Why no cameras for press briefings?

[The Original Tree]

The only reason I can think of is they are trying to limit the amount of people who are tuning in by only allowing the press to play the audio recordings. Does anybody know the White Houses rationale for this or have any other theories?

I have a better question:

If the DNC server was hacked then why are Podesta's emails on Wikileaks from gmail.com and not from democrats.org?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

So how long should CNN be suspended?

Depends on the offense and the system that they set up. I for one am fine with letting the reporters fight for the spotlight and ask hard questions. I'm just saying if the administration is having a hard time handling the scrutiny I'd rather see them take a procedural approach to improve civility to the briefing room (if thats really their concern). Not turning off the cameras and holding less briefings.

I would agree if that were the case at all times but we know it isn't. They spent the last eight years tripping over each other to praise Obama. Now all they want to do is attack. No matter what Trump did it was going to be reported as heavy handed by the press. This is as good an action as any.

 

[BlindBoo]

They hate the way SNL portrays them. Makes President Grabby's Administration look ridiculous. And a guy in President Grabby's position can't afford to look ridiculous...,

link or you just shitting a new turd?

Heifer Trump hates SNL with a passion and hopes to reverse their rise in popularity due to, um his Keystone Cops type Administration.

well when you can put your bias boner down for more than 13 seconds i may listen to you. as it stands the only thing you EVER say is the same god damn things over and over and over again.

mock trump - who gives a shit if it's real.

This was my first thoughts on the WH show and tell period with the press under Our Lord Grabber. Not being televised doesn't make it any more truthful than if it were. I'd like to think there is a rational explanation for his actions, like others on this thread, however I think he is a petty man and has a petty rationale for not letting cameras in. Maybe it's just his crusade against the main stream media.

when you do the "our lord" shit - your credibility is 2nd grade at best.

your call in how you present yourself. doing it this way makes you look 6 and pissed you mom took the soda away and gave you juice.

Looks like someone likes it dished out but doesn't like to take it?

Donnie Dangerously set the tone himself. I mean I can't believe we elected someone with a face like that! How could anyone have voted for someone with that face. Know what I mean?

 

[Slade3200]

The theory is that many of the news correspondences like to play it up in front of the camera. I tend to agree with that accessement, kind of the same as cameras effect a courtroom trial. There are too many people looking for their 15 seconds of fame.

Interesting so the goal is to dampen down the spotlight for the reporters so they don't attack or grandstand as much. Good insight... could be right. Do you think they are trying to detract people from viewing?

Nobody actually views those things. Be honest, all that's happened is we aren't getting daily doses of clips saying look at this idiot reporter, or OMG Spicer gave this reporter a dirty look. It never was about substance. Have you noticed the complete lack of any actual news coming from these briefings? The reason is they aren't very news worthy. It was the show that people watched.

That hasn't been my experience. I see all news networks, Fox included airing the complete press briefings and seeing record tune ins. Reporters pressing the WH on the issues of the day. After a handful of mixed messages and contradictory statements between Trump and his Reps they appear to be drastically limiting the exposure. Spicer isn't even handling all the briefings. It been more of Huckabee-Sanders lately.

People on a political message board pay more attention no doubt. My point was the majority get the two minute cut from Facebook. The briefings are still there just no video. We used make fun of people for being so dumb they had to read picture books. Now that's all the majority want I guess. SHS does a good job. I don't mind seeing the rotation.

I think seeing the body language and facial expressions of people when they are answering questions tells a lot. With all the spin and misinformation in our world, every little bit helps.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Who cares? Christ Almighty... you people have completely lost it.

The past several administrations have held on camera press briefings and now we are seeing that system changing. It is worth a conversation. If you don't think so then don't join it.

While true you have to admit the last ten or so years have brought a whole new media. It's a personality clash these days. It's not enough to report facts. They have to be outrageous for the ratings. A discussion can't be had, somebody has to "school" the other person or it won't make it on the air. We should just put them all in the arena for a fight to the death. Last one standing gets to be the nations reporter for a month then we get a gladiator.

 

[Slade3200]

Makes sense... Do you think its the whole reason or anything else to it? Do you think its a good call?

