How does access to the White House briefing room equate to a free speech issue? Those press briefings, and the questions from the “journalists,” are political theater, pure and simple. They’re free to report whatever they want about Trump, but I don’t see how denying anyone access to the briefing room is curtailing anyone’s right to free speech.
I’m guessing he means all the haranguing about Fake Media, Lying Media at the rallies…That kind of nasty stuff.
Denying them access means they can’t ask him questions or cover the event. And it’s not just press conferences, it’s his rallies, threats on print journalists, censorship of websites.
If only the journalists that corroborate the views of the white house are allowed access or the ability to question him, that is a direct limitation on press freedom. Freedom to agree with the white house or you get the boot is not freedom of expression.
I think you get this.
He’s allowed to say that. It’s dangerous but he has the freedom to.
Actually revoking access or threatening journalists that criticize him is un-American and anti democratic. You’re free to agree with me or i’ll punish you and silence you is CCTV territory.
Why not just outright acknowledge support of dictatorship than keep pretending it’s democratic and dodging the issue? You can support democracy, or you can line up behind Trump it’s a binary choice at this point let’s stop pretending.
I get what you’re saying, but I’m not seeing it. In the latest briefing I watched, there were plenty of pointed and even aggressive questions from the press corps, and lots of spin and political theater on both sides, just as always.
I hope you spoke out when Obama was doing exactly the same thing.
Last I saw, Trump was democratically elected. And he’ll likely be democratically re-elected. A lot of people may need to stock up on adult diapers.
1 Like
I do, sir. Also was very against Berkeley stifling that Milos guy or whatever. People can say what they want to on either side.
One of the biggest proponents of free speech even if its hate invective was Frederick Douglass, who certainly had some reasons to think otherwise. Free speech is free for everyone.
Gotta run have a good day
1 Like
Nobody was questioning that.
Good to see that we do at least agree on this.
Obama didn’t kick journalists with dissenting opinions out of press conferences, and he didn’t threaten journalists or censor websites.
If you want to point to a case of PC thought police etc that’s an example. He has a right to say what he wants.
He did ban journalists from the press corps, and weaponized the Justice Department against both Fox News and the AP.
3 Likes
Obama did it too–and thank you for pointing that out–doesn’t make it OK for Trump to do it. The law applies equally to everybody. Obama did a lot of things I strongly disagree with. If we really want to get past partisanship, please don’t default to that.
I guess the question is–independent of preferences–on what condition is revoking access or quieting certain news outlets acceptable, what constitutes objective journalism vs. hate speech, etc. If media outlets are intentionally misleading the public and miseducating them, have a demonstrable history of lying or distorting facts, conflicts of interest, peddling hate speech in a malicious fashion etc, that’s a different story.
If reporters are making inquiries in good faith to gather the truth about a story and get banned that’s not ok. Excluding, say, fraud scientists that intentionally rehash climate disinformation to mislead the public is a different case.
Comparing Trump to Obama is the game of political football we’re trying to avoid, but if we have to compare…Trump’s attacks are far greater in scope, and his motive for banning reporters is to prevent journalists that might hold him accountable for suspected criminal behavior. Obama had the country’s interests in mind, Trump is abusing his power of office for personal reasons. Not the same.
Unfortunately, these days, this is basically all media outlets.
Oh please…
1 Like
No, it’s not. Some journalists are more credible than others. There are facts and you can fact check stories and reports. To say they’re all the same is exactly why we’re in the mess we are in now.
Some individual journalists, yes, but basically no newspapers or networks.
1 Like
That’s wrong. Some sites are more reliable than others and you can fact check them. Some have higher standards of reporting and accuracy than others. You can’t lump them all together.
What do you mean when you say “sites”? I’m talking about MSM.
Newspapers, Networks, Websites, Online Newspapers etc.
Mainstream or independent, credibility is credibility and the truth is the truth.
Imagine if people talked about sports reporting the way conservatives discuss politics in media.
“James Harden scored 38 last night”
“Lies. That was on Fox. No he didn’t. Fake news”