President Biden

[ewerk 31193]

https://theintercept.com/2016/11/22/media-stars-agree-to-off-the-record-meeting-with-trump-break-agreement-whine-about-mistreatment/

 

Reiterates many of the points I made about the broadcasters meeting Trump and why it's pitiful.

 

It's a crock of shit by a man who just doesn't get the concept of off the record. Yes the journalist quoted went on as if Trump had just thrown his kid from the 25th floor of Trump Tower but you can't judge the motivations and reactions of 24 journalists/execs by one person who ran to the Post just because someone was nasty to them.

[Happy Face 29]

It's a crock of shit by a man who just doesn't get the concept of off the record. Yes the journalist quoted went on as if Trump had just thrown his kid from the 25th floor of Trump Tower but you can't judge the motivations and reactions of 24 journalists/execs by one person who ran to the Post just because someone was nasty to them.

 

He grasps the concept of off the record.  Actual journalists use it to protect a source that is revealing something of public interest.  As we already knew that a few dozen broadcasters were meeting the president and were photographed during the visit, that wasn't the purpose for being off the record.  

 

Is there anything else that justifies accepting a 100% off the record demand from el presidente?  Why have the NYT received such praise for refusing to accept that condition ahead of their  interview with Trump which they transcripted word for word...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html

[ewerk 31193]

He grasps the concept of off the record.  Actual journalists use it to protect a source that is revealing something of public interest.  As we already knew that a few dozen broadcasters were meeting the president and were photographed during the visit, that wasn't the purpose for being off the record.  

 

Is there anything else that justifies accepting a 100% off the record demand from el presidente?  Why have the NYT received such praise for refusing to accept that condition ahead of their  interview with Trump which they transcripted word for word...

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html

 

Because they weren't going there to interview him about anything of any substance. It was a general get together with an incoming president. Not a proper interview like the NYT. You're comparing apples and oranges.

[Rayvin 5292]

No it's definitely bigging up his SIL. He requested security clearance for him to be in on the daily briefing ffs.

Yeah I know that's Trump's angle, I'm just saying that if Kushner is entirely ineffectual in resolving this issue, he will have achieved just as much as those who have gone before him.

[Happy Face 29]

Because they weren't going there to interview him about anything of any substance. It was a general get together with an incoming president. Not a proper interview like the NYT. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

Aye, they were expecting canapes with the bloke whose arse they are going to gladly lick for 4 years.

 

That's why they're so shocked that he didn't come in wanting to wipe the slate keen and start working with them on filtering what the public should be allowed to know.

[ewerk 31193]

Aye, they were expecting canapes with the bloke whose arse they are going to gladly lick for 4 years.

 

See this is where you're just jumping into the unknown with unjustified certainty. You don't know what their plans were so please don't pass such comments off as fact.

[Happy Face 29]

See this is where you're just jumping into the unknown with unjustified certainty. You don't know what their plans were so please don't pass such comments off as fact.

 

The story that quotes sources says "The television people thought that they were being summoned to ask questions"

 

You've disregarded that and said that's what the NYT were going for, giving them a justification to demand on the record responses thatt the broadcasters didn't have.

 

If you don't believe the publicly reported reason they say they were going, then we can only guess at what other reason they could have agreed to go. 

[ewerk 31193]

The story that quotes sources says "The television people thought that they were being summoned to ask questions"

 

You've disregarded that and said that's what the NYT were going for, giving them a justification to demand on the record responses thatt the broadcasters didn't have.

 

If you don't believe the publicly reported reason they say they were going, then we can only guess at what other reason they could have agreed to go. 

 

Are your referring to the NYP article? If so it states that the TV people believed they were there to discuss access to the administration.

[Rayvin 5292]

I think it will become quite clear which one of you is 'right' as we move forward. I'd be surprised if the media fell into line in truth, not because I think they have a collective spine, but because they'll see Trump as a temporary blip in otherwise uninterrupted Neolib establishment control.

 

Then again, maybe the President of the US simply has more sway over them than our leaders have over our press.

[Park Life 71]

Have the corporate owned MSM ever gone to war with a sitting president? General Electric and Sony will be looking for favours they won't be inclined to tell their puppets to go after Trump...

 

Obama had a free pass for his whole first term more or less.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Park Life

[ewerk 31193]

Have the corporate owned MSM ever gone to war with a sitting president? General Electric and Sony will be looking for favours they won't be inclined to tell their puppets to go after Trump...

 

Obama had a free pass for his whole first term more or less.

 

I don't think it's wise for any MSM entity to 'go to war'. Praise him if he does something good, hammer him for his mistakes. HF seems to think that they're going to ignore his failings, I disagree.

[Rayvin 5292]

I don't think it's wise for any MSM entity to 'go to war'. Praise him if he does something good, hammer him for his mistakes. HF seems to think that they're going to ignore his failings, I disagree.

 

I would genuinely be surprised if they ignored his failings too. Especially after what came out in the run up to his election. They'd lose all credibility.

[Park Life 71]

I don't think it's wise for any MSM entity to 'go to war'. Praise him if he does something good, hammer him for his mistakes. HF seems to think that they're going to ignore his failings, I disagree.

I agree with you but perhaps for different reasons.

 

HF is worried that they covet their access, book deals, lifestyle franchises etc...I think its more that they are a tool when needed for the power behind the power...The billionaires, industrialists, warmongers, neo-con hawks and so on...

