White House bans CNN reporter from press conference

[Benton]

Obama was known to be not that great in terms of freedom of information. His administration countered a very large number of open record requests (admittedly, I think a large chunk of those were dumb stuff concerning birth certificates and the like). I also heard they would scrub guest logs, allegedly so alt-right media wouldn't hound friends and family.

But I don't recall him banning specific reporters or agencies. Even with as stupid as Fox was with things like "Is Obamao a Muslim terrorist sent here by Satan to murder your mom? I don't know, I'm just asking the question. Is the first lady even a lady? I don't know, this is just what people ask."

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 06:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: "don't know"..."basically"...just the same as Trump.

Glad you finally admit it.

(07-26-2018, 06:43 PM)GMDino Wrote: Maybe just stop defending Trump at every turn (and assuming he and Obama are equal in this case) and you'll feel better.

Yes, I defend Trump at every turn.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-26-2018, 10:57 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: only one member of the press has to be targeted for the freedom of the press to be strained. Likewise, targeting one religion but leaving all others would still be a violation of freedom of religion. Arresting one peaceful and lawful protestor but leaving 20 others is still a violation of freedom of speech.

Valid points, but I don't see how banning 1 reporter from a news conference strains the freedom of the press. Now, constantly deriding most news agencies as "fake news" and calling them the enemy, tha'ts a different story, but banning 1 reporter from a news conference, I just don't see it.

[GMDino]

(07-27-2018, 12:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Valid points, but I don't see how banning 1 reporter from a news conference strains the freedom of the press. Now, constantly deriding most news agencies as "fake news" and calling them the enemy, tha'ts a different story, but banning 1 reporter from a news conference, I just don't see it.

It's the "next step".  That's why I said "if the trend continues" of them preferring "friendly" media and blocking "enemies of the state".

The "man" who did this used be part of FOX News.  That's about all you need to know.

But of course you don't see it.  You think Obama did the exact same thing...even though you "don't know" if he did or not.

 

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 12:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Valid points, but I don't see how banning 1 reporter from a news conference strains the freedom of the press. Now, constantly deriding most news agencies as "fake news" and calling them the enemy, tha'ts a different story, but banning 1 reporter from a news conference, I just don't see it.

Sure it is.

It's freedom of the press... not freedom of most of the press. Apply the same logic across the rest of the first.

We don't prohibit the practicing of religion... except Methodists. It's just one branch and they're basically Catholics anyway.
We don't prohibit the right to peacefully assemble... except short people. Dwarfs are creepy.
We don't abridge free speech... except people with lisps. Makes us laugh too much.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 12:39 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Valid points, but I don't see how banning 1 reporter from a news conference strains the freedom of the press. Now, constantly deriding most news agencies as "fake news" and calling them the enemy, tha'ts a different story, but banning 1 reporter from a news conference, I just don't see it.

Again, you're hung up on it only affecting one person. Our rights are individual, not collective. The press is made up of many members, not just agencies as a whole, but each individual person who participates in spreading information.

Now, like I said, I don't know if they legally have to let them into the news conference, but the question should be "do they have to let anyone into a news conference?". Surely the President can pick and chose who gets private interviews, but I don't know if the news conference is considered "open" to the press. If it isn't, limiting who can come in wouldn't be infringement, in my opinion.

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 01:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, you're hung up on it only affecting one person. Our rights are individual, not collective. The press is made up of many members, not just agencies as  a whole, but each individual person who participates in spreading information.

Now, like I said, I don't know if they legally have to let them into the news conference, but the question should be "do they have to let anyone into a news conference?".

There's also the direct and indirect sharing of information among members. I don't think asking some Cohen questions would have done that, but who knows. I've been at press conferences where we've all got relatively the same info, then someone with information none of us had asks a question and there's a collective "oh, really?" moment. Sometimes it's more overt, where reporters familiar with each other will offer info to each other to see what the other guy is reporting on. 

Removing a reporter and the agency they represent can have a big impact just from the news gathering aspect.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2018, 07:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not to "defend Trump" but did he ban the reporter from the News Conference?

I've got to ask this question again as I keep seeing folks asserting Trump barred the individual. As I read it member of his Press Staff determined the individual would not be able to attend this press conference.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 01:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Again, you're hung up on it only affecting one person. Our rights are individual, not collective. The press is made up of many members, not just agencies as  a whole, but each individual person who participates in spreading information.

In the Supreme Court case of Lovell v City of Griffin, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Restricitng one person and one person only from a news conferences is not restricting the "press". 

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've got to ask this question again as I keep seeing folks asserting Trump barred the individual. As I read it member of his Press Staff determined the individual would not be able to attend this press conference.

Who keeps asserting that Trump barred the individual?

