|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 14:56:32 GMT -5
By Michael M. Grynbaum / The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and two other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.
Reporters from The Times, CNN and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer allowed in reporters from only a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed to attend.
Other news outlets reportedly not allowed were The Hill, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News.
Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all news outlets with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.
Reporters from Time magazine and The Associated Press, who were set to be allowed in to the briefing, chose not to attend as a form of protest of the White House’s actions.
The White House Correspondents’ Association, which represents the press corps, issued a quick rebuke of the White House’s actions.
“The W.H.C.A. board is protesting strongly against how today’s gaggle is being handled by the White House,” the association president, Jeff Mason, said in a statement. “We encourage the organizations that were allowed in to share the material with others in the press corps who were not. The board will be discussing this further with White House staff.”
The development came hours after Mr. Trump delivered a slashing broadside against the news media during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
In December, Mr. Spicer said the White House would “absolutely not” kick out news organizations in response to critical coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Feb 24, 2017 15:15:43 GMT -5
Could that not be construed as illegal under the first amendment?
|
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 24, 2017 15:16:16 GMT -5
Sorry you couldn't go, Bill. I know how much yuou were looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Feb 24, 2017 15:30:42 GMT -5
Could that not be construed as illegal under the first amendment? Doubt it. Nobody's stopping anybody's right to free expression. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 24, 2017 15:48:30 GMT -5
Could that not be construed as illegal under the first amendment? Doubt it. Nobody's stopping anybody's right to free expression. There's no doubt about it. There is no Constitutional right to attend a press conference. There is no Constitutional obligation for the President to conduct a press conference. Beside that, this whole thing is a big nothing-burger. What is the point of covering press conferences anyway? There is no news created there. It's just the administration's way of telling the press what to print. At most, "news" is created when someone makes a slip of the tongue and the whole world goes nuts for 24 hours until it dies down. Forget that. That's not reporting. That's being the President's PR mouthpiece. In today's technological world, no politician needs to media to get their message to the public. Twitter/YouTube/Facebook, etc. The idea of the traditional media serving as that conduit is obsolete. Politicians can take their message directly to the people. If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 24, 2017 16:06:46 GMT -5
... If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". So, focus on and follow the leaks? |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 24, 2017 16:13:48 GMT -5
... If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". So, focus on and follow the leaks? Of course. Better still, make your own leaks. Too much of what passes for news coming out of Washington is just blabbering about public statements made by politicians. I see quotes in the form of "Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed; everything else is public relations" and "News is something somebody doesn’t want printed; all else is advertising" attributed to either George Orwell or William Randolph Hearst. No matter which (if either) of them said that, I agree with the sentiment. |
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 24, 2017 16:50:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 16:58:33 GMT -5
Doubt it. Nobody's stopping anybody's right to free expression. There's no doubt about it. There is no Constitutional right to attend a press conference. There is no Constitutional obligation for the President to conduct a press conference. Beside that, this whole thing is a big nothing-burger. What is the point of covering press conferences anyway? There is no news created there. It's just the administration's way of telling the press what to print. At most, "news" is created when someone makes a slip of the tongue and the whole world goes nuts for 24 hours until it dies down. Forget that. That's not reporting. That's being the President's PR mouthpiece. In today's technological world, no politician needs to media to get their message to the public. Twitter/YouTube/Facebook, etc. The idea of the traditional media serving as that conduit is obsolete. Politicians can take their message directly to the people. If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". What has happened here has nothing to do with whether or not these press conferences must be held or who has a right to attend one. It also has nothing to do with how relevant briefings might be in a social media age, although I would point out that the Q&A portion of those sessions is VERY relevant in any day and age and often produces solid news stories or leads to other stories. These briefings are a long-standing and important connection between the press and the White House. What is a huge Something Burger is that this administration, apparently without even bothering to explain its rationale, has just decided to kick out its own little enemy's list of longtime established newsgathering operations, meanwhile letting in all the ones that lean heavily its way. It is a very big deal. |
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 24, 2017 17:11:41 GMT -5