Same information, different format, and exchanges are more civil with audio only, sounds like a very good reason to me. Regressives will alway accuse them of alternative motives. I don't see one.

.

Do you think that should be the norm from now on? Next dem president and so on?

For routine briefings sure, there could be occasions cameras could be called for, not necessarily all the time.

.

Thats fine, I respect your opinion but I disagree. I know it can get heated in the press room but I think the press is there to hold the powerful accountable. Yeah they are tough on Trump and they have his reps tripping over their tongues a lot. It should motivate them to be better with their messaging. More honest and transparent so they don't get caught lying and not disclosing information. In my opinion that is the purpose of the press. I don't like the idea of trying to water them down. I'm all for more accountability so they lose credentials for false reporting... but as far as exposure I think we the people deserve to know, investigate, and question what our leadership is doing.

I have no problem with people being held accountable, but when people start getting disrespectful just trying to score points for the cameras something has to change. The press seems to have thrown ethics and decorum out the window, especially since Trump was elected. They seem to be forgetting they are guests at the WH. I've said form more than a decade that journalism is dead in the US, journalist appear to be more interested in shaping a story instead of simply reporting on it.
.

If thats the case then up the standards to restore a level of respect in the conversation. Set higher standards of etiquette and penalize people who violate the code of conduct. I don't think shutting down the cameras and holding less briefings is a healthy answer... it penalizes the public that wants to see and hear what the White house has to say about certain issues. Otherwise we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts

 

[Slade3200]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

It seems to me with the advances in technology and all the social media outlets an ever increasing number of reporters are looking less to report the news and more to create the news and be part of the story themselves. Having cameras in there is a double edged sword you can tell the story much better with them but as we have seen they can also bring out the worst in the people standing in front of them. As a previous poster stated we're getting more sideshow than news from these right now.

But again, wouldn't you rather see a "code of conduct" instituted to restore a more respectful discourse, rather than limiting exposure?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The theory is that many of the news correspondences like to play it up in front of the camera. I tend to agree with that accessement, kind of the same as cameras effect a courtroom trial. There are too many people looking for their 15 seconds of fame.

Interesting so the goal is to dampen down the spotlight for the reporters so they don't attack or grandstand as much. Good insight... could be right. Do you think they are trying to detract people from viewing?

Nobody actually views those things. Be honest, all that's happened is we aren't getting daily doses of clips saying look at this idiot reporter, or OMG Spicer gave this reporter a dirty look. It never was about substance. Have you noticed the complete lack of any actual news coming from these briefings? The reason is they aren't very news worthy. It was the show that people watched.

That hasn't been my experience. I see all news networks, Fox included airing the complete press briefings and seeing record tune ins. Reporters pressing the WH on the issues of the day. After a handful of mixed messages and contradictory statements between Trump and his Reps they appear to be drastically limiting the exposure. Spicer isn't even handling all the briefings. It been more of Huckabee-Sanders lately.

People on a political message board pay more attention no doubt. My point was the majority get the two minute cut from Facebook. The briefings are still there just no video. We used make fun of people for being so dumb they had to read picture books. Now that's all the majority want I guess. SHS does a good job. I don't mind seeing the rotation.

I think seeing the body language and facial expressions of people when they are answering questions tells a lot. With all the spin and misinformation in our world, every little bit helps.

I would agree but the reactions have to get bigger every day to out do yesterday's meme winner. Look at that Playboy reporter thing. So ridiculous. Ridiculous to the point there's actually a Playboy reporter in the briefing. FFS, how low can this gutter get?

 

[Slade3200]

The only reason I can think of is they are trying to limit the amount of people who are tuning in by only allowing the press to play the audio recordings. Does anybody know the White Houses rationale for this or have any other theories?

I have a better question:

If the DNC server was hacked then why are Podesta's emails on Wikileaks from gmail.com and not from democrats.org?

