• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sean Spicer excluding media outlets from briefing (NYT, CNN, WAPO, Politico)

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
PokerGuy said:
You could easily refute it by posting links to the lefties posting the same accusations of tyranny and destruction of the free press, nazism and such. Should be simple 😀
Click to expand...

It's your charge, you do the work, dumbass. The "I'm rubber you're glue" argument works in 2nd grade. Stop being a little bitch child.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Yeah, they didn't complain bout being picked on though. Almost like someone's never heard of the Streisand Effect.
Click to expand...
Not exactly true. More than a few previous Presidents complained about the media. But I don't believe that any of them ever went as far as Trump is doing. IMO, he violated his oath of office when he called the media the enemy of the American people. He pledged to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press, whether he likes what they print or not.
 
PokerGuy said:
Ah yes, it was fine when obummer did it because it was evil fox and he is righteous. Not like that evil Trump trying to destroy the free press! 😉 Great stuff guys, great stuff.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can't see the difference between the two scenarios speaks volumes about your cognitive capabilities. Who reminds you to breathe?
 
Pulsar said:
I'm curious because I don't see an argument here. Do you support the Whitehouse's apparent ban on these news organizations, or not? Saying "Obama did it too" isn't an answer or an opinion: it's essentially you claiming that two wrongs make a right. Or "he did it so we can too". That's a pretty poor argument for restricting the press.

Editted to add witty insult:
You insipid deplorable quivering snot rag. 😉
Click to expand...

He's a child. That's all he's got.
 
MikeMike said:
You righties are currently supporting Trump for doing similar, but 10x worse, things than OBummer ever did..
Click to expand...

obummer tried to silence the one single outlet that was critical of him. Trump gets crushed by every single lefty news organization. Excluding one or two fake news outlets won't keep the rest of the lefty news outlets out, so they still have plenty of coverage.
 
Vic said:
Fake news is when media intentionally publishes something that they know to be wrong. Like Hillary selling our uranium to Russia, for example. That was fake news. A different opinion, or even a political agenda, does not make for fake news.
Click to expand...

You mean like CNN publishing a story that Nancy Sinatra was angry about Trump using her fathers song, which then caused her to tweet "CNN, why do you lie?". Kind of like that kind of "fake news" outlets? Just face it, CNN and NYT, WAPO, Huffpo etc are fake news. They just publish whatever garbage they can come up with to further an agenda.
 
Is there any difference between questioning authority, and being directly confrontational / adversarial? One could certainly make the case that they've been the latter, but I'm not so sure that's outside their expected purview. Particularly when one considers free speech. So what, exactly, would they be barred for... doing their jobs?

As such, I must condemn such seemingly cowardly action unless some solid reasoning is provided.
 
Vic said:
Not exactly true. More than a few previous Presidents complained about the media. But I don't believe that any of them ever went as far as Trump is doing. IMO, he violated his oath of office when he called the media the enemy of the American people. He pledged to uphold the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of the press, whether he likes what they print or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's more what I meant. It's gone well beyond trying to defend himself from allegations (valid or otherwise) and well into some combination of 'they're poopy!' and 'they should be jailed for conspiracy against the crown'.
 
PokerGuy said:
obummer tried to silence the one single outlet that was critical of him. Trump gets crushed by every single lefty news organization. Excluding one or two fake news outlets won't keep the rest of the lefty news outlets out, so they still have plenty of coverage.
Click to expand...

1 or 2?

He excluded at least 8...

The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, BBC, the Los Angeles Times and the New York Daily News.

"Were Among"

One of those is a MASSIVELY respected media organization. And i'm not talking about The New York Times, The Hill, Politico, BuzzFeed, the Daily Mail, the Los Angeles Times or the New York Daily News.
 
If it's not what they want to hear, Trumpsters just label it as fake news & dismiss it a la the great Rushbo. Easy-peasy.

If Obama couldn't exclude Fox in 2009 when riding a huge popular mandate I don't know wtf the Trump Admin thinks they can accomplish from a position that's not nearly as strong. They have no popular mandate & hold office only by dint of the unintended consequences of the electoral college system.
 
