Quantcast
Trump Bans CNN Corespondant from Open Press Event

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

Immersiveunreality said:
Nem said:

I don't know why you even try. You know i will ignore you. We have been done for a long time now buddy.

Why respond while claiming to ignore him?

This just looks like you cant give a decent answer.

Why does he reply to me if i'm gonna ignore him? I don't even read his posts anymore. I have no idea what he said, nor care to find out.  I know that whatever it is, is vile. I'm not poisoning myself with it anymore.

Oh and btw i have ignored it countless times. This is not the first, second or third times. I decided to say something this time cause it is quite pointless and dared hope he did the same. But you can be sure i will go back to ignoring.

I do wish there was a black list on this website so i wouldn't get the time wasting notices.

Last edited by Nem - on 30 July 2018

Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

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).

LOL, you got me on the "Satire of Fox News being only entertainment".  Just checking to see if you were paying attention.  My point still stands that even that first link was nothing but an opinion piece.  When you have a network that does things like this and want respect from the white house I would believe you would see push back.  

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/902358401321115648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gq.com%2Fstory%2Fbarack-obama-tan-suit-anniversary

Or this

https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-donald-trump-russia-investigation-dijon-mustard-scandal-fox-fake-623643

Negative coverage is one thing, when you have to invent your scandals is something different.  Either way, you are correct that Obama administration did not favor Fox but do not forget that Obama was not giving any leeway during his term. 

I agree that Trump gets a lot of hate but then again I also believe he fuels it.  Trump is the only president that does not use his media department to release statements instead Tweeting out any thought that come to his head.  We have seen what happens when people use Twitter, facebook or any other social media platform to convey their thoughts without thinking first on what they are saying.  Trump tweets out statements and we need people to interpret what he means.  If you are a Trump supporter you look for the more favorable line, if you are not supporter you see it the most negative.  If you cannot clearly convey your thoughts properly and its up to the listener to interpret what you say, there will always be conflict.

Well...erm...okay then.  While I'm going to take what you're saying now at face value, I must admit I'm thrown off by this play you're doing here.  Nothing against you, I'm just not familiar with your approach to arguing on here.  And I don't think it's good posturing on your part especially with how you directly threw dirt at me earlier regarding this very thing; in fact, I think it's disingenuous arguing on your part.  But fine...let's just move past that.  

Now I can absolutely understand frustration w/ certain right-wing media stories against Obama--like the ones you've pointed out.  And I should clarify a few points:

-I don't consider it any worthwhile criticism against Obama to say "GASP!  He had an unfavorable attitude against media that opposed him!" or wasn't too keen on giving Fox as many interviews as with other networks (I don't know the tally across all of them; only bringing this up b/c of previous comments).

-The issue comes when that unfavorable attitude is translated into action.  As others have pointed out, this--by all means temporary--banning of a correspondent for a singular press event didn't just materialize b/c Trump was angry at CNN FAKE NEWS.  No, said correspondent acted out of line previously and this is the WH's response.  Do I still believe this action is a wrong-headed move to make?  Yes, you can still grasp the full context of the situation and still believe it's over-reaching.  Plus, Trump acts belligerent to them as well so it may as well remain a two-way street at this point.

-Where I decided to jump in was in respect to a...whataboutism-lite comment to show that this isn't exactly new territory when looking back at the Obama admin too.  I was incorrect about the Washington Free Beacon link, but I believe I made 2-for-3 in respect to my other points raised.  I'm worried about the road we're going on in respect to press freedom too, but I think people need to reassess their...suspiciously convenient comatose between '08-'16 and acknowledge precedent for this type of behavior was set before Agent Orange came into office.   

Last edited by coolbeans - on 30 July 2018

o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Boundaries?  For what?  It's a press conference at the Rose Garden right outside the Oval Office.  It's not in his bathroom.  Nor are boundaries or privacy an issue given that dozens of others will also be there.

Also, I just learned the reporter was banned by Bill Shine, the White House deputy chief of staff for communications and....former co-president of Fox News.  Hmmmmm.

 

And no, Alex Jones, does not have White House or Congressional media credentials.  He was given a day pass to attend an event and then bragged all over Twitter like he got permanent credentials.  Did you even read your own link?

"Far-right website InfoWars was granted temporary White House press credentials on Monday"
"The outlet was reportedly granted only day-long press credentials, which are far easier to receive and viewed as less prestigious than a permanent pass."

"“He is not credentialed for the White House. The White House Press Office has not offered him credentials,” White House deputy press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/334583-questions-surround-infowars-claim-of-white-house-press-credentials

"Nor are boundaries or privacy an issue given that dozens of others will also be there."

