Why no cameras for press briefings?

[Slade3200]

He gets harassed either way. Taking away a voice that can explain their side of the story in more than 140 characters should be a useful tool for Trump and his team. They obviously can handle the heat and can't keep up with Trumps flip flops so now they are tucking tail. Sorry chica but thats whats going on.

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

Then perhaps they should... You're right I don't know the ins and outs of those laws. I'm all for accountability for our media. I just want the truth from EVERYBODY

 

[sartre play]

The news use to be free,(TV stations did not make money off the news) now its all money making hype, talking over each other and opinion,opinion. the owners don't want to spend the money it takes to get clear facts, people love the hype, most news was dry. we tented to trust the person giving the news. how many people watch C span & get it from the horses mouth.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

These are supposed to be grown men and women if at this point in their lives a code of conduct needs to be implemented to get them to act like grown ups we have bigger problems than limiting exposure.

I don't think we need a code of conduct, I think the press has every right to press the WH. If they can't take the scrutiny then grow some balls and deal with it. Do better answering questions or get somebody who can control the room better. Don't run and hide by turning of cameras and holding less briefings

The problem you are apparently ignoring is the grandstanding.

Fox News asks a question and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

ABC News asks another question and their reporter is on camera and on the news.

CBS News asks the same question as Fox with a negative spin and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news

MSNBC asks the same question as ABC and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

CNN asks the same question as CBS and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

That is how it goes.

2 questions and 20 minutes later....

So what?

You have no problem with that kind of bullshit grandstanding? I guess you are the problem.

 

[koshergrl]

Those pressers don't keep anybody accountable or transparent. In fact, the primary objective of the pressers, from their inception, has been to collude with the press in a way to create less transparency. This president isn't interested in doing it, and the people who elected him aren't interested in having him be harrassed by little turds on live video, on a daily basis.

He gets harassed either way. Taking away a voice that can explain their side of the story in more than 140 characters should be a useful tool for Trump and his team. They obviously can handle the heat and can't keep up with Trumps flip flops so now they are tucking tail. Sorry chica but thats whats going on.

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

No, it's NOT.

All the antifa crowd think that "freedom of speech" means they have the right to attack as well. It's not the same thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to slander, libel, harrass public officials and that they must endure it.

And such is not required for *transparency*.

Freedom of speech means you can write a book. I don't have to read it, but you can write it. I don't have to answer questions when you ask them of me..and you can write your opinion about that, and that is freedom of speech.

But freedom of speech is not the *right* to attack me verbally in front of an audience. It is not the right to print lies meant to economically or personally damage people. That isn't freedom of speech, honey, and if you think it is, you may find yourself in deep shit some day when you talk smack about the wrong person, provided anybody listens.

And that's the thing. People do listen to journalists. Journalists used to be held to an ethical code.

They aren't any more. commies took over the schools, and the press. So **** the propagandists and what they want. Nobody has to give them an audience, nobody has to listen to them, and nobody has to talk to them.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

Then perhaps they should... You're right I don't know the ins and outs of those laws. I'm all for accountability for our media. I just want the truth from EVERYBODY

So, Harry Reid should have been locked up when he said Trump hadn't paid any taxes in 20 years? Using your standards, there wouldn't be anyone left to run the country!

 

[koshergrl]

The news use to be free,(TV stations did not make money off the news) now its all money making hype, talking over each other and opinion,opinion. the owners don't want to spend the money it takes to get clear facts, people love the hype, most news was dry. we tented to trust the person giving the news. how many people watch C span & get it from the horses mouth.

News was never free.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, let them ban one reporter for misconduct in the press room and this board and the MSM would light up with claims of censorship. You do know televised press briefings didn't start till the 90s during the Clinton administration, just because a technology is available doesn't mean it has to be used. The press has no right to dictate how they receive information.


.

When a communications system that has been around for over 20 years is now being restricted and changed in a way that provides less transparency and communication to the American people.... then we have the right to question it and voice our opinion. I said I respect you opinion of being OK with it, I hope you respect mine to object

Less transparency, how so? They get the same information and time in the audio only briefings. Do you have to see a person speaking to understand what they said, if so how do you use a telephone?

.

I think turing off the cameras results in less people tuning in. It also takes away the viewers ability to see the speakers body language and facial expressions while tackling questions. Holding less pressers speaks for itself.

I'd bet if you did a poll of non political junkies you'd find 90+% of voting age Americans care or are even aware of the change.


.

Probably not... so what?

Why are you pushing your petty opinion of what the administration is doing to the American people, when you admit most Americans likely don't share your opinion?

Also don't ask for opinions in your OP when you're not prepared to accept those opinions as valid. I think we're done here.


.

 

[koshergrl]

Those pressers don't keep anybody accountable or transparent. In fact, the primary objective of the pressers, from their inception, has been to collude with the press in a way to create less transparency. This president isn't interested in doing it, and the people who elected him aren't interested in having him be harrassed by little turds on live video, on a daily basis.

He gets harassed either way. Taking away a voice that can explain their side of the story in more than 140 characters should be a useful tool for Trump and his team. They obviously can handle the heat and can't keep up with Trumps flip flops so now they are tucking tail. Sorry chica but thats whats going on.

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Refusing to speak to the press is not LIMITING THE PRESS you ******* yahoo.

The press just has the right to write what they learn. They have no authority to FORCE PEOPLE TO TALK TO THEM.

Good grief. Go back to school.

