White House bans CNN reporter from press conference

[BmorePat87]

(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.

I asked because there is no one actually saying "Donald Trump banned a reporter". Dino said "White House" and "Trump admin", both accurate. Phil mentioned Obama and Trump, but that was already within the context of "Obama White House" and "Trump White House". I responded to a hypothetical statement by Phil and never suggested Trump did anything, just reframed the question he posed.

I feel like instead of actually engaging in conversations that are happening, you once again declared people were making an argument and then requested that people respond to your post as if your false premise was true. 

I'm not sure why you have a habit of doing this instead of just addressing what is actually being said here. I ignored the first time, but I had to chime in when you responded to your own post as if it was actually happening.

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 03:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 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.


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.

I think telling people they are banned from attending events open to the press if they ask questions you do not like is nearly the same as telling the press what questions can be asked. 

I know their excuse is she shouted out questions unrelated to the event she was at, but we're not morons. We know that shouting out questions and hoping for a response is 90% of what reporters do at every single event like this. 

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2018, 04:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I asked because there is no one actually saying "Donald Trump banned a reporter". Dino said "White House" and "Trump admin", both accurate. Phil mentioned Obama and Trump, but that was already within the context of "Obama White House" and "Trump White House". I responded to a hypothetical statement by Phil and never suggested Trump did anything, just reframed the question he posed.

I feel like instead of actually engaging in conversations that are happening, you once again declared people were making an argument and then requested that people respond to your post as if your false premise was true. 

I'm not sure why you have a habit of doing this instead of just addressing what is actually being said here. I ignored the first time, but I had to chime in when you responded to your own post as if it was actually happening.

Well Dino and Phil both stated they let the conversation slide to POTUS v. POTUS, so there's that.

I pointed to you also referring POTUS only, so there's that.

Therefore, I created no false narrative; simply want to make sure we were talking about the actual situation at hand.

I participated plenty to include my position of often criticizing the WH's statements toward the press and asking is a violation of the 1st Amendment if the WH does not allow everyone with credentials to attend every press conference.

But no one can change what you perceive.

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 04:36 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I think telling people they are banned from attending events open to the press if they ask questions you do not like is nearly the same as telling the press what questions can be asked. 

I get that, but is that any different than someone telling a reporter they're not going to answer that question or questions on a particular topic? Or when someone grants an interview and tells them what topics are off limits?

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Dino and Phil both stated they let the conversation slide to POTUS v. POTUS, so there's that.

I pointed to you also referring POTUS only, so there's that.

Therefore, I created no false narrative; simply want to make sure we were talking about the actual situation at hand.

I participated plenty to include my position of often criticizing the WH's statements toward the press and asking is a violation of the 1st Amendment if the WH does not allow everyone with credentials to attend every press conference.

But no one can change what you perceive.

Considering that you're continuing to suggest I said something that I didn't say, as you've done at length this week, I don't think it's a matter of what I perceive but rather a matter of you being incredibly dishonest. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 04:56 PM)PhilHos Wrote: I get that, but is that any different than someone telling a reporter they're not going to answer that question or questions on a particular topic? Or when someone grants an interview and tells them what topics are off limits?

Yes, I think there's a difference between declining to answer question and saying "you cannot attend this press conference because I don't like the questions you ask". 

[fredtoast]

Here is the way I see it. All of our "freedoms" are limited. We have freedom of speech, but you can't slander or incite a right with speech.

Same goes with freedom of the press. You can't just yell questions about anything at the President anytime and anywhere you want. What if the President is giving a speech or greeting a foreign diplomat? Can she just yell endless questions at him?

[*PhilHos*]

(07-27-2018, 05:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is the way I see it.  All of our "freedoms" are limited.  We have freedom of speech, but you can't slander or incite a right with speech.

Same goes with freedom of the press.  You can't just yell questions about anything at the President anytime and anywhere you want.  What if the President is giving a speech or greeting a foreign diplomat?  Can she just yell endless questions at him?

Not to mention there's no law that requires ANYONE to answer the press' questions.

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2018, 05:09 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Considering that you're continuing to suggest I said something that I didn't say, as you've done at length this week, I don't think it's a matter of what I perceive but rather a matter of you being incredibly dishonest. 

You didn't comment directly about POTUS in post 18. 

Yeah, I hate dishonesty as well. 

[BmorePat87]

(07-27-2018, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't comment directly about POTUS in post 18. 

Yeah, I hate dishonesty as well. 

Whether or not I made a comment that involved the office of the President is irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not I said that Trump banned a reporter, as you accused me of doing twice. I understand this is a goal post changing tactic, so, again, just be honest.

[GMDino]

(07-27-2018, 06:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Whether or not I made a comment that involved the office of the President is irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not I said that Trump banned a reporter, as you accused me of doing twice. I understand this is a goal post changing tactic, so, again, just be honest.

(07-24-2018, 11:37 AM)bfine32 Wrote: ...it's just dude was seeing a thread were everyone was in agreement and he could not stand it any longer.

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

(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.

(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.

(07-27-2018, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well Dino and Phil both stated they let the conversation slide to POTUS v. POTUS, so there's that.

