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

[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] The BBC. You're going to accuse the BBC of "shoddy reporting" when fucking Breitbart is allowed in? Please people, let's call a spade a spade, this is an astonishing attack on the free press. [QUOTE=-nesto-;51871780]The excluded groups got transcripts and audio of the meeting. How tyrannical.[/QUOTE] They don't get to ask questions, which is the point of attending a press conference.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871780]The excluded groups got transcripts and audio of the meeting. How tyrannical.[/QUOTE] so basically the reason why they didnt get invited was because the president complained about them, how mature.

[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] But this is not about shoddy reporting. If shoddy reporting was the reason, Fox and Breitbart would be kicked out as well. If you're going to defend it, at least be honest about it and admit this is over criticism of the president

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871780]The excluded groups got transcripts and audio of the meeting. How tyrannical.[/QUOTE] [quote]“We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not,” he added. “The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”[/quote] Only getting what the people who were allowed in decide to share with you is nowhere near as reliable as actually being in the room yourself

[QUOTE=Chonch;51871731] Of course not, but your whole post is moot. It's not like the administration is [I]only[/I] talking to conservative outlets.[/QUOTE] I changed my verbiage away from specifically bipartisan leaning news agencies because, you're right, it's not just conservative news agencies there. However, my point is not moot; anyone who dares defy Trump with any, gasp, [I]objectivity,[/I] regarding his pitfalls, gets the boot. Why are you not worried that a very nationalist, right wing administration is taking action to shape public opinion by silencing media outlets who, again, don't suck the orange cock?

[QUOTE=Big Bang;51871783]The BBC. You're going to accuse the BBC of "shoddy reporting" when fucking Breitbart is allowed in? Please people, let's call a spade a spade, this is an astonishing attack on the free press. They don't get to ask questions, which is the point of attending a press conference.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a press conference and [URL="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings"]they hold daily briefings[/URL] that they aren't excluded from and can ask whatever they want.

How long before he starts to ban more and more news outlets until the only one he allows in is Breitbart?

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871802]It wasn't a press conference and [URL="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings"]they hold daily briefings[/URL] that they aren't excluded from and can ask whatever they want.[/QUOTE] Ok, it was a [I]gaggle[/I] with the Press Secretary of the White House. Why exclude them specifically for this event then? What good reason would you have to exclude some of the biggest news outlets? Do you seriously not see the connection between Trump's constant attacks on the media and this?

[QUOTE=hippowombat;51871798]I changed my verbiage away from specifically bipartisan leaning news agencies because, you're right, it's not just conservative news agencies there. However, my point is not moot; anyone who dares defy Trump with any, gasp, [I]objectivity,[/I] regarding his pitfalls, gets the boot. Why are you not worried that a very nationalist, right wing administration is taking action to shape public opinion by silencing media outlets who, again, don't suck the orange cock?[/QUOTE] These outlets criticise him plenty, the blocked ones almost seem to go out of their way to do so, even to the point of reporting ridiculous falsehoods like Pissgate or Mike Pence electrocuting gays. Maybe Bannon had some personal beef with them too, I have no clue. I'm not concerned because I don't like what I've seen from some of these outlets either.

[QUOTE=MissingGlitch;51871808]How long before he starts to ban more and more news outlets until the only one he allows in is Breitbart?[/QUOTE] Well if they keep pushing false stories they're going to get banned. Trump basically said at CPAC "I don't care if its negative, just don't run false stories"