1). all this tells me is that you don't understand the concept of "boundaries"

 

"He was given a day pass to attend an event and then bragged all over Twitter like he got permanent credentials."

2). where in my post did i claim that his credentials were permanent?

i posted that in response to you avoiding my original question which was would alex jones in such a situation be entitled to an interview according to your standards?

and its looking like the answer is no since you can do nothing but avoid the question

1). But it's a false metaphor.  He's not denying someone entry into his house.  His deputy chief of staff for communications and former co-president of Fox News is denying a legitimate journalist access to a press conference. That doesn't fit the criteria for your metaphor.

2). Again, demanding an interview and attending a press conference at the White House are two very different things.  You don't need White House media credentials to request an interview with the president but you do need them to attend a White House press briefing. Requests for interviews get turned down all day, every day by every major politician.  This should be obvious. So to make your Alex Jones scenario equitable, he would have to be denied access to a White House media conference...and as we've already determined, he does not have credentials to attend.  And no, I'm not going to explore the hypothetical of what if he had media credentials and was denied access because his media outlet will never obtain WH press credentials because Info Wars is not a news media outlet. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

coolbeans said:

Well...erm...okay then.  While I'm going to take what you're saying now at face value, I must admit I'm thrown off by this play you're doing here.  Nothing against you, I'm just not familiar with your approach to arguing on here.  And I don't think it's good posturing on your part especially with how you directly threw dirt at me earlier regarding this very thing; in fact, I think it's disingenuous arguing on your part.  But fine...let's just move past that.  

Now I can absolutely understand frustration w/ certain right-wing media stories against Obama--like the ones you've pointed out.  And I should clarify a few points:

-I don't consider it any worthwhile criticism against Obama to say "GASP!  He had an unfavorable attitude against media that opposed him!" or wasn't too keen on giving Fox as many interviews as with other networks (I don't know the tally across all of them; only bringing this up b/c of previous comments).

-The issue comes when that unfavorable attitude is translated into action.  As others have pointed out, this--by all means temporary--banning of a correspondent for a singular press event didn't just materialize b/c Trump was angry at CNN FAKE NEWS.  No, said correspondent acted out of line previously and this is the WH's response.  Do I still believe this action is a wrong-headed move to make?  Yes, you can still grasp the full context of the situation and still believe it's over-reaching.  Plus, Trump acts belligerent to them as well so it may as well remain a two-way street at this point.

-Where I decided to jump in was in respect to a...whataboutism-lite comment to show that this isn't exactly new territory when looking back at the Obama admin too.  I was incorrect about the Washington Free Beacon link, but I believe I made 2-for-3 in respect to my other points raised.  I'm worried about the road we're going on in respect to press freedom too, but I think people need to reassess their...suspiciously convenient comatose between '08-'16 and acknowledge precedent for this type of behavior was set before Agent Orange came into office.   

I am still not sure if the first link is an Apple to Apple situation.  Not inviting Fox news to an interview they never ask for really isn't the White House Job.  Also if they stated they would prefer Fox not attend is totally different then them saying Fox cannot attend.  

As to this reporter, we will see where this goes.  I noticed once Trump is able to do one thing he will take it to the extreme.  So if we say this reporter was out of line and the temp ban for this event is warranted.  Lets see how far Trump will take this.  If anyone from CNN gives him tough questions at any time and they feel banning them is warranted then we may have an issue.



Mr Puggsly said:
Machiavellian said:

Would you put Fox news in the same category as CNN.  Just wondering because if CNN is totally Anti Trump, then Fox news would be considered their direct opposite.  If any news site only negative or positive then they both can not be trusted as news sources.

I find that Fox News dedicates more time to opposing views than MSNBC and CNN. While Fox News certainly panders to the right, I watch a few programs knowing I'll get views from multiple sides and they give time to left wingers. Primarily I just watch Tucker Carlson (conservative host) and Kennedy (libertarian host). Two hosts who have been critical of Trump.

CNN and MSNBC aren't really respected networks post Trump. Meanwhile dems assume Fox News is all praise of Trump, which isn't reality.

I don't put Fox in the same category as CNN, but I also don't think people should just consume Fox News all day.

You know CNN does the same thing.  I have seen may shows where CNN will have both pro and anti correspondence talking about whatever is happening at the White house.  Actually some of those conversations have got pretty heated but they all did have their say even if some when off the rails.  The majority of Fox news is Pro Trump for everything he does.  There are a few that do not hold that line but its interesting how much hate they get on social media for any dissenting views.  I personally watch both because if you only get one side of the coin you never know fully what the other side looks like.



