I mean it may not be as much of a requirement now in the age of live TV and internet streaming, but if we're going to argue about norms then certainly the norm of sending reporters to actually report on stuff is kind of important.
It's certainly helpful for the White House to distill information into an easy-to-digest press briefing. But the AP, Time, and other barred and protesting organizations are certainly capable of reporting on what actually happens rather than what they're told at a press briefing. Reuters described it aptly here:
> Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one.
> Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.
> Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world...
That said, I do appreciate their taking a stand on principle. Just pointing out the likely future outcome.
Maybe he is, and maybe this is a tiny piece of a multi-year plot. Or maybe not.
What I don't understand is why so many tolerate his lies.
I hope the resources put in limbo by this can be devoted to investigating and reporting some independent and accurate accounts of what's happening.
Such as, say, refuting every false statement that is coming from the press room podium.
I'd pay for that paper.
What would we miss? Another story about spin?
Of course the GOP is going to contract voting rights as much as possible in the interim, so it's going to be a battle.
Liberals don't vote. Will that change?
If you are a liberal, do not fall into the same trap the conservatives did after their loss in 2012. They believed that there was a Missing Conservative Voter Who Stayed Home, who could be won over if the party went further rightward. Ted Cruz bet his whole candidacy on that. Trump is proof that voter either isn’t real or isn't motivated by ideology.
I don't know what the Democrat version of Trump is going to be, but there will be space for one if you assume that there's Missing Liberal Voters Who Stayed Home and all you have to do is go further leftward to pick them up.
1. Obama voters flipped for Trump (this actually happened in PA)
2. Moderate voters may have stayed home or flipped.
3. Some races were not terribly competitive, so people stayed home even though it would not have mattered for them to vote (e.g. the CA Senate race between two Democrats)
I mean, if you're really a liberal, would you have not voted? Exceptions perhaps being carved out for people who objected specifically to Hillary Clinton because of her other problems... which would mean Democrats need to pick better people as candidates.
Agreed. Democrats need to choose young, dashing, charismatic, unimpeachable candidates at every level. This is how dems get excited and actually vote.
Conservatives vote based on policy.
Liberals vote based on the person. This is their (our) failure.
The Democrats won the popular vote by 3 million votes, so this doesn't seem right. But for some surgical gerrymandering we might not be having a conversation about President Trump at all.
Also known as "state lines", a great many of which have been in place for over a century.
There are a couple states that assign Presidential electors on a basis of two to the statewide winner plus one to the winner in each Congressional district, rather than winner-take-all, so Congressional districting (including gerrymandering) does have a direct effect on Presidential election s as well as House elections.
Everyone knows that gerrymandering is the only way Republicans ever get any votes — really they should get zero!
But I have this crazy hope that Trump will awaken some of these voters to progressive politics.
Edit: apparently this is already happening. Time and AP among those who chose not to attend.
"Obama shuts Fox out of press briefings related to Benghazi" 
"The Obama White House went to war against Fox News": Jake Tapper. 
"Fishbowl DC has been keeping tabs of which media outlets have been allowed to ask a question at President-elect Barack Obama’s five press conferences so far. They report Fox News is 0–5. “Questions instead went to such outlets as ABC, New York Times, CBS, Reuters and the Associated Press.”" 
"In 2010, President Obama said that Fox News had a point of view which was “ultimately destructive” for America...The University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier tallied up the number of questions each member of the White House press corp had been able to ask during all of Obama’s first term press conferences. ABC, CBS, the Associated Press and NBC led the pack, with ABC having been selected for questioning 29 times over 36 solo press conferences. (Overall, reporters have had fewer chances to ask questions than any White House press corps since Ronald Reagan’s.)...Fox News, though it has a reach that far outstrips its competitors and sometimes rivals the broadcast networks, was in ninth place on the list, having been called on 14 times...NBC’s Chuck Todd and ABC’s Jake Tapper (now at CNN) were called on the most of any reporters — they each got 23 chances to question Obama." 