I pointed to you also referring POTUS only, so there's that.

Therefore, I created no false narrative; simply want to make sure we were talking about the actual situation at hand.

I participated plenty to include my position of often criticizing the WH's statements toward the press and asking is a violation of the 1st Amendment if the WH does not allow everyone with credentials to attend every press conference.

But no one can change what you perceive.

(07-27-2018, 06:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: You didn't comment directly about POTUS in post 18. 

Yeah, I hate dishonesty as well. 

(07-26-2018, 04:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: All of that to try and prove other folks wrong. Absolutely nothing of value added to the conversation; just a continued effort to prove others wrong...

[*bfine32*]

(07-27-2018, 06:33 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Whether or not I made a comment that involved the office of the President is irrelevant to a discussion about whether or not I said that Trump banned a reporter, as you accused me of doing twice. I understand this is a goal post changing tactic, so, again, just be honest.

All I can say is "oh my".

No one accused you of stating Trump banned anyone; hell I didn't even point to any particular post anyone until you came in and announced your presence with authority.

As I have said over and over and over. It seemed the narrative was venturing toward Trump banned the reporter; given, a narrative you helped push with your post about POTUS banning folks. Just wanted to make sure folks understood it was not Trump that banned this reporter.

I have 0 idea what goalpost I have changed. WTS, this is childish and petty. Perceive what you will. I'll leave this thread to you and others. 

[Benton]

(07-27-2018, 03:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: 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.


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.

Watching the press conference and relying on others to ask a question doesn’t get your question answered.

Today I waited through a 2 hour congressional field hearing and about 45 minutes of media questions before I got to ask congressman comer the question that I thought was relevant to my readers. Would I have gotten his opinion by just watching the hearing? No.... that’s why I waited and double checked with his field rep that I could get a minute or two off mic.

As far as the second graf, unfortunately it can be. Banning one reporter may be all that outlet can send. Remember, not everyone in the pit is cnn. You’ve got small media there too that can get kicked out at someone’s pleasure. And it definitely sends the message of “ask me about Cohen and I’ll make sure you can’t do your job.”

(07-27-2018, 03:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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?

He’s the president. It’s part of the job. He could avoid it by addressing the issue honestly*.


* and he may be, it just gets harder to give him the benefit of the doubt when conflicting reports keep coming out.

[GMDino]

I'll drop this here since it has to do with how the current administration treats/paints any media that opposes him/them.

Some unsafe words.

Just a sample of the sad scene we faced at the Trump rally in Tampa. I’m very worried that the hostility whipped up by Trump and some in conservative media will result in somebody getting hurt. We should not treat our fellow Americans this way. The press is not the enemy. pic.twitter.com/IhSRw5Ui3R

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 1, 2018

[GMDino]

Meanwhile...

#Truth @Acosta https://t.co/aCfFoeqL1f

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) August 1, 2018

Gary Busey's son Eric Trump seems to think this is a good thing.  And the POTUS retweeted it.

Trump defenders/supporters must be SO proud of their "man".

[*michaelsean*]

(08-01-2018, 10:10 AM)GMDino Wrote: Meanwhile...

#Truth @Acosta https://t.co/aCfFoeqL1f

— Eric Trump (@EricTrump) August 1, 2018

Gary Busey's son Eric Trump seems to think this is a good thing.  And the POTUS retweeted it.

Trump defenders/supporters must be SO proud of their "man".

I have a hard time with video on my phone here. Did they just chant CNN sucks or was there more? I have no problem if it’s the former.

Edit: I saw it. That doesn’t bother me.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2018, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a hard time with video on my phone here. Did they just chant CNN sucks or was there more?  I have no problem if it’s the former.

Edit:  I saw it. That doesn’t bother me.

Color me stunned.

[GMDino]

(08-01-2018, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a hard time with video on my phone here. Did they just chant CNN sucks or was there more?  I have no problem if it’s the former.

Edit:  I saw it. That doesn’t bother me.

Another snapshot from Trump’s Tampa rally, I tried to take a picture with a father and his daughter while people yelled “CNN sucks” in my face. I am sorry that this little girl had to see that. pic.twitter.com/DIHPpCdbb6

— Jim Acosta (@Acosta) August 1, 2018

[*bfine32*]

(08-01-2018, 12:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I have a hard time with video on my phone here. Did they just chant CNN sucks or was there more?  I have no problem if it’s the former.

Edit:  I saw it. That doesn’t bother me.

The whole thing is kind of ironic to me. Seems some want to suppress the 1st Amendment right of some to be able to freely express theirs.

WTS, the chanting and gestures are uncalled for, but am I the only one that sees the irony? 

[GMDino]

(08-01-2018, 01:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The whole thing is kind of ironic to me. Seems some want to suppress the 1st Amendment right of some to be able to freely express theirs.

WTS, the chanting and gestures are uncalled for, but am I the only one that sees the irony? 

I would usually defer to the expert (probably) but this isn't about them not being allowed to express themselves...it's about them expressing something because Trump told them it was true.

It's about a group of voters (jebus save us) that think any media that disagrees with their views should be shouted down.

But I'll take your word that you find it ironic somehow.