It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.
Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
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?
originally posted by: queenofswords
The few big mouths that have controlled the tone and the information and the spinning are not happy. Maybe Donald could consider another room off to the side to be used as a safe space, complete with blankies, binkys, and a puppy or two. (Hope Breitbart News Network is added to the front row in the Press Room.)
originally posted by: AceWombat04
As I've said repeatedly... I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt until he is in office and making policy. Though his rhetoric during the campaign, his cabinet nominees, his statements since being elected, those in his inner circle, and much more, give me profound cause for concern. As I've also said repeatedly... I am neither a Clinton nor a Trump supporter. I believe in holding those in power's feet to the fire, on both sides of the isle. That has to include Trump, and anyone around him, as well.
So with that having been said... I don't care who is in office, which party they're from, or where they land in the ideological and political spectrum. I don't care if it's FOX, Breitbart, CNN, RT, Reuters, NBC, ABC, or the CSMonitor. (The last imo being more objective than most, but there is no such thing as unbiased media.)
The bottom line for me is this: Presidents deciding who gets to be in the press pool, and who gets favorable access to them as members of the press vs others, is not good for our polity, for freedom of the press, for the 1st amendment, or for an informed citizenry. I know everyone believes everything is "fake news" now, and both sides are calling one another's news sources by that moniker... but letting a president pick and choose in this manner is dangerous, disturbing, and frankly, bordering on totalitarian.
There is much dishonesty and spin in the media, often bordering on outright propaganda... on both sides. That's why it's critical for the media to operate freely and unfettered, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so that people can then fact check their claims, and make up their own minds. Does anyone really believe any politician - again, on EITHER side - if they begin to exercise power over which news outlets have access to them and which don't in this newly, more robust manner, will be able to resist the pull of favoring those most positive toward them?
I don't trust the media, either. No one should trust anything the media - or anyone else - says at face value without digging, either. But I trust politicians to CURATE the media EVEN LESS.
If life has taught me anything, it is this: Don't. Trust. Political. Leaders. Regardless of party, left or right, it doesn't matter. Don't trust them, don't give them a blank check to do these kinds of things. Hold their feet to the fire.
Peace.
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.
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.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.
Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.
Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.
No one here seems to think that's a problem.