Start a new thread to talk about that. This thread is about something entirely different. Please don't try and derail the conversation with distractions like this... its petty

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

It seems to me with the advances in technology and all the social media outlets an ever increasing number of reporters are looking less to report the news and more to create the news and be part of the story themselves. Having cameras in there is a double edged sword you can tell the story much better with them but as we have seen they can also bring out the worst in the people standing in front of them. As a previous poster stated we're getting more sideshow than news from these right now.

But again, wouldn't you rather see a "code of conduct" instituted to restore a more respectful discourse, rather than limiting exposure?

Can you imagine the totalitarian headlines tomorrow if Trump told reporters to act civil or they will be kicked out? The media would go nuts.

 

[OldLady]

Same information, different format, and exchanges are more civil with audio only, sounds like a very good reason to me. Regressives will alway accuse them of alternative motives. I don't see one.

.

Do you think that should be the norm from now on? Next dem president and so on?

For routine briefings sure, there could be occasions cameras could be called for, not necessarily all the time.

.

Thats fine, I respect your opinion but I disagree. I know it can get heated in the press room but I think the press is there to hold the powerful accountable. Yeah they are tough on Trump and they have his reps tripping over their tongues a lot. It should motivate them to be better with their messaging. More honest and transparent so they don't get caught lying and not disclosing information. In my opinion that is the purpose of the press. I don't like the idea of trying to water them down. I'm all for more accountability so they lose credentials for false reporting... but as far as exposure I think we the people deserve to know, investigate, and question what our leadership is doing.

I have no problem with people being held accountable, but when people start getting disrespectful just trying to score points for the cameras something has to change. The press seems to have thrown ethics and decorum out the window, especially since Trump was elected. They seem to be forgetting they are guests at the WH. I've said form more than a decade that journalism is dead in the US, journalist appear to be more interested in shaping a story instead of simply reporting on it.
.

If thats the case then up the standards to restore a level of respect in the conversation. Set higher standards of etiquette and penalize people who violate the code of conduct. I don't think shutting down the cameras and holding less briefings is a healthy answer... it penalizes the public that wants to see and hear what the White house has to say about certain issues. Otherwise we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts

we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts
Okay, I'm probably paranoid, but I have to wonder if that is what is coming.

 

[The Original Tree]

The only reason I can think of is they are trying to limit the amount of people who are tuning in by only allowing the press to play the audio recordings. Does anybody know the White Houses rationale for this or have any other theories?

I have a better question:

If the DNC server was hacked then why are Podesta's emails on Wikileaks from gmail.com and not from democrats.org?

Start a new thread to talk about that. This thread is about something entirely different. Please don't try and derail the conversation with distractions like this... its petty

Using that same scenario, maybe there are cameras, but Putin has hacked all of them and is stealing all of the footage so we can't see it.

If the DNC server can be hacked with no Democrats.org emails to Podesta being found on Wikileaks, then maybe Putin can also hack in to Cameras and steal all the footage before it's being posted.

It's like Magic!

 

[Slade3200]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

So how long should CNN be suspended?

Depends on the offense and the system that they set up. I for one am fine with letting the reporters fight for the spotlight and ask hard questions. I'm just saying if the administration is having a hard time handling the scrutiny I'd rather see them take a procedural approach to improve civility to the briefing room (if thats really their concern). Not turning off the cameras and holding less briefings.

I would agree if that were the case at all times but we know it isn't. They spent the last eight years tripping over each other to praise Obama. Now all they want to do is attack. No matter what Trump did it was going to be reported as heavy handed by the press. This is as good an action as any.

I disagree, Fox, the largest news network in the country by a lot was constantly scrutinizing Obama. Had Obama shut down the cameras and held less briefings you know there would be a HUGE backlash from the right. The MSM is very critical against Trump, to a fault even... Some of that is ideology but most of it is that Trump is constantly insulting and fighting against them. He brings increasing scrutiny upon himself. I haven't seen him do one thing to try and restore the relationship between leadership and the MSM so the fight will continue. I'm just as sick of it as you are. But limiting exposure is not a smart approach.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Do you think that should be the norm from now on? Next dem president and so on?

For routine briefings sure, there could be occasions cameras could be called for, not necessarily all the time.

.

