Try visiting boards you don't normally visit, starting with the 'All Boards' link above. Or request a new board by posting to 'Any Missing Board Requested Here'.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 14
The right loves the 1st Amendment, except when they don't.
Trump administration moves to handpick members of White House press pool
White House Moves to Pick the Pool Reporters Who Cover Trump
In announcing plans to handpick the reporters who can ask the president questions, the White House is breaking decades of precedent.
There is a stench of fascism in the air.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Patrimonialism.
No matter how good, storied, neutral, or well-reputed an outlet is, if they dare say Gulf of Mexico, they're out. But we've got room for OAN, which is worse than the Weekly World News.
No. of Recommendations: 2
You mean it's ok for a CEO to say "I don't agree with day marriage"
It's ok for someone on the school district to say "no more boys in the girls bathroom"
You mean it's ok to question and disagree on Climate Change?
Because you Putin Stalin Liberal Soviets have tried to squelch free speech all your lives.
BTW, are you done calling for the Fairness Doctrine, you free speech haters?
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 7
Biden threw out >400 reporters. Board was silent. Ooops.
Did you read the article. It said 1 pass denied, 400 expired. Perhaps that is why the board was silent, a non event.
Aussi
No. of Recommendations: 2
Did you read the article. It said 1 pass denied, 400 expired. Perhaps that is why the board was silent, a non event.
Had it been Trump, it would have been a massive thing.
All today's announcement noted was that they're not going to let the WHCA call the shots anymore. The WHCA has been a biased entity for a looong time. Why should they get to control who has access to the White House press pool? Why should they be the sole (and unaccountable only to themselves) arbiter of press coverage?
The answer is "hell no they shouldn't" to both. Let some podcasters in there and alternative media; they probably have more integrity and less bias than most of what passes for "journalism" these days.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Fascists on the Left don't like non corporate media getting access.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And just to hammer home how biased the WHCA is, the President of it announced today that he's leaving Politico...
...to join MSNBC. LOL!
No. of Recommendations: 1
Did you read the article. It said 1 pass denied, 400 expired. Perhaps that is why the board was silent, a non event.
No need to read, just listen to FOX 'news'.
No. of Recommendations: 14
I worked in the Bush and Obama WH. Saw zero reporters thrown out, other than the occasional Helen Thomas type dustup. Was not even a matter discussed, at any level, in even the vaguest sense. In fact, many reporters were reasonably friendly with many members of both staffs, if not occasionally testy. Only today do we see an obsession with false information operations narratives, and an upheaval of unfettered press access.
Nineteen Eighty Four wasn't a how-to guide, good people.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Since everything that comes out of the Trump White House is a lie, is it worth bothering to cover press conferences or speeches, or should the real press just investigate the lies?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Since everything that comes out of the Trump White House is a lie, is it worth bothering to cover press conferences or speeches, or should the real press just investigate the lies?
Now that the White House press corps is being stripped of those reporters who might accidentally tell the truth, that simplifies our effort to identify disreputable news sources.
If it comes from the White House or the White House press corps, it’s a Press Fabulist Fairy Tale- Pfft.
Unfortunately, the reverse is not necessarily true. If it’s not Pfft, we are still left with the task of reading it with a critical eye.
