Fesitvus! But only for Trump...

[GMDino]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/21/502951630/trump-airs-greivances-fields-questions-in-meeting-with-top-tv-news-figures?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2049

Quote:Trump Airs Grievances, Fields Questions In Meeting With Top TV News Figures


Earlier Monday at Trump Tower in New York City, President-elect Donald Trump, top aides and advisers including Kellyanne Conway, Reince Priebus and Sean Spicer met with executives and anchors from five major television networks. Trump used the opportunity to admonish the network's journalists and executives for what he said was the networks' unfair coverage of him. But he also said he wanted to re-frame his relationship with the press and took extensive questions about policy and his intentions in office.

This account is largely based on an interview with an attendee who took detailed notes.
Among the participants from the news side were ABC's George Stephanopoulos and David Muir, NBC's Lester Holt and NBC news president Deborah Turness, CBS's John Dickerson, Gayle King, and Norah O'Donnell, Fox News' Bill Shine and Jay Wallace, MSNBC's Phil Griffin, and CNN's Wolf Blitzer and Jeff Zucker. The meeting's content was to be off-the-record but many participants were photographed as they entered through the Trump Tower lobby. The New York Post's Page Six gossip site had a detailed version that appeared to put the event in the most contentious light possible.

Trump started the meeting by saying how great it was for so many network news anchors to be there, calling it unprecedented and citing it as a reflection of the importance of his election. Ultimately, Blitzer noted that such meetings were a fairly common annual ritual between presidents and anchors ahead of State of the Union addresses. Trump then said the presence of the executives made the meeting unprecedented.

Trump lit out after Zucker, criticizing his former business partner (Zucker was head of NBC during Trump's Apprentice franchise on the network) for CNN. He turned then to NBC, saying it was the worst, criticizing its reporters, and saying it could not even come up with a flattering picture to broadcast. His complaint: the network's photographs showed him with multiple chins. NBC President Deborah Turness replied that wasn't true - NBC right now is using a photograph that shows Trump in very flattering way, she said. Trump also criticized a reporter who he said was in the room who had moderated a debate but who he had been told was very upset when Clinton lost. Presumably that was a reference to ABC's Martha Raddatz or NBC's Lester Holt.

Conway interceded to say that the new Trump administration appreciated the press corps's hard work during the campaign and wanted a reset on its relationship to the press. Trump concurred and repeated the point, though he said he disliked the phrase "reset" because it reminded him of Hillary Clinton's initial outreach to the Russians when she was starting as Secretary of State.

Trump said he wanted a relationship with the press that was "cordial and productive." CBS's Gayle King asked what would constitute such a relationship but it wasn't clear what that meant beyond off the record meetings such as that one.

After that first 10 to 15 minutes, according to this attendee, Trump invited questions about his policies, appointments, and intentions, showing an interest in detail and implications.

The participant who spoke to NPR said Trump appeared as though he was irritated but working the refs, as when then President George W. Bush complained the press was acting as the filter of his remarks and policies. However a second source - a network official debriefed by colleagues who attended - said it did not feel like a reset of the relationship to them.

The off-the-record meeting lasted about an hour. And Trump posted a video on social media - bypassing the conventional press - to explain to the public, on the record, how the presidential transition was proceeding.

Four years of him taking everything negative personally.  Should be a lot of fun.

[Benton]

he says something and an hour later says he didn't say it. I'm honestly not sure what he expects out of the press outside of asking them to be as flexible as his social media accounts.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 10:24 AM)Benton Wrote: he says something and an hour later says he didn't say it. I'm honestly not sure what he expects out of the press outside of asking them to be as flexible as his social media accounts.

Well for one he wants more flattering pictures.

It's almost like he had no idea what he was getting himself into.

[Mike M (the other one)]

Good for him. If they lie again, cut them from the box period and watch their stock tumble.
We have enough problems in the US with out the media blowing sensationalizing everything. The whole current racial divide can be traced back to the media's handling of Trayvon Martin.

[BmorePat87]

(11-22-2016, 12:20 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Good for him. If they lie again, cut them from the box period and watch their stock tumble.
We have enough problems in the US with out the media blowing sensationalizing everything. 

What should they do when he lies again? Just ignore it?

Quote:The whole current racial divide can be traced back to the media's handling of Trayvon Martin.

Yea, our country's current race relation problems can be traced back to the media covering a black kid being killed by a fat coward in 2012...






Damn media always trying to make things about race... They're probably the reason why we had Neo-Nazis holding a conference in DC this past week. 

[*bfine32*]

Seems someone in the meeting does not understand what off the record means.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems someone in the meeting does not understand what off the record means.