Thats fine, I respect your opinion but I disagree. I know it can get heated in the press room but I think the press is there to hold the powerful accountable. Yeah they are tough on Trump and they have his reps tripping over their tongues a lot. It should motivate them to be better with their messaging. More honest and transparent so they don't get caught lying and not disclosing information. In my opinion that is the purpose of the press. I don't like the idea of trying to water them down. I'm all for more accountability so they lose credentials for false reporting... but as far as exposure I think we the people deserve to know, investigate, and question what our leadership is doing.

I have no problem with people being held accountable, but when people start getting disrespectful just trying to score points for the cameras something has to change. The press seems to have thrown ethics and decorum out the window, especially since Trump was elected. They seem to be forgetting they are guests at the WH. I've said form more than a decade that journalism is dead in the US, journalist appear to be more interested in shaping a story instead of simply reporting on it.
.

If thats the case then up the standards to restore a level of respect in the conversation. Set higher standards of etiquette and penalize people who violate the code of conduct. I don't think shutting down the cameras and holding less briefings is a healthy answer... it penalizes the public that wants to see and hear what the White house has to say about certain issues. Otherwise we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts

we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts
Okay, I'm probably paranoid, but I have to wonder if that is what is coming.

When a profession reduces itself to a mix of WWE and self importance people go elsewhere for the product. The blame for this is on them.

 

[Slade3200]

Who cares? Christ Almighty... you people have completely lost it.

The past several administrations have held on camera press briefings and now we are seeing that system changing. It is worth a conversation. If you don't think so then don't join it.

While true you have to admit the last ten or so years have brought a whole new media. It's a personality clash these days. It's not enough to report facts. They have to be outrageous for the ratings. A discussion can't be had, somebody has to "school" the other person or it won't make it on the air. We should just put them all in the arena for a fight to the death. Last one standing gets to be the nations reporter for a month then we get a gladiator.

It has moved to a system of conflict, opinion and speculation where pundit analysis/discussion is dominating over reporting the news. Our local news stations are still doing a good job, but the cable networks are becoming junk reality TV. Thats where the free market has taken them.

I have some ideas for ways to improve it with a free market approach. I'll post a new thread with some thoughts once my ideas are more complete.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

So how long should CNN be suspended?

Depends on the offense and the system that they set up. I for one am fine with letting the reporters fight for the spotlight and ask hard questions. I'm just saying if the administration is having a hard time handling the scrutiny I'd rather see them take a procedural approach to improve civility to the briefing room (if thats really their concern). Not turning off the cameras and holding less briefings.

I would agree if that were the case at all times but we know it isn't. They spent the last eight years tripping over each other to praise Obama. Now all they want to do is attack. No matter what Trump did it was going to be reported as heavy handed by the press. This is as good an action as any.

I disagree, Fox, the largest news network in the country by a lot was constantly scrutinizing Obama. Had Obama shut down the cameras and help less briefings you know where would be a HUGE backlash from the right. The MSM is very critical against Trump, to a fault even... Some of that is ideology but most of it is that Trump is constantly insulting and fighting against them. He brings increasing scrutiny upon himself. I haven't seen him do one thing to try and restore the relationship between leadership and the MSM so the fight will continue. I'm just as sick of it as you are. But limiting exposure is not a smart approach.

He had to fight back or get run over. I don't see where he had much choice.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Who cares? Christ Almighty... you people have completely lost it.

The past several administrations have held on camera press briefings and now we are seeing that system changing. It is worth a conversation. If you don't think so then don't join it.

While true you have to admit the last ten or so years have brought a whole new media. It's a personality clash these days. It's not enough to report facts. They have to be outrageous for the ratings. A discussion can't be had, somebody has to "school" the other person or it won't make it on the air. We should just put them all in the arena for a fight to the death. Last one standing gets to be the nations reporter for a month then we get a gladiator.

It has moved to a system of conflict, opinion and speculation where pundit analysis/discussion is dominating over reporting the news. Our local news stations are still doing a good job, but the cable networks are becoming junk reality TV. Thats where the free market has taken them.

I have some ideas for ways to improve it with a free market approach. I'll post a new thread with some thoughts once my ideas are more complete.