"Mr. Axelrod said it was the view of the White House that Fox News had blurred the line between news and anti-Obama advocacy...By the following weekend, officials at the White House had decided that if anything, it was time to take the relationship to an even more confrontational level. The spur: Executives at other news organizations, including The New York Times, had publicly said that their newsrooms had not been fast enough in following stories that Fox News, to the administration’s chagrin, had been heavily covering through the summer and early fall — namely, past statements and affiliations of the White House adviser Van Jones that ultimately led to his resignation and questions surrounding the community activist group Acorn...Those reports included a critical segment on the schools safety official Kevin Jennings, with the on-screen headline “School Czar’s Past May Be Too Radical”; urgent news coverage of a video showing schoolchildren “singing the praises, quite literally, of the president,” which the Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson later called “pure Khmer Rouge stuff”...There followed, beginning in earnest more than two weeks ago, an intensified volley of White House comments describing Fox as “not a news network.”...Then, in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday, the president went public. “What our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes,” he said. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another.”...“We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional news organization,” said Dan Pfeiffer, the deputy White House communications director." 
December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight. 
March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.” 
This has been a relatively slow news week, I get the feeling someone needs a little attention?
Sooner or later there will be a real issue and most of us are going to tune it out because CNN/NYT/Others have treated every day since he took office as the 2nd coming of Hitler and beginning of WW3.
there's also 6+ other news organizations in there -- not all trump friendly. I just don't see how CNN being excluded equates to the end of freedom of the press. The reach of those included is far greater than those explicitly excluded.
A huge pillar of the press in the US is that it keeps the president in check. You can't be the one regulating what keeps you in check. Have you ever heard the phrase "judge, jury and executioner"?
I'll bite. Give us some examples, please.
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13727131 and marked it off-topic.
God forbid one doesn't immediately leap up and denounce $POLITICIAN in the impromptu Two Minutes' Hate.
In response to both the topic in hand and HN users down-voting w/e they disagree:
"They have shut up all their fools in a house apart, to make sure that they are wise men themselves." - Dostoyevsky
It failed to give a honest account of Cuba , Vietnam , Iraq , Syria  (Nicaragua, Guatemala, and so on). In fact, it lied about it. That had deadly consequences for millions of humans.
To answer your introductory clause: Not trying to paint myself as the victim or w/e.
I'm not saying that's not true (I'm not a Trump supporter), but what sticks out to you as an instance of him doubling down on a lie?
Edit: It's disappointing to be down voted rather than being directly engaged. If you have a beef with what I said, please tell me where I've erred. I would love to change my mind on this topic. This is Hacker News after all, not Reddit.
* Lying about his past opposition to the Iraq war
* Lying about Russia only hacking the DNC (they hacked the RNC too, or at least tried to, but didn't release anything)
* Lying about the size of the crowd at his inauguration
* Lying about his "historic" electoral win (it wasn't)
* Lying about the election being rigged against him (before the election)
* Lying about the state of African American communities
* Lying about inner-city crime rates
* Lying about Obama and Clinton literally "founding" ISIS
* Lying about Ted Cruz's father being involved in the JFK assassination
* Lying about his charitable donations and activities
* Lying about his inability to release his tax returns because of an ongoing IRS audit
* Lying about his association with David Duke and the white national movement
* Lying about his history and relationship with Vladimir Putin
That's just a taste. I could go on.
> Lying about his past support for the Iraq war
Go watch his Howard Stern interview yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU_Vrb_QXo. Listen at how indecisive he is for that question compared to the rest of the interview. It's wishy washy. It's hesitant. It's not a statement of support to call someone a liar over, unless you have an agenda.
You can't address other users like that on Hacker News, so please don't do it again.
Also, this account has been using HN exclusively for political battle. That's an abuse of this site and we ban accounts that do it. The purpose of HN is to gratify intellectual curiosity. It can't both be that kind of site and a political battlefield.