See I don't understand why the President (or any elected official) would want an off the record meeting.  Then it's "he said / he said".  have it recorded and then there is no doubt about conversation.

[*bfine32*]

(11-22-2016, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: See I don't understand why the President (or any elected official) would want an off the record meeting.  Then it's "he said / he said".  have it recorded and then there is no doubt about conversation.

I could think of a great many reasons an Elected Official would hold an off the record meeting and it probably happens much more than we know because they are off the record.

I will admit if you want an off the record meeting: a room full of journalists may not be a great audiance

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I could think of a great many reasons an Elected Official would hold an off the record meeting and it probably happens much more than we know because they are off the record.

I will admit if you want an off the record meeting: a room full of journalists may not be a great audiance

I know Scalia (maybe others) didn't allow their speeches outside of the courtroom to be recorded but people would take notes.  I just think that leaves too much up to interpretation.

[Benton]

(11-22-2016, 12:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems someone in the meeting does not understand what off the record means.

Nothing is off the record.

(11-22-2016, 12:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: See I don't understand why the President (or any elected official) would want an off the record meeting.  Then it's "he said / he said".  have it recorded and then there is no doubt about conversation.

It makes it easier to deny what was said. His board room negotiations aren't normally televised, so he can say whatever he wants and, if it comes back to bite him later, can take a Clinton and say "I don't recall that." He's hoping to get some of that ability with the press, but I don't see it happening outside of maybe Fox.

(11-22-2016, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know Scalia (maybe others) didn't allow their speeches outside of the courtroom to be recorded but people would take notes.  I just think that leaves too much up to interpretation.

Courtrooms are a little different. State laws vary, but, generally, a judge has the right to limit access to the court, to exclude recording devices and to prohibit photography. Outside the courtroom, they can be recorded like anyone else even without consent, so long as you're part of the conversation.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2016, 02:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Nothing is off the record.


It makes it easier to deny what was said. His board room negotiations aren't normally televised, so he can say whatever he wants and, if it comes back to bite him later, can take a Clinton and say "I don't recall that." He's hoping to get some of that ability with the press, but I don't see it happening outside of maybe Fox.



Courtrooms are a little different. State laws vary, but, generally, a judge has the right to limit access to the court, to exclude recording devices and to prohibit photography. Outside the courtroom, they can be recorded like anyone else even without consent, so long as you're part of the conversation.

I know why Trump did it...I was implying that.  But also saying that without a record there's nothing to keep that "lamestream media" from just making things up about him.

But Scalia didn't allow himself to be recorded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/us/scalia-apologizes-for-seizure-of-recordings.html?_r=0

Quote:Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court has apologized to two Mississippi reporters who were required to erase recordings of a speech he gave at a high school there on Wednesday.



The reporters, for The Associated Press and a local newspaper, had been told by a deputy federal marshal to destroy the recordings at the end of a half-hour speech by the justice at the Presbyterian Christian High School in Hattiesburg.


The marshal cited the justice's standing policy prohibiting the recording of his remarks. The policy had not been announced at the high school.


On Friday, Justice Scalia wrote the reporters to apologize, but his letters had not yet arrived on Monday, the two news organizations said, and the Supreme Court declined to release them.


Justice Scalia referred to the apologies in a separate letter mailed on Friday to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which had protested the marshal's actions. The committee released the letter on Monday.


Calling the organization's concern ''well justified,'' the justice wrote: ''You are correct that the action was not taken at my direction. I was as upset as you were.''


One of the reporters, Antoinette Konz of The Hattiesburg American, expressed appreciation for the apology. She said she was disturbed that her tape was confiscated. It was returned to her only after she promised to erase the justice's speech from it.


''I think it's very honorable of him,'' she said. ''I accept his apology. I am still upset about the entire incident.''

Justice Scalia said in the letter to the Reporters Committee that the controversy had caused him to revise his policy ''so as to permit recording for use of the print media'' to ''promote accurate reporting.'' He suggested that he had been misquoted in some accounts as saying ''people just don't revere'' the Constitution ''like they used to.'' But the letter did not set out his version of what he said, and a court spokesman declined to comment.



Justice Scalia indicated he would continue to ban the recording of his speeches by the broadcast press.

So eventually he allowed them to write it down, but no recording.

[Benton]

(11-22-2016, 02:22 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know why Trump did it...I was implying that.  But also saying that without a record there's nothing to keep that "lamestream media" from just making things up about him.

But Scalia didn't allow himself to be recorded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/us/scalia-apologizes-for-seizure-of-recordings.html?_r=0



So eventually he allowed them to write it down, but no recording.

