Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in a normal situation i would agree with you, however these are not normal situations. the public has rejected the media's attempt to smear trump in the extreme, and voted him into office. if the media continues to attack him, they will find themselves more and more on the outs with the american people.
No, that's really not the case. Donald Trump won the election fair and square, but it was not a Reagan-style sweep of the American electorate. A lot of people distrust Mr. Trump, and he has extremely poor approval ratings as he enters office. He needs to be conciliatory toward the press and to use them to build support for his administration's goals. To be anything but is to invite trouble. A lot of trouble.
Because it makes the administration look as if it has something to hide. I'm telling you, the whole "press as mortal enemy" approach is going to come back to bite Trump. If the White House restricts the flow of information, the press will double-down on digging up whatever will earn them viewers, and they're going to look to Trump rather than the issues. You may think that it's a Twitter world, but a good part of this country still gets its news from tradition media and is influenced accordingly. Trump really does not want to alienate the White House press corps. He needs to extend an olive branch, and the sooner the better.
They aren't given free reign to cruise around the West Wing looking to get a scoop. They are brought in at a certain time, escorted to the press room and then escorted out.
If implemented, that's a good idea. There is no good reason or need to house the press in the White House. This will afford more space for the White House staff.
Across the street should from the White House should meet the needs of the press.
ok... 2 problems with this:
1. more room for WH staff? They are seriously not going to put any family members in that basement room.
2. this is yet another version of the congressional ethics issue - jerking the press around and restricting access just looks bad, even if it is innocent. (yeah, I really choked on that 'even if it is innocent' part, because we all know it isn't)
No, that's really not the case. Donald Trump won the election fair and square, but it was not a Reagan-style sweep of the American electorate. A lot of people distrust Mr. Trump, and he has extremely poor approval ratings as he enters office. He needs to be conciliatory toward the press and to use them to build support for his administration's goals. To be anything but is to invite trouble. A lot of trouble.
No decision is made yet. Not sure how I feel about it either way to be honest. I think having them close by is to our advantage, but not doing so is not a huge deal either.
Shrug.
If the media reported actual facts instead of opinion I would be angry. The fact is the media has evolved into tabloid journalism and that's being kind.
They aren't given free reign to cruise around the West Wing looking to get a scoop. They are brought in at a certain time, escorted to the press room and then escorted out.
I guess some people don't understand this.
I do understand that. I also understand that this move looks like retaliation, and it's a dangerous game to play with the press.
Reading the NYT, WaPo and watching CNN, MSNBC during the election was like hearing about an alternate universe.
Trump would be on the stump talking about lost factory jobs in Ohio, PA due to NAFTA, the MSM would talk about how there were web designer jobs in Brooklyn due to NAFTA. Trump would be talking about illegal aliens taking jobs away from citizens, the MSM would run a tear-jerker identity politics piece about how illegals didn't have enough social assistance. Wikileaks would detail the collusion of MSM media with Clinton, and the MSM would be days late even trying to imply there was nothing new. Wikeleaks would show the Clinton Foundation's dirty laundry, and the MSM would just ignore it.
The NYT even hired a reporter after he allowed Podesta basically to edit a piece about Podesta.
The MSM has made itself irrelevant. The notion that minnow news sites will now get to sit beside the MSM makes total sense.
I'm pretty sure the Press is discrediting themselves. It's time for them to prove themselves worthy.
I think you are getting confused between the reporting that the White House Press Corp does versus an opinion discussion (not news) that occurs on a cable news channel. Cable news channels don't have 24x7 news and lots of the shows are just round table discussions and debates between people that are giving their opinion. This isn't news and never was intended to be news.
But news reports coming from White House Press Corp Reporters are just simple news reports that are done with straight camera shots and real Q and A interviews and real reporters with microphones at live events doing old fashioned on-site reporting ( straight reporting, no opinions or debates).
Although the White House Press Corp has reporters from lots of stations, not just cable stations.
If someone doesn't like to watch the news, they don't have to. But lots of us want to see the straight reports.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