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871825]Well if they keep pushing false stories they're going to get banned. Trump basically said at CPAC "I don't care if its negative, just don't run false stories"[/QUOTE] You do realize his definition of false stories is anything he finds negative right? And don't act like Breitbart actually publishes true stories.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;51871787]But this is not about shoddy reporting. If shoddy reporting was the reason, Fox and Breitbart would be kicked out as well. If you're going to defend it, at least be honest about it and admit this is over criticism of the president[/QUOTE] No shit it's because they criticize him, I never said that wasn't the reason. I'm saying that CNN shouldn't be considered a reputable news organization. I don't think Breitbart is reputable either. My argument is that news networks are not entitled to admission and the White House is under no obligation to permit them inside. If this was an attack on freedom of the press then there would be a violation of law occurring -- to which there is none.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871825]Well if they keep pushing false stories they're going to get banned. Trump basically said at CPAC "I don't care if its negative, just don't run false stories"[/QUOTE] yea, bbc sure does run a lot of false stories. same with cnn, try to find anything false that they've reported on recently.

[QUOTE=Naught;51871837]yea, bbc sure does run a lot of false stories. same with cnn, try to find anything false that they've reported on recently.[/QUOTE] Dunno why BBC was excluded, doubt it was for false stories. Could be because the administration is going all America First but CNN is spinning the WH and FBI story and their article completely omits Comey's remarks that CNN and NYTime are pushing bullshit involving the Russia ordeal.

Censorship? Censorship.

[QUOTE=gigazelle;51871881]Censorship? Censorship.[/QUOTE] Nobody's getting censored here. News organizations are not entitled to any information.

[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 one thing if the president doesn't like a news outlet, it's another if his administration begins taking steps to shape the American media landscape to suit his tastes, aka rule 4 in the Dictator Handbook, which is what's happening. One of the main purposes of the media in the US is to keep the government accountable to it's citizens, something enshrined in the constitution from the get-go, with protected first amendment criticism of government by the fourth estate. The trump campaign is attacking this notion in every way possible that avoids a direct (and therefore defined unconstitutional) assault on this freedom, much how they do in other things, like establishing a movement that's ready-made for white nationalism without explicitly directing the disenfranchisement of minorities, and even directly censoring science establishments and information sources that discredit his rhetoric, like banning the NPS from tweeting, passing laws against state scientists releasing findings without political review, etc. In short, media that are indeed media (and not extremist conspracy drivel like libertyreport/armed-democrats, and brietbart/inforwars on the other side) do indeed have an entitlement to provide in particularly a critical coverage of government, something which the trump administration is attempting to do away with.

How can you seriously defend this administration when they're brazenly playing favorites to news outlets that cover them favorably like holy [I]shit[/I] what is this fucking noise about 'well they're not entitled to any information' and 'well CNN/WaPo/NYT/etc. did x/y/z this one time so this is totally fine' Hey, maybe that's it, maybe it's that the lie is so transparent you can't even see it

[QUOTE=Chonch;51871905]Nobody's getting censored here. News organizations are not entitled to any information.[/QUOTE] What does this mean? Aren't we entitled to information?

[QUOTE=Chonch;51871905]Nobody's getting censored here. News organizations are not entitled to any information.[/QUOTE] Major news organisations are entitled to press briefings.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51871905]Nobody's getting censored here. News organizations are not entitled to any information.[/QUOTE] The entire goddamn point of transparency is to allow the free flow of information. One can make the argument that nobody is "entitled" to anything but there is every reason to expect it.

I've lost any respect I had for Chonch in the last few days. He's an unabashed apologist for the new fascist administration, with morally indefensible stances. A government in a Republic is a servant of the people, paid for with their tax dollars and answerable to the masses. The news organizations are absolutely entitled to that information.

And I mean [I]really[/I], the BBC? It's already been mentioned but I think it bears repeating ad nauseum that if this is actually about shoddy reporting, excluding the BBC makes [I]zero fucking sense[/I] [I]Maybe[/I] you could [I]almost[/I] make an argument for CNN and WaPo being excluded for shoddy reporting, they have absolutely had some missteps recently, but then you have to deal with the inconvenient question of why FOX news is still invited, because last I heard they ran a segment full of outright falsehoods and all kinds of shoddy reporting

Hell, I could stand Fox News being invited but Breitbarf is plain unjustifiable.

