White House Blocking reputable News agencies

[Evo]

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.

There is a word for that line of thinking: "un-American"' — Jake Tapper slams White House for barring press from briefing

CNN anchor Jake Tapper offered a two-minute take on the Trump administration on Friday after some news organizations were kept out of a press briefing.

This is a "White House that has had some difficulty telling the truth and has seemed to have trouble getting up to speed on the basic competent functioning of government," Tapper said.

The newsman called President Donald Trump "a president that seems particularly averse to any criticism" and said the administration's actions on Friday were "indicative of a lack of basic understanding of how an adult White House functions."

Tapper reminded audiences of a December interview White House press secretary Sean Spicer gave, in which he indicated that he support press freedoms. Spicer at the time asserted that the White House had no intention of barring any news organizations, "conservative, liberal or otherwise."

Spicer added the free press is "what makes a democracy a democracy, versus a dictatorship."

Tapper then accused Spicer and the White House of attempting to "punish" reporters for sharing facts the Oval Office dislikes.

Tapper then turned his attention to Trump: "This White House does not seem to respect the idea of accountability. this White House does not seem to value an independent press. There is a word for that line of thinking, the word is un-American."

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/word-line-thinking-un-american-040733410.html

 

[Borg]

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...

 

[Dembadon]

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...

Unfortunately, The Empire managed to destroy Alderaan before the rebels were able to take out the death star.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sean-spicer-targets-own-staff-in-leak-crackdown-235413

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:

Why all the leaking? I've got two theories:

1. Trump only really listens to things once they are presented to him via the media. Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway acknowledged in the campaign that the best way to get through to him was often to talk on cable TV or to other reporters. There's no indication that Trump has changed his voracious media consumption habits since he formally entered the White House. So it's uniquely possible that these leaks are aimed at reining him in, showing him that when he acts like this with, say, world leaders, it makes him look bad.

2. There are people at senior levels within the administration who have major concerns about Trump and his fitness for office. In the long tradition of whistleblowers, they are using selective leaks to make sure that people know what is really going on inside the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s/?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.b67328cba71e

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.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

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. 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.

 

[jack action]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't ever remember anything like this happening.

See here:

Recently, the White House has kept Fox News off of conference calls dealing with the Benghazi attack, despite Fox News being the only outlet that was regularly reporting on it and despite Fox having top notch foreign policy reporters.

They have left Chris Wallace’s "Fox News Sunday" out of a round of interviews that included CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS for not being part of a “legitimate” news network. In October 2009, as part of an Obama administration onslaught against Fox News,White House senior adviser David Axelrod said on ABC’s “This Week” that the Fox News Channel is "not really a news station" and that much of the programming is "not really news."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...rategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization.html

"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.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don’t like.

I think we can all agree that FoxNews is correct on this one!

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html

 

[NTL2009]

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:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?424417-1/sean-spicer-briefs-reporters-white-house

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...a3817ac21a5_story.html?utm_term=.22f37f1e7226

“We invited the pool so everyone was represented,” deputy press secretary Sarah Sanders wrote in an email. “We decided to add a couple of additional people beyond the pool for an expanded pool. Nothing more than that.”

The “pool” is a small group of reporters that provides notes and transcripts of meetings with officials to a wider group of journalists. Reporters representing radio, TV, print and wire-service outlets serve in the pool on a rotating basis.

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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...l-outside-the-beltway/?utm_term=.bc59d08f1bdc

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' ?

 

[NTL2009]

It doesn't surprise me. ...
...
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.

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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?422626-1/president-trump-meets-auto-industry-executives
https://www.c-span.org/video/?422482-1/president-trump-meets-business-leaders
https://www.c-span.org/video/?423786-1/president-trump-meets-airline-industry-executives

 

[Evo]

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.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?422626-1/president-trump-meets-auto-industry-executives
https://www.c-span.org/video/?422482-1/president-trump-meets-business-leaders
https://www.c-span.org/video/?423786-1/president-trump-meets-airline-industry-executives

She was referring to Spicer, not Trump. What does this post have to do with Spicer?

 

[NTL2009]

She was referring to Spicer, not Trump. What does this post have to do with Spicer?

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.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

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.

Could anyone here acknowledge this as a positive thing for the Trump Admin to do? Could ya' ?

The Trump administration’s goal of expanding press briefings beyond the White House briefing room got underway Wednesday with the debut of four journalists appearing in “Skype seats” — who offered somewhat less combative questions than what press secretary Sean Spicer has experienced in recent days.

Where's the improvement if the new skype attendees are limited to non-controversial, not very challenging reporters?

 

[NTL2009]

Where's the improvement if the new skype attendees are limited to non-controversial, not very challenging reporters?

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)

00:09:10-- we took a print pool in there. We released a photograph from the White House. And, as I think the pool reported, as soon as it happened, we reported it out.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Man, the press just went on and on with this, question after question. Why wasn't the retaking of the oath televised?

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.
https://egbertowillies.com/2017/02/19/john-mccain-chuck-todd-i-hate-you/

 

[Evo]

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.

Her post about Trump was his tweeting.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Spicer works for President Trump

She knows that...

 

[mheslep]

See here:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...rategy-to-delegitimize-news-organization.html

"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!

More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html

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.

 

[mheslep]

Really, I wouldn't be surprised if Spicer bars female reporters as well. I see it coming.

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?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

Here is the most comprehensive of the articles I could find in the links at your link:

https://www.cpj.org/reports/2013/10/obama-and-the-press-us-leaks-surveillance-post-911.php

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:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...dangerous-than-nixons/?utm_term=.560b50ad6423

At the same time, Bob Woodward reports having been threatened by an Obama White House official, which may have been an overstatement:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...t-Bob-Woodward-threatened-by-White-House.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

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:

 

[SW VandeCarr]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

I didn't know about any of this; it was apparently discussed in 'quiet' articles, and wasn't made into screaming headline scandals...

May 13, 2013, front page NYT.

Phone Records of Jornalists Seized by U.S.

 

[zoobyshoe]

May 13, 2013, front page NYT.

Phone Records of Jornalists Seized by U.S.

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?