That's a lie, and one he's repeated often. Wishy-washy, hesitant support for a thing is not the same as being totally against a thing. His assertion that he was in opposition to it from the very beginning is a deliberate, egregious misrepresentation of his past views intended to convey authority on a subject that he simply does not possess.
I'll update the wording of my initial point to be more clear, since you have my original wording quoted here for posterity.
"[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on 8-Sep-2016
Considering that the vote was on 11-Oct-2002, and we have audio of Trump expressing hesitant, wishy-washy support for the war on 11-Sep-2002, that is almost certainly not true.
> "[H]ad I been in Congress at the time of the invasion, I would have cast a vote in opposition." — Donald Trump at an education event on September 8th, 2016
You can't disprove a hypothetical situation that never happened to call him a liar. Who knows what he would have done if he had been in congress instead of a businessman. It's clear though he was questioning it publicly as early as 2003 in the Cavuto interview, which was before the war started, and came out totally against it publicly in 2004 less than a year after it started. Who knows what he was saying privately before that. You don't know. This isn't grounds to call him a liar.
If you remove that from your defense of him, there is nothing left.
He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.
When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.
When he does that, he is lying.
There is no evidence whatever to support any other conclusion. Anything that comes from after the war was in progress is of no relevance.
Claim 1: Trump says he was against the war before it started. In the Cavuto interview he's questioning the war, and he says he used to argue with Sean Hannity about it. Sean Hannity backed this up. There's no reason to doubt this.
Claim 2: Trump says he's different from his opponents because he came out strongly against the war before anyone else did. That's a fact and there's plenty of evidence.
Then comes the spin. The media will mix the two statements together to say Trump said he came out strongly against the war before it started. They'll use this to call him a liar. Try to find me one example of him saying he came out strongly against the war before it started. You can't, because he never did.
This is why people don't trust the media.
Claiming he was against the war, after it started is irrelevant. It doesn't matter how many times you act as though it is.
One person saying they had a private argument with him before the war is also irrelevant. How many other people had private arguments but didn't express these reservations publicly?
If Trump was against the war before it started and had been brave enough to say so there would be evidence.
There is not. You can support Trump without having to be his propaganda ministry. The man makes false statements.
Hillary has nothing to do with Trump's lies. And no failure of hers excuses him of anything.
It looks like you can't defend him anymore.
If you seriously don't see Trump lying, it probably is better for you to bow out.
It’s not irrelevant when someone claims "I was totally against the war in Iraq” is a lie. That's provably true.
> He was weakly in support of the war before it started. That is a fact.
Very weakly after he was asked the question for the first time. It’s utterly irrelevant.
> When he says he was against the way, he says it to differentiate himself from the people who voted for it.
Yes. Because those that voted for the war did not come out against it until much later, if they even did at all. He came out against it early.
> When he does that, he is lying.
Nope. That doesn't follow from what you wrote. Do you want to try again?
>The administration has taken increasing steps in recent weeks and months to isolate the TV network, with some Capitol Hill veterans recalling no such similar steps by any president since Richard Nixon’s retaliation against The New York Times and The Washington Post during Watergate.
>“The point is this, and it really needs to be made: Fox is not just another television network,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a close Obama ally. “Fox has become the official/semi-official voice for the Republican Party, in opposition to the president. And I think calling them out is the only way to delegitimize them as political propaganda.”
"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs still calls on Fox News reporter Major Garrett at press briefings"
...because the reporter was in the press briefing.
The journalists we're discussing now could not have been called on, as they were denied access.
Does it not seem like a bad thing that your president is excluding media that are critical of him from press briefings? Doesn't that seem like it might not be a good thing for the general well-being of the nation?
Thankfully this stunt is probably going to cause the NYT's subscription rate to go even higher than it currently is and will probably break another subscription record this month.
Just as one example, CNN was reporting on that fake new about the "golden showers."
