Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 407 posts

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#201

Post by mason240 »

daeken wrote: post #141
mason240 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10/15/09 >The administration has taken increasing steps in recent weeks and months to isolate the TV network, with some Capitol Hill veterans recalling no such similar steps by any president since Richard Nixon’s retaliation against The New York Times and The Washington Post during Watergate. >“The point is this, and it really needs to be made: Fox is not just another television network,” said Senate Democratic Whip…

That wasn't the original source, nor was it discussing the same issue. This is a very different issue, which I do think was a case of overstepping by the Obama administration. However, your comment was entirely out of line for what the thread was actually discussing.

Which is why I provided a source for another situation that is directly equivalent.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#202

Post by paradite »

meentsbk wrote: post #61

I'm finding I'm having a hard time reconciling the current climate - not necessarily at his supporters (or the opposite), but just at how polar opposite everyone seems to be on this. For me, I see these organizations as not treating him poorly, but actually willing to call out things he is not being factual on. But at the same time, maybe I'm being biased against him. I want the discourse, but I'm just struggling to…

I observed and wrote about this polarizing phenomenon about 2 years when the protest in HK broke out:

https://paradite.com/2014/11/11/internet-polarized-society/

Still, I can't believe it has grown so out of proportion in the U.S as well.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#203

Post by metalliqaz »

twoquestions wrote: post #134

This is not the action a strong, secure ruler would take. This signals that they're afraid of what they may ask and how their readers may react. What does this accomplish that ignoring the reporters in question would not?

The president is not a "ruler"

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#204

Post by sp332 »

methusalasleeps wrote: post #196
sp332 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blocking only NYT might not change things significantly, but showing that they will ban anyone who asks difficult questions means the ones who are left will think twice. The ones who keep "misbehaving" will also get banned. That will change things for everyone trying to get news.

The banned parties should make an alternative venue that asks questions of shadow governments. It will be more interesting and erode the Presidents power to choose how to address the people by overshadowing his useless PR and making the other governments easier to imagine.

Shadow? Like this? http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Tampa-town-hall-meeti...

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#205

Post by mythrwy »

SonicSoul wrote: post #78
sidlls wrote: post #44

I just can't get worked up about this. Had these "news" organizations been doing their jobs I might be more concerned. As it stands this is just elevating one group of propaganda orgs over others. The difference between what Trump has done here and what prior administrations did is the publicity and brazen transparency around it. I find it amusing that people think this is somehow a terrible, ominous event. This is a…

what job are they not doing?

Objectively reporting the news for one.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#206

Post by anigbrowl »

meentsbk wrote: post #61

I'm finding I'm having a hard time reconciling the current climate - not necessarily at his supporters (or the opposite), but just at how polar opposite everyone seems to be on this. For me, I see these organizations as not treating him poorly, but actually willing to call out things he is not being factual on. But at the same time, maybe I'm being biased against him. I want the discourse, but I'm just struggling to…

It's good that you question yourself constantly - it's the only path to wisdom that I know of. But the downside of skepticism is procrastination and refusal to make unpleasant decisions.

When you are faced with Hobson's choice (between unpleasant alternatives), a phenomenon economists call loss aversion inclines us to postpone decisions whose knowable outcomes are likely to be unpleasant. This actually makes things worse, but as the various alternatives remain relatively similar there's an excuse to keep dithering and hope things will somehow change by themselves.

You're not alone in this. Note in weeks and months to come how trivial matters will become every more frequently blown up in the news as people grope for an extrinsic solution to the brewing political conflict.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#207

Post by daeken »

mason240 wrote: post #201
daeken wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't the original source, nor was it discussing the same issue. This is a very different issue, which I do think was a case of overstepping by the Obama administration. However, your comment was entirely out of line for what the thread was actually discussing.

Which is why I provided a source for another situation that is directly equivalent.

This is known as "moving the goalposts". You commented on a thread discussing one issue and jumped to a conclusion that this was partisan bickering. Then when called out on it, you moved the goalposts to another issue. It's not conducive to honest discussion.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#208

Post by sklivvz1971 »

clamprecht wrote: post #11

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…

It's not useless at all. Banning CNN and other relatively hostile or left leaning news corps is not really meant to protect Trump from them. After all, their readership is likely in large part against Trump already.

No, the move is a warning to the news organizations who stay. It's a message that they will be kicked out if they don't push stuff that the administration likes.

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#209

Post by TheGirondin »

tmccrmck wrote: post #181
TheGirondin wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has it honestly not occurred to you that he might treat him with disrespect and disdain because they earned it? Just as one example, CNN was reporting on that fake new about the "golden showers."

But they never presented it as factual. What was "true" was that they reported on a 35 page dossier created by a former British intelligence official. In fact, they never even released the dossier -- they only reported that the classified documents were presented to Obama and Trump. Your post is some serious disinformation.

Ok, so that's the template that make fake news legitimate.

1) Get a dossier from an anonymous source claiming X did Y. According to you, it doesn't even have to exist.

2) Report on the existence of the dossier, making sure to click-bait the hell out the Y.

3) When criticized, respond that you are are "just reporting."

How well would it go over with you if Fox had started reporting on the existence of an a dossier from an anonymous source saying that former President Obama had a faked birth certificate?

Re: White House Bars NYT, CNN, and Politico from Briefing

#210

Post by dukeluke »

delinka wrote: post #189
dbcurtis wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. I heard it well put the other day: "Trump didn't cause the current political divisiveness. The current political devisions caused Trump."

I have a feeling this is How Things Work in societies. Similar theories exist about time traveling to the past to kill Hitler: the nationalist population of Germany will then elect the same personality in a different person and we'll still get the same atrocious WWII. You have to make changes in The Little Guys, The Average People to actually effect change. This is where community comes in: get to know people, hang o…

Extremism & partisanship does naturally occur, and is seen in every country. However, instead of keeping those groups on the fringe like some political systems do, the American political system amplifies those groups. The majority of people don't like Trump. The majority of people didn't like Clinton. Yet our political system made those our choices. If we want to change our government, we need to find a way to make it capable of changing over time to reflect its people.
Post reply on HN