Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News White House Blocking reputable News agencies

  1. Feb 25, 2017 #1


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't ever remember anything like this happening. The Whitehouse pushed to get clearance for Breitbart the other day by kicking out CNN and The New York Times, The Associated Press and The Times both boycotted the affair according to sources, which I can't use because it is a political blog.

    Here is an article about the banning of the mainstream news.

  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 26, 2017 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Not surprising. Trump is digging his own grave and this is just another nail in the coffin. Reminds me of a quote from Star Wars...

  4. Feb 26, 2017 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Unfortunately, The Empire managed to destroy Alderaan before the rebels were able to take out the death star. :cry:
  5. Feb 26, 2017 #4
    This exclusion looks to be a punitive action for those outlet's continuing printing of leaked info, info that makes Trump and the WH look bad.

    This story came out today:


    characterizing Sean Spicer as increasingly alarmed about the leaks, and doing more and more to prevent them from the inside. (And yet the whole content of this story seems to have come from unnamed leaks.)

    This Washington Post writer had some interesting thoughts on the cause and function of the leaks:


    The first one is extremely interesting, backed as it is by Conway's remark. Trump seems to dismiss all criticism unless it comes to him from the TV. So, the reason Spicer may not be able to stop the leaks might be because the sources are too important in the WH, too high level, and not underlings at all, people trying to communicate with Trump after direct conversation has been rebuffed.
  6. Feb 26, 2017 #5

    Fervent Freyja

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It doesn't surprise me.

    I wish Twitter would add a dislike or thumbs down button in honor of him. All those hearts trump gets on there don't reflect the opinion of most Americans and it only feeds his ego- he'd have far more dislikes if people had a fair vote on every post, since he is using it as a platform to communicate to Americans. It feels oppressive to me, being unable to disagree with his tweets, while only good feedback is allowed (other than commenting). Wonder if would keep on tweeting if he saw double the number of dislikes than hearts? Somebody should set it up for him. :devil: He hates criticism and craves validation from anyone to negate any that he receives. It would break his heart. I bet those hearts he gets helps him sleep at night.

    Really, I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer bars female reporters as well. I see it coming. I really do, the females seem to be asking more questions that get him frustrated. Good.
  7. Feb 26, 2017 #6

    jack action

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't understand why Trump is doing this. It doesn't work.

    From 2006 to 2015, there was a Prime Minister in Canada who did something similar. And he wasn't as arrogant as Trump is.

    The problem with that strategy is that if journalists can't get the news from the official sources ... they find others; Simply because they have now more free time and still have to earn their paychecks. These sources are not as easily controlled by the Prime Minister office and journalists dug an unusual amount of scandals during his terms in office. According to Wikipedia, where all Canadian scandals (federal) are listed since the 1870s, half of them occurred during this particular Conservative Party term.

    I'm sure the same thing will happen in the USA: Banned journalists will use their free time to dig up stories Trump doesn't want to hear about. And since there seems to be a lot of people in the White House who want to see him fail, they probably will have an abundance of sources.
  8. Feb 26, 2017 #7


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    See here:

    "Not really news". Sound familiar?

    I don't think a President should be doing this, no matter which President -- but most will have their little wars with the media.
    I think we can all agree that FoxNews is correct on this one! :nb)

    Last edited: Feb 26, 2017
  9. Feb 26, 2017 #8
    Banning seems like an overly strong, distorted term for what happened. We aren't talking about the common daily press briefings, as far as I know, none of the press mentioned have been excluded from these briefings:


    We are talking about a different event, where it was seen fit to bring in a 'pool':

    So a smaller number were selected - and CNN and the New York Times were not among those selected. But they get the info, same as every other member of the press that was outside the pool. They get to pick who attends, so they did. CNN was out of liine in one of the press briefings, shouting out questions when the protocol is you get to ask after you have been selected - so maybe a little turn-about is fair play? Relative to what Russ posted about the Obama admin's treatment of Fox News, this seems pretty tame.

    And to balance that - the Trump admin has added virtual 'seats' to the daily press briefings, offering access through Skype to media that doesn't normally get to ask questions.


    I suppose if Obama had done that, it would have been hailed as a remarkable step to be more inclusive, and another sign of how "tech savvy" and brilliant he is. Could anyone here acknowledge this as a positive thing for the Trump Admin to do? Could ya' ?
  10. Feb 26, 2017 #9
    Really? As in the literal, really, "really"? Female reporters barred from the press briefings?

    Though I certainly have issues with Trump, I must say, I literally, really cannot see that happening. It is really hard for me to believe anyone would really think that, or actually take the time to type it for others to see. Go to c-span, and listen to the meetings Trump has with business representatives, CEOs, small business, etc. I see no disrespect of women, none at all.

  11. Feb 26, 2017 #10


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    She was referring to Spicer, not Trump. What does this post have to do with Spicer?
  12. Feb 27, 2017 #11
    Spicer works for President Trump, I think it is reasonable to assume that such an extreme move as was suggested would only be done with Trump's approval and/or direction.