[QUOTE=-nesto-;51871825]Well if they keep pushing false stories they're going to get banned. Trump basically said at CPAC "I don't care if its negative, just don't run false stories"[/QUOTE] Hahaha, are you fucking serious right now? Are you really serious? Dude, dude, my friendo my dude nesto... [B]Breitbart is allowed.[/B] Fuck me man, Breitbart is [I]in the fucking administration[/I]. Breitbart makes up fucking quotes, Breitbart misrepresents shit constantly, Breitbart is accepted by most normal, well-adjusted people as being completely and utterly full of SHIT. I don't [B]care[/B] if you want to make this about whether the administration has the legal right do this or push some pathetic, quibbling "W-well th-they only d-do it because they're saying FAKE THINGS..." As if this is some kind of fucking logically consistent motion. No, no no nononono this is spin, this is bias, and it's indefensible in any way other than to just come out and tell the truth. So just come out and say it: You want [I]your[/I] media to get better info, and [I]their[/I] media to get worse info. [editline]24th February 2017[/editline] Like what the fuck is with all these people who I thought were thinking, reasoning people defending this bullshit? Come the fuck on man, Skanic? Really? I'm disappointed as shit, why the fuck is Breitbart allowed if they're supposed to be only banning media that's fake and shit? Have some fucking balls and own up to the fact that you just don't want to play fair, jesus christ.

Any argument regarding the excluded news network's supposed "fake news" is entirely bullshit, becuase Breitbart and Fox are much much worse in that regard. The administration cares about truth in the same way that the Ministry of Truth does.

Like, the mental gymnastics I'm seeing are... Unreal. This is fucking Sanius Squad tier shit. Congratulations, you've have become what you hate. I hope you're happy.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;51871970]Major news organisations are entitled to press briefings.[/QUOTE] This wasn't a press briefing. Did you read the OP? Guess not. This was a gaggle. [QUOTE]A press gaggle (as distinct from a press conference or press briefing) is an informal briefing by the White House Press Secretary which (as used by press secretaries for the George W. Bush administration) is on the record, but disallows videography. The term can also be used to refer to the informal interactions between the press and the press secretary that occur before a videotaped press briefing.[1] One former member of the White House press corps provided the following historical context:[2] "Gaggles" historically refer to informal briefings the press secretary conducts with the press pool rather than the entire press corps....they were more or less off the record, and their purpose was mostly to exchange information - the president's schedule and briefing schedule, from the administration side; heads-up on likely topics or early comment on pressing issues, from the news side[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=da space core;51871965]What does this mean? Aren't we entitled to information?[/QUOTE] You have a right to know what's going on in your government, but the means to get that info is not the government's responsibility, nor should it ever be. [QUOTE=archangel125;51871973]I've lost any respect I had for Chonch in the last few days. He's an unabashed apologist for the new fascist administration, with morally indefensible stances. A government in a Republic is a servant of the people, paid for with their tax dollars and answerable to the masses. The news organizations are absolutely entitled to that information.[/QUOTE] Yes, such a frightening fascist administration that absolutely nobody is afraid to speak out against him anywhere. Stow your bald hyperbole, I'll have none of that here. If a few days of disagreeable forum posts is all it takes to lose your respect, I fear you are either doling it out too loosely, or just not examining your subjects well enough.

[QUOTE=Chonch;51872065]You have a right to know what's going on in your government, but the means to get that info is not the government's responsibility, nor should it ever be. Yes, such a frightening fascist administration that absolutely nobody is afraid to speak out against him anywhere. Stow your bald hyperbole, I'll have none of that here. If a few days of disagreeable forum posts is all it takes to lose your respect, I fear you are either doling it out too loosely, or just not examining your subjects well enough.[/QUOTE] It's not their responsibility but I've got plenty of fucking reason to be suspicious if they're obviously keeping shit from me. What would've happened if Obama had done this to FOX?