Trump Advisers consider banning and relocating press from the White House

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope trump opens a feedback website. he should be able to allow the few good press to stay. Make cnn even madder.

Who is this "good" press ?

Who will be the one to declare which press is fake and which is legitimate? Does Trump decide?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I see no real reason to have a news corp at the White House. If the POTUS has something to say. There are other ways to get the information out to the public. For instance YouTube.

Trump favors Twitter. Like most teenage girls.

Time to catch up with the times eh, "grandpa?".

Video killed the radio star, don't forget.

Why do you hate technology?

Trump's twitter followers now number close to 20m and they are a mix of pro-trump and anti-Trump. It's growing fast.. so fast he really does have a direct channel to the people. Interestingly, Obama has 80m, but has obviously not mastered the medium.

I don't do twitter but I don't discount its power.

There are more "eyes on" that, than ATS or CNN.

The press corp can straighten up or not, it won't matter to Trump.

I'm 62 and have heard these people spin, lie and quote out of context since I started listening to the speakers and then the what the press says.

I've become a teacher grading students book reports and I've become annoyed at the F's I have to give.

Misunderstandings I can forgive a bit but some of these people go way over the top.

Maybe they would like to have sections or designations with softball pro, neutral, semi hostile, hostile and/or full retard for themselves? lol.

Then Spicer or Trump can choose 1 from each group for a question in an orderly fashion. lol!!

"that's a great looking tie, is that one of your own and where can I get one?"

"could you expound a bit about that...?"

"you stated yesterday that you....but you...!"

"HEY! WE DEMAND AN ANSWER, DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT....!!!!"

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care if a private company wants to self-censor its private product that people voluntarily consume.

And in any case, there is only so much room at the WH, that is why not every single news outlet that wants in can reserve a spot.

So you don't REALLY care about freedom of speech. Gotcha.

As for your second point - EXACTLY what I said. So who decides who gets in? You?
I'd suggest it would be the Whitehouse and those news outlets that are honest should be given preference.

Freedom of speech in the US Constitution doesn't count/isn't covered when it relates to private companies/organizations.

If a company has a no racist policy and you say something racist, you can't claim "but mah first amendments!" -- nope, sorry, you don't have 1st Amendment protection in that situation.

The 1st Amendment isn't a clause that allows anyone to say anything whenever and wherever they want.

The 1st Amendment only covers and protects people from criticizing the government and its officials. It limits what the government itself can/can't do to censor the people and press.

It's something that they are supposed to teach kids in American schools.

originally posted by: Kettu

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care if a private company wants to self-censor its private product that people voluntarily consume.

And in any case, there is only so much room at the WH, that is why not every single news outlet that wants in can reserve a spot.

So you don't REALLY care about freedom of speech. Gotcha.

As for your second point - EXACTLY what I said. So who decides who gets in? You?
I'd suggest it would be the Whitehouse and those news outlets that are honest should be given preference.

Freedom of speech in the US Constitution doesn't count/isn't covered when it relates to private companies/organizations.

If a company has a no racist policy and you say something racist, you can't claim "but mah first amendments!" -- nope, sorry, you don't have 1st Amendment protection in that situation.

The 1st Amendment isn't a clause that allows anyone to say anything whenever and wherever they want.

The 1st Amendment only covers and protects people from criticizing the government and its officials. It limits what the government itself can/can't do to censor the people and press.

It's something that they are supposed to teach kids in American schools.

Like I said, you don't REALLY care about freedom of speech.
I am quite glad to find someone who is so anti-Trump who does actually understand that freedom of speech does not give one the right to say anything. Refreshing.

So let's talk about the letter of the law then... How would Trump be contravening the first amendment by removing Whitehouse credentials from a journalist who continually lied?

originally posted by: MOMof3
This hilarious. The great negotiator can't get along with anyone.

Negotiation isn't always about looking like you get along.

Unless you're steeped in a political mindset instead of a winning mindset.

originally posted by: muse7

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope trump opens a feedback website. he should be able to allow the few good press to stay. Make cnn even madder.

Who is this "good" press ?

Who will be the one to declare which press is fake and which is legitimate? Does Trump decide?

Trump is the leader.. advisors will give him info to make the decision, however.

Since we're now learning how Trump operates, treatment of the press will be "fluid". Carved-in-stone ways of doing things (i.e. "tradition") at the White House, will be canned, if they don't fit with how President Trump wants to get things done. That's why he was elected. "Drain the swamp" encompasses much more than just personnel changes.

