White House bans CNN et al from press briefing

[SoulSearcher101]

Twitter in freefall after White House bans several news organisations from attending a press briefing - notice the wording from Reuters:

www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media-idUSKBN1632JG?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=Social

"Spicer's off-camera briefing, or "gaggle," replaced the usual televised daily news briefing on Friday in the White House briefing room. He did not say why those particular news organizations were excluded, a decision which drew strong protests"

"Off-camera gaggles are not unusual. The White House often invites handpicked outlets in for briefings, typically for specific topics. But briefings and gaggles in the White House are usually open to all outlets and they are free to ask anything."

[RortyCrankle]

I'm not surprised - CNN was apparently otherwise known as Clinton News Network during the election.

[PhoenixJasmine]

Yes, but the election is over, although I'm not sure Trump has noticed, as he seems to still be campaigning.

[Cleebope]

This is seriously disturbing. We all need to resist and stop this twat from threatening freedom of speech.

[SoulSearcher101]

This was a press conference with Spicer I believe.

[Out2pasture]

but ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, Reuters, Bloomberg and a few others i'm not familiar with were...

[Destinysdaughter]

BBC was banned too!

[Cleebope]

A select group invited in but some saying they had no idea others were blocked and they wouldn't have agreed to it had they known. The press must stand together on this. So counter productive for Spicer, are they too thick to realise this?

[Imbroglio]

Really worrying.

[Destinysdaughter]

The BBC has said they will continue to be 'fair and impartial'. Fuck that, they should use Trump for calling them 'fake news'!

[AnguaResurgam]

Well, both the left and the right complain about BBC bias so it's not exactly new territory for them!

In US, there are (I think) no news channels which are obliged to be neutral in the way the BBC (usually?) is. And as long as there are plenty of large organisations present the absence of one or more is not going to make much difference.

And the debate about the role of the media is a good thing in itself.

Should major channels be partisan? Should partisan channels have the same access as others?

[myoriginal3]

Very Stalin-esque.

[dalek]

Just read about this.

It feels like the White House is losing touch with reality. Don't want to hijack but thesis one of the many reasons Trump should not be invited on a State visit to the UK. Presumably only Trump friendly news agencies will be allowed in there as well.

[myoriginal3]

Communist propaganda in the Soviet Union was extensively based on the Marxism-Leninism ideology to promote the Communist Party line. In societies with pervasive censorship, propaganda was omnipresent and vigorously enforced. It penetrated even social and natural sciences giving rise to various pseudo-scientific theories like Lysenkoism, whereas fields of real knowledge, as genetics, cybernetics, and comparative linguistics were condemned and forbidden as "bourgeois pseudoscience". With "truths repressed, falsehoods in every field were incessantly rubbed in print, at endless meetings, in school, in mass demonstrations, on the radio".[1]
The main Soviet censorship body, Glavlit, was employed not only to eliminate any undesirable printed materials, but also "to ensure that the correct ideological spin was put on every published item". In the Stalin Era, deviation from the dictates of official propaganda was punished by execution and labor camps. In the post-Stalin era, these punitive measures were replaced by punitive psychiatry, prison, denial of work, and loss of citizenship. "Today a man only talks freely to his wife – at night, with the blankets pulled over his head", said writer Isaac Babel privately to a trusted friend.[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_Soviet_Union


It's mental how this loolah is allowed free reign in this day and age. Then again, they do say history repeats itself. What's it going to take?

[Itwasthenandstillis]

He is still campaigning. The rally he did last week -can't remember where - was paid for by his 2020 campaign fund.

[PhoenixJasmine]

Does he automatically get to defend the presidency for a second term, or does he have to be re-selected as the candidate for the Republican Party (or stand as an independent?)

[Itwasthenandstillis]

Just Google this phoenixj - no it is not automatic.

[20nil]

This is genuinely the most worrying news to have come out of the WH since Trump was elected.

[Dulra]

PhoenixJasmine he automatically gets to stand in 2020. I think it was either his first or second day in office that he filed the papers to stand again in 2020.

In think the main loser in this whole Trump saga is American democracy. I never realised it was such a flawed and in essence undemocratic system. The electoral college vote fiasco, the fact that a president can appoint pretty much whoever he likes to cabinet positions. In most democratic systems Dept. ministers are appointed by Prime Ministers but they have to be elected MP's. I also wonder what the opposition are doing there doesn't seem to be any.