In fact, they never even released the dossier -- they only reported that the classified documents were presented to Obama and Trump. Your post is some serious disinformation.
1) Get a dossier from an anonymous source claiming X did Y. According to you, it doesn't even have to exist.
2) Report on the existence of the dossier, making sure to click-bait the hell out the Y.
3) When criticized, respond that you are are "just reporting."
How well would it go over with you if Fox had started reporting on the existence of an a dossier from an anonymous source saying that former President Obama had a faked birth certificate?
The source (unless you are referring to some intermediary source that delivered the dossier to the media rather than the original source) is not anonymous; media covered his background more than his identity because "former British intelligence officer" conveys more meaningful information than "Christopher Steele".
But if you have, say, an email sent by Bill Clinton to NSA urging to investigate Obama's secret Kenyan birthplace as documented by an officer of Mossad, feel free to share with us.
The difference between what Trump has done here and what prior administrations did is the publicity and brazen transparency around it. I find it amusing that people think this is somehow a terrible, ominous event. This is a trifling thing compared to the egregious ethical violations and corruption, especially around information dissemination through the press, that has existed in this institution for decades.
The most interesting and concerning thing about it is the apparent weight given to these briefings. Except in very rare circumstances (e.g. killing of OBL, some attack like 9/11), these things are basically just PR displays by the administration. They serve no newsworthy purpose.
You might not like Trump, and you might have good reasons but the above is true all the same. And, he is sitting president of the USA right now, irrespective of how you feel about him, his platforms and his supporters.
The amount of vitriol involving Trump is ridiculous. It really is. I'm not saying Trump has good manners (because he doesn't) but the press hasn't been many steps behind in utter nastiness. And they have, in most cases, stopped even pretending to be objective. It's gotten where I can't even watch or read the news anymore. It's just irrational nastiness from one side or the other with zero nuance.
I don't know where this all ends if we stay on the trajectory. Gang warfare and cutting off heads maybe. Seems the veneer of civilization indeed might be pretty thin. Maybe we might have to relearn the hard way about the things we take for granted in the social order.
Can you point out any significant press coverage of Trump's nastiness that qualifies as "irrational"?
If the press reports on Trump's nastiness, does that make the press nasty?
Sure but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
"As appealing as it might be for some people to believe your comment it doesn't pass the basic sniff test."
- mythrwy, 13 days ago
You aren't going to be able to "prove me wrong" because what we are talking about here is largely a matter of nuance and opinion. Or manifest and obvious fact if you'd rather see it like that. I know what facts I see. Feel free to register your disagreement.
Hence that whole Flynn thing. Or did Trump fire a guy over a fake story?
You seem to think you're a professor we're all dying to listen to. Make a point or get the fuck out.
No matter what the behavior of other users it's never okay on HN to be uncivil.
Everybody's political feelings are inflamed these days, so we all need to work together to prevent this site from going down in flames.
I understand and accept some people disagree and probably have valid reasons for doing so. Fine. Accepted.
But back the original point, I just don't understand nor get on any level the mouth foaming hatred. It doesn't appear rational. Seems like disagreement would be enough and so much more effective.
Similar for leaks, which are always going to happen. You can't stop leaks, but you can prevent bad things from leaking by not doing bad things.
Absolutism without the admission of nuance historically leads down a dark road with a pit at the end.
I understand you think Trump is wrong and liar. But that doesn't excuse the behavior of the press in this regard. They do themselves no favors and neither do those who aren't "overreacting" while spewing vitriol.
Nastiness and lack of good manners isn't my preferred response to lack of good manners. Because if it keeps escalating it winds up in a very bad place.
There was a time people were close enough to a natural state they knew this. They bowed. They chose their words carefully and respectfully. They treated others, even strangers, by custom with a measure of consideration. And there likely were good evolutionary reasons for this which we have apparently forgotten. Now we figure with a credit card and a laptop we can do whatever and civilization will protect us. But this is just an artificial (albeit important) construct.