Trump will step all over the 1st with this fake news BS.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: gmoneystunt

The cognitive dissonance is appalling. You claim that we "need some new honest independent" media and you call for the White House to bring about this change by what? Waging a war with the media and selectively promoting or punishing media outlets based on how favorable the coverage of the administration is?

Clearly you do NOT want independent media — the government approving the press is the antithesis of independent — you want authoritarian control over the media.

No, not punish them on how favorable or not the news is, but rather how truthful the news reporting is. And not spun into bullsht like it is 99 percent of the time. By twisting how the news is acting as "favorable/non-favorable instead of what the real facts about this situation is, and that is how truthful and honest the reporting being done is. It has not been truthful or honest. I love how all the people who lost alongside Hillary twist everything into a more "Favorable" tasting plate of fake facts rather than truthful ones..

So we take the Trump administration at its word to what is truthful and what isnt when it comes to the media now? Since when did ATS take the powers that be at their words?

Trump should try and find some online news sources and some you tubers with several million followers , he could also find some social media personality's that are pro trump and let them live stream to their million of followers and whatever other social media that's out their with people pro trump with millions of followers let them and the traditional MSM liars all live stream it that would get way more people watching the press briefings at the white house and would let him speak more directly to the people combine that with twitter and people will have alot more then just the MSM's opinion of whats going on

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

But just imagine if Obama banned all journalists except ones that would only ask him soft-ball (easy) questions? I certainly wouldn't like that. I don't hate Obama but I would be first in line to oppose him doing something like that.

It's like changing the rules for yourself to make the game easier to play. Sure, at first it might seem like a good idea -- as "fake news" journalists with an agenda just waste time, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. It very quickly can create an echo chamber of "yes men" -- which i something Trump has done all his life.

On a totally unrelated, totally off-topic and random matter -- since your from the UK is mincemeat pie any good? I made one last night from a jar of mincemeat. It smelled OK, but I haven't worked up the courage to eat it. It has apples, raisins and stuff in it. It was on sale now that Christmas was over, so I dumped it into a pie crust and made it.

Haha, so Obama is being asked hard questions?

You live in fantasy land. He has not needed to worry about the press because 90 percent of them worship him. On the other hand those same 90 percent hate trump. It is not hard to understand why he would want to expand the press pool to even it out a bit.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
Trump will step all over the 1st with this fake news BS.

The left is the one that started this fake news narative crap and then came out with of a list of 80 percent conservative sites.

Not taking questions from a news org that constantly bashes you is not censorship, shuting them down would be, and that will not be done.

All over the world, wherever there are capitalists, freedom of the press means freedom to buy up newspapers, to buy writers, to bribe, buy and fake “public opinion” for the benefit of the elites

The current white house press briefing room has room for only 49 journalists. As always the affected media outlets arguments are based on false info. The plan is not to deny media access but to expand it. The only way to do that is to relocate the press corp to a larger venue as opposed to restricting it to the current 49 correspondents.


White House reporters to 'fight' Trump team's plan to limit their 'West Wing access'

The incoming White House press secretary’s repeated suggestions that reporters covering a Trump administration may be moved out of the executive mansion left the White House Correspondents’ Association vowing Sunday to “fight” such a change.

“We object strenuously to any move that would shield the president and his advisers from the scrutiny of an on-site White House press corps,” WHCA President Jeff Mason said in a statement.

Mason, a White House correspondent for Reuters, also said he would meet Sunday with incoming Press Secretary Sean Spicer in an attempt to “get more clarity on exactly what they are suggesting.”

“The briefing room is open now to all reporters who request access,” he said. “We support that and always will. The WHCA will fight to keep the briefing room and West Wing access to senior administration officials open.”

Spicer told Fox News’ “Media Buzz” hours earlier that the potential change is in response to the “off the chart” demand to cover Trump.

click link for article

NVM

Monday, January 16, 2017

The White House Press Corps fight back!

www.foxnews.com...

LOL, they thought Trump was just kidding at first.

(OOPS! I see there's a post above with the link to this story. Disregard.)

a reply to: gmoneystunt

It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.

Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.

Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.

Indeed, because with more press from more outlets, representing more people, it's harder to spin the news - the left's favourite past time.

I have to admit though, even I am surprised that a story about increasing press access to the Whitehouse is spun to be an attack on the 1st amendment.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.

Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.

Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now. Or is putting the press in a different building supposed to somehow equal increased access to the President to you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.

Bigger venue for the Whitehouse press. The Whitehouse conference center. More seats, equals more room, equals more press, equals more freedom of the press.