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

341–350 of 407 posts

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

#341

Post by mejari »

basurihn wrote: post #339
mejari wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which initial response? My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources. My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment. I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why aski…

He may have inferred from your tone a common algorithm: 1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.

>Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.

A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description.

I mean, if we want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:

1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.

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

#342

Post by narrowrail »

mejari wrote: post #338
grzm wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apologies for not looking far enough up the thread. I am referring to this comment: Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance? Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.

It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate. >this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". Good, because that is what I me…

Apparently, the only link that comes up in a search is:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=64995 "Media outrage at White House briefing is more 'Fake News' - Look ..."

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

#343

Post by the_watcher »

rc_bhg wrote: post #158
the_watcher wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Obama administration attempted to freeze out Fox News, although it wasn't so explicit. To the credit of the rest of the press, they revolted enough that they backed down.

Not even close to the same thing. Not even in the same ball park.

They did bar them from attending some press briefings. Again, it wasn't as explicit, and it didn't come on the heels of such explicit aggression towards the media in general, but it very much was in the same ballpark.

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

#344

Post by mejari »

grzm wrote: post #340
mejari wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate. >this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". Good, because that is what I me…

If you no longer think the person you're engaging with is interested in constructive discussion, it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. If you're interested in rehabilitating it, you need to make it abundantly clear that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, just leave it be. Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to…

>it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism.

I do not believe I did so. Again: I asked an honest question to which I honestly want to know the answer.

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

#345

Post by dragonwriter »

the_watcher wrote: post #343
rc_bhg wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even close to the same thing. Not even in the same ball park.

They did bar them from attending some press briefings. Again, it wasn't as explicit, and it didn't come on the heels of such explicit aggression towards the media in general, but it very much was in the same ballpark.

> They did bar them from attending some press briefings.

[citation needed]

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

#346

Post by the_watcher »

anigbrowl wrote: post #190
the_watcher wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, the press briefings are absolutely useless. That said, the message sent by this is not a good one.

I find them useful and interesting despite their flaws.

I guess I can see that if you find "how does the press secretary avoid saying anything of substance today?" interesting.

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

#347

Post by mejari »

narrowrail wrote: post #342
mejari wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate. >this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". Good, because that is what I me…

Apparently, the only link that comes up in a search is: http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=64995 "Media outrage at White House briefing is more 'Fake News' - Look ..."

Awesome! Thank you, I appreciate it. Looks like that's just a rehost of a Brietbart article.

Seems like some of the events disagree with the collation article:

>On Thursday, Fox News’ Ed Henry tweeted that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, as well as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Fox News’ Juan Williams, had been invited for a private off-the-record chat with President Obama.

So not exactly the "lefty" conspiracy painted in the root article.

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

#348

Post by bnolsen »

Considering NYT, CNN and Politico were all implicated via wikileaks for directly colluding with the Hillary campaign I don't blame Trump one bit. The mainstream media needs to be reigned in an not represent one single political party in this whole current mess, but it's not the government's job to do it.

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

#349

Post by maxlybbert »

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…

I've always been jealous of the prime minister's question time. Members of Parliament ask tough questions and demand follow-up, plus it's the prime minister answering instead of a press secretary. I'm sure the prime minister is less enthusiastic about it than I am, but since he is subject to votes of no confidence, he doesn't have much of a choice.

The president will never do something similar in front of Congress, but wouldn't it be great?

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

#350

Post by dgut »

mejari wrote: post #274
dgut wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there are many who agree with your comment, we are simply less common. Too many keep quiet. In response to both the topic in hand and HN users down-voting w/e they disagree: "They have shut up all their fools in a house apart, to make sure that they are wise men themselves." - Dostoyevsky

You can paint yourself as the victim, but that doesn't make partisan attacks against actual news more accurate.

Point is, the media has done a terrible job, misguided the people, and deserve _no sympathy_.

It failed to give a honest account of Cuba [1], Vietnam [2], Iraq [3], Syria [4] (Nicaragua, Guatemala, and so on). In fact, it lied about it. That had deadly consequences for millions of humans.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%8...

[2] http://www.globalissues.org/article/402/media-propaganda-and...

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/world/aftereffects-prohibi...

[4] http://www.globalresearch.ca/war-propaganda-syrias-destructi...

To answer your introductory clause: Not trying to paint myself as the victim or w/e.

Post reply on HN