Around the Network
Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

Well...erm...okay then.  While I'm going to take what you're saying now at face value, I must admit I'm thrown off by this play you're doing here.  Nothing against you, I'm just not familiar with your approach to arguing on here.  And I don't think it's good posturing on your part especially with how you directly threw dirt at me earlier regarding this very thing; in fact, I think it's disingenuous arguing on your part.  But fine...let's just move past that.  

Now I can absolutely understand frustration w/ certain right-wing media stories against Obama--like the ones you've pointed out.  And I should clarify a few points:

-I don't consider it any worthwhile criticism against Obama to say "GASP!  He had an unfavorable attitude against media that opposed him!" or wasn't too keen on giving Fox as many interviews as with other networks (I don't know the tally across all of them; only bringing this up b/c of previous comments).

-The issue comes when that unfavorable attitude is translated into action.  As others have pointed out, this--by all means temporary--banning of a correspondent for a singular press event didn't just materialize b/c Trump was angry at CNN FAKE NEWS.  No, said correspondent acted out of line previously and this is the WH's response.  Do I still believe this action is a wrong-headed move to make?  Yes, you can still grasp the full context of the situation and still believe it's over-reaching.  Plus, Trump acts belligerent to them as well so it may as well remain a two-way street at this point.

-Where I decided to jump in was in respect to a...whataboutism-lite comment to show that this isn't exactly new territory when looking back at the Obama admin too.  I was incorrect about the Washington Free Beacon link, but I believe I made 2-for-3 in respect to my other points raised.  I'm worried about the road we're going on in respect to press freedom too, but I think people need to reassess their...suspiciously convenient comatose between '08-'16 and acknowledge precedent for this type of behavior was set before Agent Orange came into office.   

I am still not sure if the first link is an Apple to Apple situation.  Not inviting Fox news to an interview they never ask for really isn't the White House Job.  Also if they stated they would prefer Fox not attend is totally different then them saying Fox cannot attend.  

As to this reporter, we will see where this goes.  I noticed once Trump is able to do one thing he will take it to the extreme.  So if we say this reporter was out of line and the temp ban for this event is warranted.  Lets see how far Trump will take this.  If anyone from CNN gives him tough questions at any time and they feel banning them is warranted then we may have an issue.

I think you'll find this interesting.  It wasn't Trump himself that banned her but was Bill Shine, the White House deputy chief of staff for communications and....former co-president of Fox News.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
Machiavellian said:

I am still not sure if the first link is an Apple to Apple situation.  Not inviting Fox news to an interview they never ask for really isn't the White House Job.  Also if they stated they would prefer Fox not attend is totally different then them saying Fox cannot attend.  

As to this reporter, we will see where this goes.  I noticed once Trump is able to do one thing he will take it to the extreme.  So if we say this reporter was out of line and the temp ban for this event is warranted.  Lets see how far Trump will take this.  If anyone from CNN gives him tough questions at any time and they feel banning them is warranted then we may have an issue.

I think you'll find this interesting.  It wasn't Trump himself that banned her but was Bill Shine, the White House deputy chief of staff for communications and....former co-president of Fox News.

I did read that part when looking into the issue.  I assumed that Trump was the one who put it in motion and Bill Shine executed it.  Even if it was totally Bill decision, there are 2 sides you can look at it.  You can say that with Bill experience he felt the way this reporter went about her job was inappropriate enough to warrant a ban or you could say that this gave Bill the perfect opportunity to stick it to CNN and leave the President out of it.  One incident is really not enough to go on based on what occurred with this situation.



Machiavellian said:
Mr Puggsly said:

I find that Fox News dedicates more time to opposing views than MSNBC and CNN. While Fox News certainly panders to the right, I watch a few programs knowing I'll get views from multiple sides and they give time to left wingers. Primarily I just watch Tucker Carlson (conservative host) and Kennedy (libertarian host). Two hosts who have been critical of Trump.

CNN and MSNBC aren't really respected networks post Trump. Meanwhile dems assume Fox News is all praise of Trump, which isn't reality.

I don't put Fox in the same category as CNN, but I also don't think people should just consume Fox News all day.

You know CNN does the same thing.  I have seen may shows where CNN will have both pro and anti correspondence talking about whatever is happening at the White house.  Actually some of those conversations have got pretty heated but they all did have their say even if some when off the rails.  The majority of Fox news is Pro Trump for everything he does.  There are a few that do not hold that line but its interesting how much hate they get on social media for any dissenting views.  I personally watch both because if you only get one side of the coin you never know fully what the other side looks like.