    She mentioned both Trump and Spicer in the post, there is a connection that seemed obvious to me when I responded.
  13. Feb 27, 2017 #12
    Under those circumstances, some fatuous Democratic writer could easily write a puff piece to that effect, yes, but I think it would have been met with a resounding yawn from the Democrats I know. Spin is spin and all but the most gullible know it.
    Where's the improvement if the new skype attendees are limited to non-controversial, not very challenging reporters?
  14. Feb 27, 2017 #13
    I agree that if they are choosing 'friendly' sources, then it isn't a good thing. To be honest, I'd need to do some significant research to come to any conclusion as to whether the skype questions are 'friendlier' than the average question from the in-house press, and that would still be a subjective call, and I (like everyone - including Washing Post reporters) have my own biases, so it might be a difficult call. Even then, just the fact that these are invitees, and new to the scene - that alone might account for a little more polite questions. That might not even be a bad thing, I think there are no shortage of pointed questions, maybe a few lighter ones in the mix is not so bad?

    On a related note, < personal opinion/observation here > I find many of the question from the press to be rather, well... let's just say poor choices. I just think many of them are not really what the American public is interested in, or needs to know. And that's not new - I went back to watch the first Press Briefing of the Obama administration, and I had totally forgot that the Oath of Office was flubbed a bit by the Chief Justice. The oath was redone later, just to avoid any questions/challenges. Man, the press just went on and on with this, question after question. Why wasn't the retaking of the oath televised? A full 4 minutes from 06:45 to 10:40, and follow up at 29:05. And I think some complaints, like in this thread, that not all the press were available to witness it. Why weren't the executive orders re-signed, and on and on. I don't think anyone cared much at the time, it was a technicality (one question/answer would have been enough), it was just a detail, and I didn't remember it until I saw it again.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?283570-1/white-house-daily-briefing ( < Obama's first press briefing with Robert Gibbs)

  15. Feb 27, 2017 #14
    I never saw it and have no interest in watching it now, but I have seen many instances of the type you mean, and I agree. They push hard on a lot of issues in a way that makes it clear they are fishing for cracks and crevices where some sort of scandal may hide. Every politician, regardless of party affiliation, ends up feeling like they're being interrogated as a "person of interest" in connection to some crime.

    Here's John McCain on the subject of the press. He says he hates the press and even says, "I hate you," to the reporter who is interviewing him. But he goes on to argue the press in indispensable in keeping democracy intact.
  16. Feb 27, 2017 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Her post about Trump was his tweeting.
  17. Feb 27, 2017 #16

    Fervent Freyja

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    She knows that...
  18. Feb 28, 2017 #17


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Obama's attempt to cut Fox out of briefings and ban news papers from the plane was minor relative to the Obama Administration's treatment of the press in general: seizure of phone records of the Associated Press, surveillance of reporter James Rosen and his designation as a criminal conspirator by the Attorney General, most ever FOIA requests denied, most leak prosecutions.

    That history might be considered when Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep Maxine Waters, DNC#2 Keith Ellison threaten in month two to impeach the President 'cause something.
  19. Feb 28, 2017 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    And the third of women in senior positions in the WH, the women in the cabinet, you calculate that what, they are all sell outs and would tolerate such a thing?
  20. Mar 1, 2017 #19
    Here is the most comprehensive of the articles I could find in the links at your link:


    I didn't know about any of this; it was apparently discussed in 'quiet' articles, and wasn't made into screaming headline scandals. I think the reason for that is that these reporters were after information that had to do with National Security, stuff associated with the likes of Snowden and Manning. A lot of the public probably feels queasy about this, and isn't sure this kind of info should be released in most cases. That is: it's hard for the press to stir up sympathy when their exposing a wrongdoing might also expose a weakness to an enemy. That's my thinking.

    In Trump's case, the press is after something else, things that are distinctly more Nixon-esque, especially: did Trump coordinate any anti-Hillary activity with Putin? Did Putin hack and leak Hillary's emails in exchange for Trump being soft on Russian agression? With Nixon and Trump the investigations were/are into their election tampering. Their attacks on the press look like them covering their own asses. In Obama's case, it's his DOJ covering the greater intelligence community's ass.

    Of the two, Nixon and Trump, the two reporters who brought Nixon down say Trump is the worse threat to freedom of the press:

    At the same time, Bob Woodward reports having been threatened by an Obama White House official, which may have been an overstatement:
  21. Mar 1, 2017 #20
    Speaking of Nixon, I just found this youtube of a tape of him talking to his press secretary, Ron Ziegler, sternly ordering Ziegler to completely ban the Washington Post from ever setting foot in the White House again:

  22. Mar 1, 2017 #21
    The Democrats are in no position to impeach Trump. Even if at some point they could get enough Republicans to join them for a simple majority in the House, impeachment only means a trial in the Senate. Removing a president from office requires a conviction for "high crimes and misdemeanors" by 2/3 of the Senate.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2017
  23. Mar 2, 2017 #22


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    May 13, 2013, front page NYT.

    Phone Records of Jornalists Seized by U.S.
  24. Mar 2, 2017 #23
    One article isn't going to demonstrate what I'm talking about.

    Just answer this: is it your recollection/perception that this story got as much coverage as, say, Apple vs FBI?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook