Quantcast
Trump Bans CNN Corespondant from Open Press Event

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump Bans CNN Corespondant from Open Press Event

I can't believe this needs to be clarified...

From https://www.merriam-webster.com

democracy: a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

republic: a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government
b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (such as a nation) having such a form of government

These are not incompatible. In fact, the definitions have a lot of overlap and the US system fits both definition. The fact that we elect representatives to legislate rather than have the people legislate directly still fits the definition of democracy.

It's a Democratic Republic.



4 ≈ One

Around the Network

So you came directly to a post that discusses Trump to escape discussing Trump?? Cool story bro, sounds legit!



Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

Now I'm just really, really curious how much of this comment relies on his interpretation of said links, and not actually reading them & considering what I'm trying to highlight.

So lets take your first Link.  What is Obama actually taking aim at.  As stated within the text, is Fox operating as entertainment or as a news agency.  By Fox News own admission, they are an entertainment network.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/04/01/fox-news-for-entertainment-purposes-only-disclaimer_n_15727044.html

So, what is it.  Are they actually a news agency or entertainment and if they are entertainment, how should their news network be viewed.

On the second link, its even more interesting when you read the whole email thread on the subject.  So when the White House first reached out for the interview, only NBC, ABC and CBS was included.  Guess who was not included first.  CNN and FOX.  It was only when someone noticed that FOX was not included that it raised to this level.  I will say on this one that you can make a point that Obama administration probably never going to have FOX news as the first source for any interview but no where do you see then actually banning someone from the network or from events.  Even so, you never seen them accuse any news agency as enemy of the people etc.

As for the third link you made, well, the guy did not have the right credentials so basically a non issue on that one

https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/06/free-beacon-plays-state-theater-in-vienna-209686

 

HuffPo article: 

Fox News To Add ‘For Entertainment Purposes Only' Disclaimer

"Editor's note: Happy (belated) April Fool's Day. This story was originally published in 2017."

Haha this is just too funny.  So, let me get this straight: after going on a paragraph-long tirade indirectly pegging me as just another bullsh***er on these threads throwing out links without reading the source material...you decide to...base the entirety of your first argument on an April Fool's joke article?  It only took your next response on this thread to harm whatever credibility you may have had.  Either that or this is some "ZOMG Trump-level 4D chess"/trolling you're trying to pull off to confuse me; if so, congrats on actually living up to your username.  For now, I'm going to have to assume it's the former b/c you appear to stress the point in all seriousness.

Your assessment of that 2nd link leaves a lot to be desired.  For one, you're also overemphasizing the logistical/timing dilemma w/ Feinberg interview.  And even IF CNN WASN'T initially included, Dag Vega (part of Obama WH) specifically states "we prefer if you skip Fox News please" in an official email.  This is pretty much in line with what I've said before: "[Obama admin] attempting to actively bar FOX from pool coverage of interviews with Feinberg."  And the fact remains this only got redressed after all other media outlets pulled out unless Fox was allowed in the pool as well (as brought up by the NYT in that Judicial Watch link as well).  I know we've done a lot of straying into whataboutism since I responded here, but I've got to say...this kind of leniency would never be afforded to Trump admin.  I know we have a more cut-n-dry situation brought up in this thread--which is definitely bad, but even if it were more indirect like the situation I've presented: it would be open season by certain people on here.  

Yeah, you're about 3 hours late on that one.  I already admitted to jumping the gun with that link and relying on the person who got kicked out (biased source who didn't disclose all the info).



http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/coolbeans/539766

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/coolbeans/539767

(2-part retrospective blog on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare's campaign)

massimus said:
Pemalite said:

I didn't actually say any laws were actually broken... I am not that ignorant to assume to be an expert on American law as I don't even live in that particular country.

Just that Freedom of the Press tends to be a "pillar" in all free countries where all news organizations get the same treatment, whether you like their perspective or not, ergo limiting the free press isn't a good thing. - Trumps tantrum isn't really doing him any favors to that end.

Freedom of the Press just means they can’t get locked up (or worse in Putin’s case) for political speech and commentary. It has nothing to do with attending White House press conferences. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

fatslob-:O said:

Greetings Pemalite, I haven't posted in a while but here I go ...

"Freedom of the Press" means that the press has the right to publish whatever material they seek without government persecution in the vast majority of the cases but it's different from what you're thinking as "Freedom of Attendance for Press Conferences" where the office holder of an executive branch would be required to hold open press briefings without limit but to my knowledge there is no such provision in both the US constitution or US common law so ergo massimus has a point that Trump is not obligated to open his press briefings to any journalist ...

Well. In this instance, the Government is interfering and limiting an organization.
To me, that is not okay.

Again, I am not pretending to be an expert on American law, but if that was here... Questions would certainly be asked.



The US is a constitutional republic. Congress can’t vote our rights away, it’s not democratic. Only the States can under article 5. You need a supreme majority to amend the constitution and its difficult on purpose. So they can’t be voted away. 3/5 of the states together are the most powerful form of democracy in our republic. They are even more powerful than all 3 federal branches. All because the states can amend the constitution without them. The states can change the limitations on a branch, require supreme Court term limits, require congress have a balanced budget by law, executive order boundaries. All kinds of things. But it is all based around the constitution and the rule of law, not democracy. 

Last edited by massimus - on 29 July 2018

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
massimus said:

Freedom of the Press just means they can’t get locked up (or worse in Putin’s case) for political speech and commentary. It has nothing to do with attending White House press conferences. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

fatslob-:O said:

Greetings Pemalite, I haven't posted in a while but here I go ...

"Freedom of the Press" means that the press has the right to publish whatever material they seek without government persecution in the vast majority of the cases but it's different from what you're thinking as "Freedom of Attendance for Press Conferences" where the office holder of an executive branch would be required to hold open press briefings without limit but to my knowledge there is no such provision in both the US constitution or US common law so ergo massimus has a point that Trump is not obligated to open his press briefings to any journalist ...

Well. In this instance, the Government is interfering and limiting an organization.
To me, that is not okay.

Again, I am not pretending to be an expert on American law, but if that was here... Questions would certainly be asked.

Lmao! I see what you did there.

 

Thats funny because she was interfering by yelling questions at him. They didn’t even treat Bush like that and they treated him like shit. Obama got yelled at once about policy and the other media in the room lashed out at the reporter lol. I have never seen any president treated this way on such a daily basis, it’s incredible.

They just don’t see him as a legitimate president and it’s warped. CNN shits on the office and they are nobody, some random corporation. They have no authority over a president. They took to a personal vendetta because he personally attacks their brand. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes just to be an asshole. They lose every time they try to face him though and that’s every day lol. His approval numbers go up despite their constant negative coverage which is tanking their ratings. This has been going on for awhile. 

 

How is he interfering with CNN? Are they not going to play 24/7 Trump coverage now? Of course they will lmao! CNN playing as the victim? Don’t fall for that shit bro, they don’t report the news they make the news. CNN tabloiders can kick rocks. im not an expert either, Americans learn their rights at a young age. Don’t need the wiki lol.

 



When a country like Israel, who is thousands of miles away, tells cnn to stop their manipulation, than u know they are garbage and should be kicked out. they are a propaganda machine and their only purpose is to feed u anti trump news all the time. no wonder they are one of the lowest viewed networks. their bias is really tiring and even a country like israel knows it. 



[url=http://www.xboxlc.com/profile/sidious_164]

[/url]

DarthMetalliCube said:
Errorist76 said:

Ignorance is bliss I guess. It’s a testament to these dark times if some people prefer to look away just because they’re already used to these atrocities. 

Oh please.. Lol dark times. Come off it.. We live in what's probably BY FAR the most privileged, prosperous, free, equal, and comfortable times in the entire history of human civilization (assuming you live in the West and aren't homeless or of the poorest 10%). We have it 1000x better than even kings had it 200 years ago. Of course things aren't perfect but we'll never have an absolute perfect Utopia because we are all flawed beings.

We are not living anywhere NEAR "dark times." The middle ages were "dark times," when 2 thirds of Europe's population was wiped away from the Plague. WWII was dark times for a good chunk of the world, as you had 3 Fascist and Communist dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Musolini) who together brought mass destruction and death to like 60 million people combined. I don't get what it is about people that they love to feel that they're living in the era of "end times" whether it's the Evangelical Christians, or the sensationalist media lapdogs, or whoever.. I guess it makes people feel like their lives are more exciting rather than just being another cog in the machine..

Trump is not a "Fascist", a "dictator" "Satan" or "literally Hitler" as some of the media lapdogs proclaim (sure he's an egotistical right winger with Authoritarian tendencies but that doesn't mean he's anywhere near Fascist). This is pure hyperbole fueled by a media system that thrives on ratings. It's like saying Obama (because he's somewhat authoritarian left) is a socialist or that Bernie Sanders is a communist). A president doesn't have that much power in the US, firstly. Our system is designed to make it that way. I promise you, most of the real power structure pulling the strings are the same guys who were in power when Obama, Bush, and Clinton were president.

Just boggles my mind how so many get swept up in this fake media hype. The media is owned (and/or indirectly influenced via advertising) by large, often multi billion dollar corporations with billionaire CEOs at the top who obviously have vested interests and agendas. They feed the masses propaganda, and a good chunk of people continue to lap it all up. If you want to believe all this hype and go be swept up in the endless stream of mass hysteria be my guest, but personally I don't believe a word these guys say as long as money and ratings are involved. They've often proven outright to slander, be disingenuous, fabricate, and have personal agendas.

couldnt agree more. well said.



[url=http://www.xboxlc.com/profile/sidious_164]

[/url]

Mr Puggsly said:
Nem said:
More dictatorial behaviour from the so wishful called leader of the "free" world.

If that was the case people would be in prison or dead for negative reporting about Trump. Last I checked, that's most of our media in the US.

Maybe ease up with the hyperbole.

It wasn't hyperbole. He is working on the courts. Certainly trying. He will get there if people keep letting him.



I'm more right leaning and I still think this is bad. CNN are are obviously against him but that's just the way it works. Let them in.