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 01:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In the Supreme Court case of Lovell v City of Griffin, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Restricitng one person and one person only from a news conferences is not restricting the "press". 

He doesn't define the press as that, he states that historically the press has included "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" in his argument that the press isn't limited to newspapers and periodicals, but also any sort of distributed media (pamphlets and leaflets too). 

He even cites one individual, Thomas Paine, and his use of pamphlets as an example of the press. 


http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/lovell.html


Edit: and of course arguing that freedom of the press doesn't cover individuals, only publications, then means that the right is not an inherent right of the people but a right that belongs to an inanimate object.

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2018, 01:55 PM)PhilHos Wrote: In the Supreme Court case of Lovell v City of Griffin, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes defined the press as "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." Restricitng one person and one person only from a news conferences is not restricting the "press". 

In Lovell the court held that it was UNCONSTITITIONAL to prevent ONE PERSON from distributing material.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2018, 02:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who keeps asserting that Trump barred the individual?

Phil and Dino have an entire back and forth over who Obama-Trump allowed/banned. In you first retort you point directly to the president banning and there have been other implications. Simply wanted to make sure that everyone understands we have zero evidence that POTUS did not ban this person.

[GMDino]

(07-27-2018, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Phil and Dino have an entire back and forth over who Obama-Trump allowed/banned. In you first retort you point directly to the president banning and there have been other implications. Simply wanted to make sure that everyone understands we have zero evidence that POTUS did not ban this person.

Yeah it was Shine that did the deed.  I was going with Phil because he agreed with Fred's opinion piece on how Obama treated the press.  That entire discussion is how they handled the press and whether Obama did the same things Trump did.  But I started this with the Trump Administration (Shine) doing it.  There's some confusion when talking about each individual handled it and what the administration does.  

Those two conversations got jumbled.

[*bfine32*]

I've been critical of the way trump and his administration have behaved toward the press; however, I do not feel that barring one person, who had already displayed the propensity to ask questions not related to the subject matter, from that press conference to be violating the 1st Amendment.

We also do not know if this reporter has been disruptive in the past.

Given I'm not the expert of the Constitution as many but: If the WH does not let everyone who has press credentials to attend every press conference are they violating the 1st Amendment?

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 02:04 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who keeps asserting that Trump barred the individual?

GMDino. And I have argued him with the assumption that it was Trump that did the barring.

(07-27-2018, 02:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He doesn't define the press as that, he states that historically the press has included "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion" in his argument that the press isn't limited to newspapers and periodicals, but also any sort of distributed media (pamphlets and leaflets too). 

He even cites one individual, Thomas Paine, and his use of pamphlets as an example of the press. 


http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/lovell.html


Edit: and of course arguing that freedom of the press doesn't cover individuals, only publications, then means that the right is not an inherent right of the people but a right that belongs to an inanimate object.

Welp, tha'ts what I get for seeing the Wikipedia footnote and not actually checking it out for myself.

Let me try a different angle. Banning a single person from a news conference, does not prevent said person from spreading information. 

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 02:53 PM)PhilHos Wrote: GMDino. And I have argued him with the assumption that it was Trump that did the barring.


Welp, tha'ts what I get for seeing the Wikipedia footnote and not actually checking it out for myself.

Let me try a different angle. Banning a single person from a news conference, does not prevent said person from spreading information. 

How does said person get the information sought if not permitted to ask said questions?

If you only permit questions you’re comfortable answering, you aren’t promoting a free press.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 03:20 PM)Benton Wrote: How does said person get the information sought if not permitted to ask said questions?

Watch the press conference.
Ask representatives the question(s) through any and all means available to them.
Ask someone else going to the press conference to try to ask the questions.
Of course, this operates under the assumption that the person they're asking will actually answer the questions.

(07-27-2018, 03:20 PM)Benton Wrote: If you only permit questions you’re comfortable answering, you aren’t promoting a free press.

I agree. However, telling one person they're not allowed to one press conference is not the same as dictating which questions are being asked. We're not talking about the White House banning all CNN reporters or giving out a list of acceptable questions that can be asked and will be answered.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2018, 03:20 PM)Benton Wrote: How does said person get the information sought if not permitted to ask said questions?

If you only permit questions you’re comfortable answering, you aren’t promoting a free press.

There is no indication that folks were only permitted to ask questions that the admin was comfortable with. Seems the questions asked were not germane to the situation.

POTUS is trying to host the President of the EU and work out a possible trade deal. Why the hell would we want someone interrupting this by asking questions about Russia?

[fredtoast]

(07-27-2018, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Simply wanted to make sure that everyone understands we have zero evidence that POTUS did not ban this person.

Right.  No evidence he didn't do it.