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

391–400 of 407 posts

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

#391

Post by chrisbennet »

Clanan wrote: post #315
rc_bhg wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still unprecedented. This has never happened before in America.

False. Obama held several "private sessions", often inviting only left-leaning journalists [0]. I think people are conflating "press gaggle" with official press briefings. http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/obama-holds-off-...

"According to a source who saw the group leaving the Roosevelt Room, where the meeting was held, those present included John Harwood of CNBC and The New York Times, Juan Williams of The Hill and Fox News, and Washington Post columnists Eugene Robinson and Jonathan Capehart."

Fox New is Left leaning?

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

#392

Post by ___start »

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.

It's two fold: 1) I agree the President shouldn't suppress journalism so long as it's respectful as that could set a "dangerous" precedent. 2) CNN has been one of the major proponents of the Trump is Hitler/bigot/racist/xenophobe/x_____ist/phobe AND the bullshit, racist, anti-white people narrative started under Obama's watch and they have set a dangerous precedent of abusing their size and power to lead half the country into civil unrest and make them believe that Trump is to blame for all of their problems.

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

#393

Post by oh_sigh »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #316
oh_sigh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's still limiting access. Is what Obama did not bad at all, or just not as bad as what Trump's team did to NYT, CNN et al?

Well, it's better than strapping them to the wing... That is: Given limited seats on the plane, what else are they going to do? Put the reporters on the plane, and make Obama walk?

Do you not see a problem with cutting people who just so happen to work for newspapers that endorsed his opponent? On the balance, would cutting those people improve or degrade the quality of media coverage of Obama, compared to cutting reporters who are already on his side?

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

#394

Post by maxerickson »

smsm42 wrote: post #333
maxerickson wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on if they start excluding organizations and lining up softballs from cranks.

You mean softballs like: - Golf, what does it do for you? - How does your golf game hold up next to Tiger’s? - What has enchanted you the most from serving in this office? - In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love? - Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’? - You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is i…

No, I meant the softballs coming from the Skype seats.

(yes yes, there have been reasonable questions from the Skype seats too)

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

#395

Post by mythrwy »

dang wrote: post #386
donwan wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven't made point one. Give it a fucking rest.

We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines. Would you please stop creating accounts to do this with? Everybody's political feelings are inflamed these days, so we all need to work together to prevent this site from going down in flames.

I probably kept it going for further than I should have also. Apologies.

I understand and accept some people disagree and probably have valid reasons for doing so. Fine. Accepted.

But back the original point, I just don't understand nor get on any level the mouth foaming hatred. It doesn't appear rational. Seems like disagreement would be enough and so much more effective.

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

#396

Post by smsm42 »

mturmon wrote: post #383
smsm42 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see anything about next moves in either. The only thing I could get from the first one is that Trump will produce a lot of bullshit. That's not exactly next move, he's doing it for years now. The second one mostly devoted to mocking Trump's first press-conference, still no next moves.

The linked piece says much more than that, of course.

More words, same content.

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

#397

Post by smsm42 »

redial wrote: post #370
smsm42 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody wants hard questions, as such, but I agree it would be good for the President to allow diversity of viewpoints be represented in the press pool. I'm just saying journalists being soft and submissive towards the government with which they are politically aligned is not exactly the new thing that Trump threatens to unleash on us - it has happened many times before.

Allowing only those who are soft to ask questions is new.

Are you sure? Here is the report about closed sessions with reporters that Obama held:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/calculated-ca...

It's not that some of the press was excluded, it's not that only "trusted" media was invited, it's that they agreed to not even report on what they talked about or who they met with. I think private meetings with no mention of them and reporting based on this as if they arrived to it by themselves and not were instructed by the administration is much cozier relationship than just being invited or not invited in one briefing.

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

#398

Post by mememachine »

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…

>But you really need to avoid being paralyzed by indecisiveness.

Hardly an excuse to make bad decisions. Howe is being genuinely unsure a bad thing?

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

#399

Post by mememachine »

mjmsmith wrote: post #306
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…

Trump apologists downvoting/flagging. They seem to have infested HN to a greater degree than other tech sites for some reason.

Or paid upvotes.

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

#400

Post by smsm42 »

TopRamen33 wrote: post #381
smsm42 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why that would be all? Of course it's not all. It's just one random article that I've seen couple of days ago, I didn't make a full survey of whole 8 years. It is enough though to establish the fact that the some of the press did field softball questions to Obama - in addition to publicly gushing about how awesome he is - which fact should be obvious to anybody who paid any attention through his tenure.

You didn't read the article did you? Most of these questions were asked in TV interviews which are generally very favorable to the President.

Are they generally favorable to Trump too?
Post reply on HN