I don't even feel like Fox News is as pro Trump as CNN/MSNBC is anti Trump. A popular topic on all conservative outlets is the hysteria and focus on anti Trump topics by left leaning outlets.

I mean when I watch Fox News I see the policy he's pushing getting some praise, some policy getting attacked like the tariffs and subsidies, they've been critical about the way he speaks, and they were critical of his defending of Putin. It seems about fair in my mind. Like how a reasonable person thinks about the news, although I ignore shows I find avidly pro Trump. In comparison the other networks dedicate almost all their time to bashing him and trying to find treason.



Recently Completed
Crackdown 3
for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

Machiavellian said:
coolbeans said:

Well...erm...okay then.  While I'm going to take what you're saying now at face value, I must admit I'm thrown off by this play you're doing here.  Nothing against you, I'm just not familiar with your approach to arguing on here.  And I don't think it's good posturing on your part especially with how you directly threw dirt at me earlier regarding this very thing; in fact, I think it's disingenuous arguing on your part.  But fine...let's just move past that.  

Now I can absolutely understand frustration w/ certain right-wing media stories against Obama--like the ones you've pointed out.  And I should clarify a few points:

-I don't consider it any worthwhile criticism against Obama to say "GASP!  He had an unfavorable attitude against media that opposed him!" or wasn't too keen on giving Fox as many interviews as with other networks (I don't know the tally across all of them; only bringing this up b/c of previous comments).

-The issue comes when that unfavorable attitude is translated into action.  As others have pointed out, this--by all means temporary--banning of a correspondent for a singular press event didn't just materialize b/c Trump was angry at CNN FAKE NEWS.  No, said correspondent acted out of line previously and this is the WH's response.  Do I still believe this action is a wrong-headed move to make?  Yes, you can still grasp the full context of the situation and still believe it's over-reaching.  Plus, Trump acts belligerent to them as well so it may as well remain a two-way street at this point.

-Where I decided to jump in was in respect to a...whataboutism-lite comment to show that this isn't exactly new territory when looking back at the Obama admin too.  I was incorrect about the Washington Free Beacon link, but I believe I made 2-for-3 in respect to my other points raised.  I'm worried about the road we're going on in respect to press freedom too, but I think people need to reassess their...suspiciously convenient comatose between '08-'16 and acknowledge precedent for this type of behavior was set before Agent Orange came into office.   

I am still not sure if the first link is an Apple to Apple situation.  Not inviting Fox news to an interview they never ask for really isn't the White House Job.  Also if they stated they would prefer Fox not attend is totally different then them saying Fox cannot attend.  

As to this reporter, we will see where this goes.  I noticed once Trump is able to do one thing he will take it to the extreme.  So if we say this reporter was out of line and the temp ban for this event is warranted.  Lets see how far Trump will take this.  If anyone from CNN gives him tough questions at any time and they feel banning them is warranted then we may have an issue.

Well, allow me to reiterate on what I've stated previously.  I haven't argued that it's a perfect 1:1 situation here, but they are analogous in respect to press treatment & general press reaction.  

-Trump's usual spiel: "You're fake news!" etc. / Trump admin action: active banning of a press reporter from a particular event after an "insulting outburst" (as WH may claim) against Trump previously. 

-Obama's spiel: "There's talk radio, that's one thing.  Then there's operating as a news outlet, that's another." (similar type of degradation against ideological opponents just in more couched terms) / Treasury Dept. action: Perceived exclusion (not a 'non-invitation') from a special type of 'interview pool' event with which every other credentialed MSM outlet had no trouble trying to schedule.  

Now, I've already tackled the notion of said exclusion arguably based on logistical errors (which WH contended at the time), along with acknowledging other nuances that still make it a pretty open-and-shut case.  For one, we have all of FOX's competition (who'd probably have a more intimate knowledge of the goings-on at that particular time) demanding Fox News either be allowed to join in the pool or we won't conduct the interview.  Secondly, despite whatever "logistical issues" the WH argued to deflect, you have an e-mail specifically wishing Fox News to not attend the Feinberg interview session.  And let's be clear: there's not really much of a grey area between "preferring" and "ordering" when being issued such directives.  So, that's not really making much of a case here.  All in all, I think this case sports enough parallels to OP (and that's not even the worst example to present against Obama's press treatment).  

 Right, but that's part of the issue.  Part of why this temp. ban sounds like an abuse of power is b/c of whom we're dealing with here & that potential for this to be a slippery slope.  "Well...what's going to constitute bad behavior the next time around?"