do you even understand what you're saying?[/QUOTE] Probably. You seem to have a much better understanding of what I said though, so I'll defer to you on this. [QUOTE=Fort83;51871632]Are you just going to ignore the important part of my post regarding what Spicer said?[/QUOTE] Yes. This isn't a ban. [QUOTE=hippowombat;51871714]Source if "no news source tells the whole truth" is your reasoning behind why this shit is okay, how does it not bother you that only news agencies who suck the orange cock are being allowed to report? Are they telling a more favorable lie than non-republican news outlets?[/QUOTE] Of course not, but your whole post is moot. It's not like the administration is [I]only[/I] talking to conservative outlets.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why media outlets should be entitled to attend. It's the White House, so it's not fucking "unconstitutional" or "tyrannical" or "anti-free press" if the president doesn't allow a couple networks in. It's no secret that networks like CNN have a track record of shoddy reporting and/or deliberate omission of key details to spin a story, so I don't really blame Trump if he doesn't like them.

And you don't see an issue with excluding any media that has called his staff out on their lies and actually had the balls to cross check the information he and his staff are spewing, right?

[QUOTE=Skanic;51870243]It isn't fascist at all tbh, because there are a certain amount of press spots available. The only bad thing about is that you will have less angles of news coverage on him.[/QUOTE] So the only bad thing about this is just the worst thing that could happen to the press in a democratic society. No biggie.

[QUOTE=Boaraes;51871754]Frankly, I don't see any reason why media outlets should be entitled to attend. It's the White House, so it's not fucking "unconstitutional" or "tyrannical" or "anti-free press" if the president doesn't allow a couple networks in. It's no secret that networks like CNN have a track record of shoddy reporting and/or deliberate omission of key details to spin a story, so I don't really blame Trump if he doesn't like them.[/QUOTE] it's pretty telling what the Trump administration's agenda is when Breitbart is invited but BBC isn't

The excluded groups got transcripts and audio of the meeting. How tyrannical.