Jaskalas said:
Is there any difference between questioning authority, and being directly confrontational / adversarial? One could certainly make the case that they've been the latter, but I'm not so sure that's outside their expected purview. Particularly when one considers free speech. So what, exactly, would they be barred for... doing their jobs?

As such, I must condemn such seemingly cowardly action unless some solid reasoning is provided.
Click to expand...

Very, very slim, however I believe it's in the press' right (and in fact, duty) to be adversarial and confrontational.
 
Barred from a "press gaggle"

barred being the operative word here. What did these news outlets do to warrant being barred from a press gaggle?

note: they weren't barred from the official WH press conference although I imagine that will be the next step.
 
PokerGuy said:
You mean like CNN publishing a story that Nancy Sinatra was angry about Trump using her fathers song, which then caused her to tweet "CNN, why do you lie?". Kind of like that kind of "fake news" outlets? Just face it, CNN and NYT, WAPO, Huffpo etc are fake news. They just publish whatever garbage they can come up with to further an agenda.
Click to expand...
If he feels so strongly about it, then he should take them to court for libel. Otherwise, these antics of his are either publicity stunts or unconstitutional efforts to censor the media.
 
PokerGuy said:
That was my point. obummer did the exact same thing earlier, and the other news organizations banded together to not tolerate. I didn't hear any outcry from the lefties about tyranny, destruction of free press and all that drivel then. When Trump does it, oh boy, that's different because.... reasons. 😉
Click to expand...

Here is your response from when that happened.

PokerGuy said:
This is good news for Fox, the white house is too blinded by their anger to understand that they are shooting themselves in the foot over and over.

Every time they "slam" Fox, the Fox ratings go up even further. In addition, people get a little nervous when the gobment goes after any news outlet, no matter what their political agenda. When the government is able to silence opposition voices, no matter how idiotic, it's dangerous for us all.

Basically, these little white house tantrums give fox more power.
Click to expand...

PokerGuy said:
:roll: Yeah, that's what we want, we want our government to determine who can have "press priviliges" and who can't. I'm sure that would do wonders for democracy. Moron.
Click to expand...

Your response this time? "Obama did It". There may be other hypocrites as well but you are most definitely one of them.

https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/white-house-steps-up-attacks-on-fox-news.332674/
 
Pulsar said:
I'm curious because I don't see an argument here. Do you support the Whitehouse's apparent ban on these news organizations, or not? Saying "Obama did it too" isn't an answer or an opinion: it's essentially you claiming that two wrongs make a right. Or "he did it so we can too". That's a pretty poor argument for restricting the press.
Click to expand...

Finally, some intelligent life in here!

No, I don't support excluding CNN, NYT etc, even if they are fake news. I understand the desire to not have to allow those who constantly disparage you in, but the government is for all the people, not just some of them. It was wrong when obummer did it, and it's wrong for Trump to do now.

It is funny though to see the hysterics by lefties now when there was not a peep from them when obummer was doing the same thing.

Editted to add witty insult:
You insipid deplorable quivering snot rag. 😉
Click to expand...

Bravo! 😀
 
PokerGuy said:
Ah yes, it was fine when obummer did it because it was evil fox and he is righteous. Not like that evil Trump trying to destroy the free press! 😉 Great stuff guys, great stuff.
Click to expand...
I'll take this as acknowledgement that you are unable to tell the difference. While I enjoy exchanging ideas with those on the right with the intelligence to provide thoughtful discussion, I have a policy of not debating people without the mental ability to so. You are too much like your leader. You think facts are arbitrary ideas that can just be made up at will.
 
K1052 said:
Real enough to get Mike Flynn fired.
Click to expand...

They didn't get him fired, lying and covering up got him fired. You realize fake news sites can have true information as well right? Just because the enquirer has stories about "alien bat boy found on mars!" doesn't mean they can't be correct about the latest rumored affair of some celeb. You just have to realize that they often peddle in fake news and treat anything they report with the appropriate boulder of salt.
 
sdifox said:
Do you understand the difference between carrying a US channel and allowing Fox News to establish a channel in Canada?
Click to expand...

Why introduce terms like "establishing a channel" now? This is what was previously said:

"The Fox News channel isn't even legal in Canada ..."

I posted a Snopes article that completely debunks it. Case settled. Admit you're wrong and move on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top