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

261–270 of 407 posts

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

#261

Post by mejari »

mynameismonkey wrote: post #86
yummyfajitas wrote: post #45

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?

To be clear, you are comparing being banned from official White House press briefings to being refused a seat on Air Force one for four days for campaign coverage.

Not even Air Force One, because this was during Obama's 2008 campaign before he was President. Just some personally chartered flight.

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

#262

Post by weaksauce »

vturner wrote: post #124

Does anyone else find this article confusing or misleading? "Organizations allowed in included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended." So, we're the only outlets allowed in the "conservative leaning" ones or the not-so conservative ABC and CBS as well?

> Aides to Mr. Spicer only allowed in reporters from a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed

from the paragraph before your first quote. My parsing of it is that the hand picked news orgs were breitbart et. al. and the ones that weren't hand picked were still allowed in as long as they were not specifically banned. awkward writing though so who knows.

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

#264

Post by rybosome »

___start wrote: post #230
aanm1988 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama complained about Fox news , but he never acted like this. Who constantly questioned his legitimacy as president, made up the "terrorist fist jab", and gave him shit for asking for fucking dijon mustard.

so what? why should he give any airtime to a media company that has blatantly slandered him, propagated toxic vitriol, and vehemently opposed him?

Then why should Obama have given any airtime to Fox? Why should the next democratic president? And now you see the problem: suppressing journalism that you don't agree with is a fucking dangerous precedent.

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

#265

Post by rhcom2 »

gizmo686 wrote: post #113
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…

At this point, an unbiased observer who just looks at, say, NYT would likely come to the conclusion that one of the following statements must be true: a) President Trump is a pathalogical liar or b) The NYT is a pathological liar when talking about Trump. There is no middle ground where NYT is being fair, and Trump is being reasonable. This means that any reasonable person with a position on this issue must take at l…

While I'm firmly in category A I'm not sure that is a fair comparison because the NYT is a huge organization that could very well have employees set on spreading as much biased, misleading or overblown news they could to hurt Trump politically. Also there is the news part of the NYT and the editorial which could have different quality.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it might not be that simple.

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

#266

Post by sidlls »

tdb7893 wrote: post #236
dukeluke wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our FPTP voting system, a two party system naturally emerges. And during times of hardship, instead of a middle-ground being found like would occur in a multiparty system, things become even more partisan and contentious. It's a fundamental facet of our political system, and won't ever change by using the political system. The political momentum needed is just too great.

If you think about it a two party system has a tendency to make the parties move towards the center in general. If a party gets much more extreme than the populace then they will lose easily against an opponent just a little more moderate than them. Trump's views seem a little more extreme than the general populace but if you look at it he didn't even win the popular vote.

On the other hand, in America both parties have moved to the right at a clip. The Nixon administration was to the left of Obama (and Clinton) on a good number of the most high-profile social and economic issues we face today. This country's "center" is firmly in the right-authoritarian section of a political compass.

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

#267

Post by notatoad »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #235
sklivvz1971 wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Note that TIME and the AP refused to take part if others were excluded.

in todays non-televised press meeting, not in future press briefings.

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

#268

Post by Bahamut »

KerrickStaley wrote: post #255

The HN ranking algorithm buried this post really quickly. Right now it has 466 points, 229 comments, is 1 hour old, and ranked at #32. For comparision, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725093 has 197 points, 39 comments, is 4 hours old, and ranked at #13. Does anyone know why the ranking algorithm demoted this article and not the other (even though this one is younger and more popular)? I know it applies penalt…

People could be flagging this too

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

#269

Post by heygrady »

rybosome wrote: post #264
___start wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so what? why should he give any airtime to a media company that has blatantly slandered him, propagated toxic vitriol, and vehemently opposed him?

Then why should Obama have given any airtime to Fox? Why should the next democratic president? And now you see the problem: suppressing journalism that you don't agree with is a fucking dangerous precedent.

I think you mean that it sets a "dangerous president", as in #unpresidented [1].

[1] http://www.snopes.com/trump-sends-unpresidented-tweet/

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

#270

Post by vikasg »

vinhboy wrote: post #187
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…

> But at the same time, maybe I'm being biased against him. You're exhibiting the classic -- "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." But you really need to avoid being paralyzed by indecisiveness. There are mountains of evidence that Trump and his cronies lie all the time. There are videos of them saying contradicting things -- straight from the horses mouth…

I would go much farther than that. The attitude being exhibited here is "mind so open your brains fall out".

The "prior probability" of human nature is called history. You can't look at every event as if it's happening in isolation. This fetishization of the middle ground is intellectually lazy.

Post reply on HN