 

[sartre play]

The news use to be free,(TV stations did not make money off the news) now its all money making hype, talking over each other and opinion,opinion. the owners don't want to spend the money it takes to get clear facts, people love the hype, most news was dry. we tented to trust the person giving the news. how many people watch C span & get it from the horses mouth.

News was never free.

Yes it was, in terms that stations did not expect to make a profit off the news, maybe your to young to remember.

 

[OKTexas]

He gets harassed either way. Taking away a voice that can explain their side of the story in more than 140 characters should be a useful tool for Trump and his team. They obviously can handle the heat and can't keep up with Trumps flip flops so now they are tucking tail. Sorry chica but thats whats going on.

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

Really? When was the last time that one of those cases was not thrown out of court for the very reason I stated?

 

[Slade3200]

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

These are supposed to be grown men and women if at this point in their lives a code of conduct needs to be implemented to get them to act like grown ups we have bigger problems than limiting exposure.

I don't think we need a code of conduct, I think the press has every right to press the WH. If they can't take the scrutiny then grow some balls and deal with it. Do better answering questions or get somebody who can control the room better. Don't run and hide by turning of cameras and holding less briefings

The problem you are apparently ignoring is the grandstanding.

Fox News asks a question and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

ABC News asks another question and their reporter is on camera and on the news.

CBS News asks the same question as Fox with a negative spin and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news

MSNBC asks the same question as ABC and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

CNN asks the same question as CBS and their reporter is on camera and their reporter is on the news.

That is how it goes.

2 questions and 20 minutes later....

So what?

You have no problem with that kind of bullshit grandstanding? I guess you are the problem.

Explain yourself... What is your issue exactly?

 

[Divine Wind]

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?

It's an idiotic decision that only makes them look paranoid, stupid and out of touch. I don't blame Spicer, I blame his boss...whoever that is.

 

[Slade3200]

He gets harassed either way. Taking away a voice that can explain their side of the story in more than 140 characters should be a useful tool for Trump and his team. They obviously can handle the heat and can't keep up with Trumps flip flops so now they are tucking tail. Sorry chica but thats whats going on.

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Refusing to speak to the press is not LIMITING THE PRESS you ******* yahoo.

The press just has the right to write what they learn. They have no authority to FORCE PEOPLE TO TALK TO THEM.

Good grief. Go back to school.

I never said that the press should force anybody to speak to them nor did I say it was a crime for Trump not to speak to they press.

 

[OKTexas]

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

Really? When was the last time that one of those cases was not thrown out of court for the very reason I stated?

6 most successful celebrity libel and slander cases

There are many more out there.


.

 

[Divine Wind]

I know what's going on, thanks. Take your commie bs to someone else. **** the pressers. They need to go entirely away.

And we need to start prosecuting so-called "journalists" when they print lies.

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

If there is malice, let it be proven. The fact remains that Trump hurts his own agenda with his Tweets. It makes him look petty, spiteful and overly emotional. His base will continue to support him, but his favorability numbers speak for themselves. His fans can scream "fake news" all they like, but the November 2018 elections will come as big a shock to them as the November 2016 was to Hillary fans.

American voters are not as ******* stupid as the partisan assholes want us to believe.

 

[Divine Wind]

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

Really? When was the last time that one of those cases was not thrown out of court for the very reason I stated?

6 most successful celebrity libel and slander cases

There are many more out there.


.

Not quite following the conversation here, but who here thinks the Republicans want to see their agenda diverted with a 12-18 months long court case? I know the Democrats would looooove it!

 

[koshergrl]

2017’s top free speech violations the mainstream media ignored (so far)

 

[OKTexas]

totally... maybe we should start burning all books written by liberals while we are at it!

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

If there is malice, let it be proven. The fact remains that Trump hurts his own agenda with his Tweets. It makes him look petty, spiteful and overly emotional. His base will continue to support him, but his favorability numbers speak for themselves. His fans can scream "fake news" all they like, but the November 2018 elections will come as big a shock to them as the November 2016 was to Hillary fans.

American voters are not as ******* stupid as the partisan assholes want us to believe.

Malice is easily proven. Look at all the doctors these networks have hired to break every medical ethic in the book to express opinions on a person they've never examined or even met. Not only is that medical malpractice, but it demonstrates clear malice on the part of the networks.


.

 

[Slade3200]

Er..not the same. You still don't get it. I'm beginning to think you, like most of your brethren, are mentally incapacitated.

Freedom of speech, yes it is in the same arena.. Limit the press, limit speech, limit ones ability to ask hard questions... not cool in my book. We have Libel and Slander laws, i'm fine with enforcing those. Outside of that I don't think the Feds should be shutting down reporters. That is a dangerous road. But you have every right to support it if you want.

Apparently you do not understand slander and libel laws. They do not apply to public figures.

They do when malice is proven, I think that would be easy to prove.


.

If there is malice, let it be proven. The fact remains that Trump hurts his own agenda with his Tweets. It makes him look petty, spiteful and overly emotional. His base will continue to support him, but his favorability numbers speak for themselves. His fans can scream "fake news" all they like, but the November 2018 elections will come as big a shock to them as the November 2016 was to Hillary fans.

American voters are not as ******* stupid as the partisan assholes want us to believe.

Malice is easily proven. Look at all the doctors these networks have hired to break every medical ethic in the book to express opinions on a person they've never examined or even met. Not only is that medical malpractice, but it demonstrates clear malice on the part of the networks.


.

Where they giving opinion analysis or facts?

If facts can you provide a few examples?