Edited November 23, 2016 by Park Life

[Happy Face 29]

I don't think it's wise for any MSM entity to 'go to war'. Praise him if he does something good, hammer him for his mistakes. HF seems to think that they're going to ignore his failings, I disagree.

 

They won't ignore his failings.  They'll spout unverified, anonymous government claims as truth without presenting any evidence whatsoever.

 

As they have done for years.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

I don't think it's wise for any MSM entity to 'go to war'. Praise him if he does something good, hammer him for his mistakes. HF seems to think that they're going to ignore his failings, I disagree.

 

this. the notion that a credible media organisation goes to war on a politician is naive. that approach is left to rags like the sun and mail. 

 

but i'd say no president gets a completely free pass. facts are reported - that's journalism. who else do we know about the obama's drone strikes etc that caused such consternation? 

[Happy Face 29]

Are your referring to the NYP article? If so it states that the TV people believed they were there to discuss access to the administration.

 

No, David Remnick in the New Yorker spoke to attendees as well

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-the-press

 

Others may have justified their agreeing to go off the record as it was only a meeting about access.  But "access journalism" in itself is a derogatory term and they should be ashamed of engaging in it to such a degree.

 

Obviously there can be a balance struck between access and adversarial journalism.  ludicrous to imagine that any of these TV stars are looking to follow the example of Michael Hastings and hammer the people that give them access though.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

No, David Remnick in the New Yorker spoke to attendees as well

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-the-press

 

Others may have justified their agreeing to go off the record as it was only a meeting about access.  But "access journalism" in itself is a derogatory term and they should be ashamed of engaging in it to such a degree.

 

Obviously there can be a balance struck between access and adversarial journalism.  ludicrous to imagine that any of these TV stars are looking to follow the example of Michael Hastings and hammer the people that give them access though.

 

trump comes across like such a man child in that piece. 

[Happy Face 29]

this. the notion that a credible media organisation goes to war on a politician is naive. that approach is left to rags like the sun and mail. 

 

but i'd say no president gets a completely free pass. facts are reported - that's journalism. who else do we know about the obama's drone strikes etc that caused such consternation? 

 

Wikileaks and The Intercept.  Neither of which court or get granted any access whatsoever but have the stated aim of holding those in power (whatever side they are on) to account.

 

It's not "going to war".  it's serving the governed, not the governers.

[Dr Gloom 22134]

Wikileaks and The Intercept.  Neither of which court or get granted any access whatsoever but have the stated aim of holding those in power (whatever side they are on) to account.

 

It's not "going to war".  it's serving the governed, not the governers.

 

are you saying the fact some media groups are granted access means they are incapable of holding the government to account? howay man

[ewerk 31193]

No, David Remnick in the New Yorker spoke to attendees as well

 

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-the-press

 

Others may have justified their agreeing to go off the record as it was only a meeting about access.  But "access journalism" in itself is a derogatory term and they should be ashamed of engaging in it to such a degree.

 

Obviously there can be a balance struck between access and adversarial journalism.  ludicrous to imagine that any of these TV stars are looking to follow the example of Michael Hastings and hammer the people that give them access though.

 

 

“But he truly doesn’t seem to understand the First Amendment,” the source continued. “He doesn’t. He thinks we are supposed to say what he says and that’s it.”

 

There you are, they say they aren't going to be faithful lapdogs. 

[Park Life 71]

We first heard details of the drone strikes in NW Pakistan when the Supreme Court of Pakistan said they were war crimes and Imran Khan started briefing the world media.... and then it was picked up the the American media. It was hardly discussed by the MSM till that point (nobody imagined Pakistan was being droned).

 

The more independent liberal media ran with it with greater detail and you had to go to AlJazz, TYT, Democracy Now, New Yorker etc....In the UK The Guardian did a really good job on it. CNN, Fox, MSNBC etc were broadly supportive or neutral. I think anyone would be hard pushed to find any issue with reg to Obama or Bush where there was sustained criticism on any policy....

 

I don't see it will be any different for Trump.

 

edit Fox did go after Obamacare.

Edited November 23, 2016 by Park Life

[ewerk 31193]

I'm not sure that British drone strikes would get much more negative coverage in this country. I'd imagine that a lot of the print media would be all for it.

[Park Life 71]

I'm not sure that British drone strikes would get much more negative coverage in this country. I'd imagine that a lot of the print media would be all for it.

Yup. There will be all this dizzying talk of precision, hi tech, targeted, clinical and all that other nonsense that is disproved by all the data.

[Happy Face 29]

are you saying the fact some media groups are granted access means they are incapable of holding the government to account? howay man

 

No.

 

I'm saying given the evidence of history (banging the drum for Iraq and WMDs, hiding evidence of warrantless eavesdroipping for a year until Bush was re-elected, colluding with the Clinton campaign to spread lies about Sanders and get questions ahead of debates, re-branding torture to "enhanced interrogation"  without having to look up any more) we should be vigilant about secret meetings between the president elect and the corporate media that did all of those things.

 

It's incredible to me that given the history of mainstream media collusion with leaders that anyone would not have any cynicism about a secret meeting with every major broadcaster where they all agreed to the secrecy and broke it not for any noble reason like any of the above, but because he was nasty to them.

[ewerk 31193]

It was Trump's top team meeting with 24 major news figures in Trump Tower in the centre of Manhattan. It's a bit of a stretch to call it a secret meeting.