And he's within his rights there, as it didn't meet the standard of a conversation. If the reporters had asked him questions off podium and attempted to record answers, he couldn't have done that. Although it would be interesting if it would meet the standard if Saclia had opened the floor to questions.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

(11-22-2016, 03:17 PM)Benton Wrote: And he's within his rights there, as it didn't meet the standard of a conversation. If the reporters had asked him questions off podium and attempted to record answers, he couldn't have done that. Although it would be interesting if it would meet the standard if Saclia had opened the floor to questions.

If Scalia would had opened the floor for questions, then the recording could begin since questions come fast and furious and no matter how fast you can write, a reporter wouldn't have been able to keep up.

I can understand why someone would say "No Recording" when that person is to give a statement or speech. Since a recording can be edited to make it sound like something else was said and having what was said in your own voice even if corrected later, that damage will be done and no amount of evidence will change it.

Anyone can say, "Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. It's a drain on our system and we are losing money hand over fist." a reporter or someone with an agenda can easily remover the word "Illegal" and make it sound as if that person is against immigration.

[Benton]

(11-22-2016, 05:32 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If Scalia would had opened the floor for questions, then the recording could begin since questions come fast and furious and no matter how fast you can write, a reporter wouldn't have been able to keep up.

I can understand why someone would say "No Recording" when that person is to give a statement or speech. Since a recording can be edited to make it sound like something else was said and having what was said in your own voice even if corrected later, that damage will be done and no amount of evidence will change it.

Anyone can say, "Something needs to be done about illegal immigration. It's a drain on our system and we are losing money hand over fist." a reporter or someone with an agenda can easily remover the word "Illegal" and make it sound as if that person is against immigration.

Good point, but it's more about federal wire tapping laws. Per the law, you can record someone you're having a conversation with; asking them a question and them responding (even if it's 'no comment') generally meets what most judges would consider requirements for a conversation.

As far as the last part, that's always a concern. But it goes back to ethics and credibility. Real journalists (not tv infotainment hosts who are just there to drive ratings) know their job only exists as long as what they write is the truth. Not the interpretation of the truth, but the actual things that happen, are said, or are in records. But real journalists are disappearing faster than high paying manufacturing jobs and honest politicians.

[*bfine32*]

(11-22-2016, 02:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Nothing is off the record.

I suppose that would depend on the ethics of the person you talked to.

[fredtoast]

The only legit purpose for an "off the record" conversation is when the information gathered in that conversation directs a reporter to another source of information. Sometimes the privacy of the source has to be protected or else the reporter will never get necessary information.

But wanting something to be "off the record" just so you can say stuff you don't want the public to hear is bullshit.

[6andcounting]

(11-22-2016, 12:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: What should they do when he lies again? Just ignore it?



Yea, our country's current race relation problems can be traced back to the media covering a black kid being killed by a fat coward in 2012...

Fat, so that's synonymous with lazy, right? 

Are you really using the lazy stereotype to describe a Hispanic right now?

I'm triggered. 

[BmorePat87]

(11-22-2016, 08:43 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Fat, so that's synonymous with lazy, right? 

Are you really using the lazy stereotype to describe a Hispanic right now?

I'm triggered. 

Go to Jungle Noise. It's your designated safe space now.

[tigerseye]

It seems to me the point of the meeting was to get the Main Stream Propaganda Outlets to quit lying through their teeth about everything and to get them to quit purposely sowing discord between everyone.

Main Strem Propaganda Outlet (MSPO) - "He's a racist", "thats racist", "their racist", "voters are sexist", "my students are crying" (p%$#ies), "thats xenophobic" (the support of ILLEGAL immigrants is not based on caring it is based on more votes to get and stay in power and its benefits), "that makes me uncomfortable" (who cares), "thats fake news" (because we lost and we can't deal with the truth and we don't want our voter base to figure out that they have been lied to), "thats hate speech and should be removed from tweeter and from excess to the internet" (because they don't like the truth to be revealed because if peoples minds open up to the truth they will lose their voting base.-thats why they are terrified more individuals in the black community getting past their propaganda- thats why they are beating the drums of racism) (kicking people off tweeter and the internet is stopping others free speech under the Constitution- in my view very serious- Wonder if Soros (Mister race war) came up with that from his days working with the Nazis which he admitted to in interview.

MSPO will find extremist idiots and paint a picture like "see thats the way they all act".  NOT!!!!

MSPO purposely plant, water and fertilize the very thing that they talk down about with their words. It's clever propaganda. Don't be played. Open your eyes to it.

God Bless America

[GMDino]

(11-23-2016, 02:04 PM)tigerseye Wrote:

God Bless America

FIFY.

There wasn't one clear, cogent point in your response.  But thanks?