91–100 of 407 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's better to enforce the norms of a free and antagonistic press.
Right, which usually requires press people to show up to do the reporting. I mean it may not be as much of a requirement now in the age of live TV and internet streaming, but if we're going to argue about norms then certainly the norm of sending reporters to actually report on stuff is kind of important.
For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work: * The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement * He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question * Journalist asks question * Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wa…
These press briefings provide direct, multilateral, and unmoderated access to the Presidential Administration by the Press Corps. They are incredibly important to holding the administration to account for policy. Can the administration spin their own narrative? Sure, but they can't directly control or audit the questions asked.
Firstly, Trump needs to be understood in context as the outsider who none of the establishment took seriously, who disrespected everyone and touched every third rail of US politics, who railed against a corrupt system and argued to burn it all down. And 46% of voters bought that and won him 85% of US counties and the presidency.
And ever since, a vast "bipartisan" swath of US media and civic institutions, the deep state and many members of the elites of both political parties have been edging towards outright hysteria, active #Resistance, bureaucratic mutiny and widespread media/celebrity/talking-head delegitimization of Trump's presidency on a level that is utterly unprecedented in modern US history. The level of abject, contemptful hostility from ostensibly "objective" media outlets like the NYT has been breathtaking.
Many, many stories have been exaggerated, slanted and framed in ways that cast Trump as some comic-book villain/Manchurian candidate/Hiter-in-wait beyond any basis in fact or contextualization within existing/recent US policy.
I want to just be clear that I don't support Trump or his policies, I've voted and volunteered for Obama/Bernie and other Democrats, but what I see occurring is a ratcheting up of tensions towards outright war between Trump and the existing establishment of this country. And that in fact is exactly the way Trump actually can justify cutting off media access and purging the ranks of the IC after all the leaks. Bannon and Trump want a war against the establishment, because they know how much of the country is disgusted by the establishment and wants someone to use them as a punching bag.
Trump himself should be like a relatively harmless pathogen within our government's co-equal constitutional immune system - perhaps even an excuse to strengthen legislative and judicial oversight that's been badly lacking in recent years of executive overreach. Instead we're witnessing the fourth estate and military/spook bureaucracy go to war with Trump, which is exactly the sort of non-credible/illegitimate opposition that can enable him to actually consolidate more public support and power.
Is there a historic precedent for this?
Or like countless other times, sans the mock-outrage (and the real outrage stemming out of ignorance)?
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/10/cpj-report-on-...
Or:
Reporters Say Obama White House 'Most Secretive' Ever Forty-one percent of White House scribes say George W. Bush's administration was more open.
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ken-walshs-washington/2014...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't recall the NYT, CNN or Politico refusing to attend when Obama kicked the Washington Times and NY Post out. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&pag... Shame on them too?
Kicking them off the plane is not equivalent to kicking them out of official Press Briefings.
For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work: * The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement * He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question * Journalist asks question * Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wa…
The alternative means of getting questions from the public to leaders is to have self-interested politicians grandstanding, asking questions of politicians who are experts in not answering them. It's pointless.
They're not perfect, but these press briefings are far less stage-managed and more honest than any other public forum in which questions are asked, imo.
For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work: * The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement * He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question * Journalist asks question * Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wa…
You're right in that this does not significantly block NYT, etc.'s ability to gather news (btw you can check the transcripts online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings ) but it's an important symbolic gesture by the White House. Here's a cool post of how the 49 seats assignments have changed over time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/25/ho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's hardly equivalent.
you're right. Trump should have just reduced the amount of chairs available and warned the folks he liked, like Obama did. Right? God forbid a president do something straight forward without making up reasons as to why it is a noble action. I agree it's wrong, but I'm not willing to give a pass to another president because he worded it differently and achieved the same ousting.
Obama was a presidential candidate when that occurred, not a president.
For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work: * The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement * He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question * Journalist asks question * Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wa…
(Responding to my own comment) I guess Churchill would say, "Democracy, the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." That doesn't mean we can't improve. Press briefings just seem broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These press briefings provide direct, multilateral, and unmoderated access to the Presidential Administration by the Press Corps. They are incredibly important to holding the administration to account for policy. Can the administration spin their own narrative? Sure, but they can't directly control or audit the questions asked.
Now if only an actual Press Corps existed in this country.