There's no doubt about it. There is no Constitutional right to attend a press conference. There is no Constitutional obligation for the President to conduct a press conference. Beside that, this whole thing is a big nothing-burger. What is the point of covering press conferences anyway? There is no news created there. It's just the administration's way of telling the press what to print. At most, "news" is created when someone makes a slip of the tongue and the whole world goes nuts for 24 hours until it dies down. Forget that. That's not reporting. That's being the President's PR mouthpiece. In today's technological world, no politician needs to media to get their message to the public. Twitter/YouTube/Facebook, etc. The idea of the traditional media serving as that conduit is obsolete. Politicians can take their message directly to the people. If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". What has happened here has nothing to do with whether or not these press conferences must be held or who has a right to attend one. It also has nothing to do with how relevant briefings might be in a social media age, although I would point out that the Q&A portion of those sessions is VERY relevant in any day and age and often produces solid news stories or leads to other stories. These briefings are a long-standing and important connection between the press and the White House. What is a huge Something Burger is that this administration, apparently without even bothering to explain its rationale, has just decided to kick out its own little enemy's list of longtime established newsgathering operations, meanwhile letting in all the ones that lean heavily its way. It is a very big deal. The media has more than enough capability to fight back. Dig up some dirt on the administration and run with it. Piss them off. Make them respond to you. In the end, it's all a game of tug of war, with the real arbiters being the public. What's happening now is that the media has decided that it is ok to be completely oppositional and frequently run stories that are filled with bias. (The WaPo "dump poison into the water" stuff comes to mind.) Fine. That's their prerogative. Just as it's the White House staff's prerogative to tell them to bug off. The daily theatrics that take place in the White House briefing room are 99.9% inside baseball stuff, of interest only to Washington wonks. It's all just a big show. The inevitable ebb and flow of middle school girls' clique politics. The real news is happening somewhere else. |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 17:21:44 GMT -5
What has happened here has nothing to do with whether or not these press conferences must be held or who has a right to attend one. It also has nothing to do with how relevant briefings might be in a social media age, although I would point out that the Q&A portion of those sessions is VERY relevant in any day and age and often produces solid news stories or leads to other stories. These briefings are a long-standing and important connection between the press and the White House. What is a huge Something Burger is that this administration, apparently without even bothering to explain its rationale, has just decided to kick out its own little enemy's list of longtime established newsgathering operations, meanwhile letting in all the ones that lean heavily its way. It is a very big deal. The media has more than enough capability to fight back. Dig up some dirt on the administration and run with it. Piss them off. Make them respond to you. In the end, it's all a game of tug of war, with the real arbiters being the public. What's happening now is that the media has decided that it is ok to be completely oppositional and frequently run stories that are filled with bias. (The WaPo "dump poison into the water" stuff comes to mind.) Fine. That's their prerogative. Just as it's the White House staff's prerogative to tell them to bug off. The daily theatrics that take place in the White House briefing room are 99.9% inside baseball stuff, of interest only to Washington wonks. It's all just a big show. The inevitable ebb and flow of middle school girls' clique politics. The real news is happening somewhere else. I actually thought this thread might attract agreement from just about everybody here, so outrageous do I find the Trump administration's actions. You are missing the point, Jeff. You can argue this story and that story and bias all you want. But we currently have a president who stands up and lies, day after day after day, as do his minions -- to the point where the press can scarcely keep up with pointing out all these mistruths. And you tell me the news is happening somewhere else? The news is happening IN THE WHITE HOUSE. And Emperor Trump has now banned the largest and most famous newspaper in the land as well as other prestigious media, because he is having yet another irrational hissy fit. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 24, 2017 17:39:59 GMT -5
... If the traditional media wants to stay relevant, it's going to have to be a lot more "Woodward and Bernstein" and a lot less "court stenographer". So, focus on and follow the leaks? "Follow the money" |
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 24, 2017 17:44:02 GMT -5
What Bill said.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 24, 2017 17:44:37 GMT -5
But we currently have a president who stands up and lies, day after day after day, as do his minions -- to the point where the press can scarcely keep up with pointing out all these mistruths. And you tell me the news is happening somewhere else? The news is happening IN THE WHITE HOUSE. And Emperor Trump has now banned the largest and most famous newspaper in the land as well as other prestigious media, because he is having yet another irrational hissy fit. I don't disagree. But I do disagree that access to the White House briefing room is required to fight back. What's the point? To stand there and be lied to? Why not just report the lies? |
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Feb 24, 2017 17:52:17 GMT -5
Could that not be construed as illegal under the first amendment? No. They have the right to report what they find out. They don't have a right to find it out. |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 17:59:11 GMT -5
But we currently have a president who stands up and lies, day after day after day, as do his minions -- to the point where the press can scarcely keep up with pointing out all these mistruths. And you tell me the news is happening somewhere else? The news is happening IN THE WHITE HOUSE. And Emperor Trump has now banned the largest and most famous newspaper in the land as well as other prestigious media, because he is having yet another irrational hissy fit. I don't disagree. But I do disagree that access to the White House briefing room is required to fight back. What's the point? To stand there and be lied to? Why not just report the lies? JEFF, TRUMP IS BANNING PRESS HE DOESN'T LIKE! THE NY TIMES, BBC, LA TIMES AND CNN ARE NOT SUBVERSIVE ORGANIZATIONS! It is purely vindictive and morally reprehensible. If the White House spokesmen have an issue with any reportage, let those media into such briefings so that the press secretary can lay into them. Good Lord, step after step of an Imperial Presidency, and yet and still, apologists galore .. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2017 18:02:28 GMT -5
That's okay, they already know what they're going to say.  |
|
|
|
Post by leftyrev on Feb 24, 2017 18:06:17 GMT -5
And Obama didn't "lie" at least as much as Trump? Give me a break...
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 18:06:39 GMT -5
That's okay, they already know what they're going to say. Ha ha ha. So very funny. |
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Feb 24, 2017 18:27:25 GMT -5
And Obama didn't "lie" at least as much as Trump? Give me a break... Wow. Tally up verifiable Obama lies over eight years vs. verifiable lies from Trump over his reign and get back to us here. |
|