I'm willing to check it out.

 

[Slade3200]

Interesting so the goal is to dampen down the spotlight for the reporters so they don't attack or grandstand as much. Good insight... could be right. Do you think they are trying to detract people from viewing?

Nobody actually views those things. Be honest, all that's happened is we aren't getting daily doses of clips saying look at this idiot reporter, or OMG Spicer gave this reporter a dirty look. It never was about substance. Have you noticed the complete lack of any actual news coming from these briefings? The reason is they aren't very news worthy. It was the show that people watched.

That hasn't been my experience. I see all news networks, Fox included airing the complete press briefings and seeing record tune ins. Reporters pressing the WH on the issues of the day. After a handful of mixed messages and contradictory statements between Trump and his Reps they appear to be drastically limiting the exposure. Spicer isn't even handling all the briefings. It been more of Huckabee-Sanders lately.

People on a political message board pay more attention no doubt. My point was the majority get the two minute cut from Facebook. The briefings are still there just no video. We used make fun of people for being so dumb they had to read picture books. Now that's all the majority want I guess. SHS does a good job. I don't mind seeing the rotation.

I think seeing the body language and facial expressions of people when they are answering questions tells a lot. With all the spin and misinformation in our world, every little bit helps.

I would agree but the reactions have to get bigger every day to out do yesterday's meme winner. Look at that Playboy reporter thing. So ridiculous. Ridiculous to the point there's actually a Playboy reporter in the briefing. FFS, how low can this gutter get?

I guess we are going to have to start reading Playboy to see how the reporting has been... my guess is they have very little coverage

 

[Slade3200]

My opinion is it's because of the reporters grandstanding now trying to get their viral moment.

You could be right. I'd rather see consequences for improper behavior, like suspending reporters that speak out of turn, interrupt or take an uncivil tone, rather than trying to restrict exposure.

It seems to me with the advances in technology and all the social media outlets an ever increasing number of reporters are looking less to report the news and more to create the news and be part of the story themselves. Having cameras in there is a double edged sword you can tell the story much better with them but as we have seen they can also bring out the worst in the people standing in front of them. As a previous poster stated we're getting more sideshow than news from these right now.

But again, wouldn't you rather see a "code of conduct" instituted to restore a more respectful discourse, rather than limiting exposure?

Can you imagine the totalitarian headlines tomorrow if Trump told reporters to act civil or they will be kicked out? The media would go nuts.

The media is already going nuts. But I think this could be done in a respectful and professional way if done right. AND I think it would have been received better than shutting down the cameras and holding less briefings.

But also, you gotta give reporters the opportunity to press, especially if officials are dodging questions and spinning answers. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Slade3200]

Do you think that should be the norm from now on? Next dem president and so on?

For routine briefings sure, there could be occasions cameras could be called for, not necessarily all the time.

.

Thats fine, I respect your opinion but I disagree. I know it can get heated in the press room but I think the press is there to hold the powerful accountable. Yeah they are tough on Trump and they have his reps tripping over their tongues a lot. It should motivate them to be better with their messaging. More honest and transparent so they don't get caught lying and not disclosing information. In my opinion that is the purpose of the press. I don't like the idea of trying to water them down. I'm all for more accountability so they lose credentials for false reporting... but as far as exposure I think we the people deserve to know, investigate, and question what our leadership is doing.

I have no problem with people being held accountable, but when people start getting disrespectful just trying to score points for the cameras something has to change. The press seems to have thrown ethics and decorum out the window, especially since Trump was elected. They seem to be forgetting they are guests at the WH. I've said form more than a decade that journalism is dead in the US, journalist appear to be more interested in shaping a story instead of simply reporting on it.
.

If thats the case then up the standards to restore a level of respect in the conversation. Set higher standards of etiquette and penalize people who violate the code of conduct. I don't think shutting down the cameras and holding less briefings is a healthy answer... it penalizes the public that wants to see and hear what the White house has to say about certain issues. Otherwise we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts

we are left with 140 characters on Twitter and speculative news reports that often lack facts
Okay, I'm probably paranoid, but I have to wonder if that is what is coming.

I sure hope not