• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

WH bans selected MS press from news briefing

Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy. It is certainly better than the sycophantic mouth-pieces the MSM has been for previous admins. If you truly want to see what fascism would look like in America, go watch the White-House correspondents dinner.
 
Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy.

An adversarial relationship is one thing, banning the press from "news" briefings is a transparent attempt to force Cheato's Fake News to the forefront, and is a threat to the fourth estate.
 
Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy.

An adversarial relationship is one thing, banning the press from "news" briefings is a transparent attempt to force Cheato's Fake News to the forefront, and is a threat to the fourth estate.

I disagree. The status quo was worse. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about who the administration allows at the press briefings. Just ask yourself this - could the Trump administration have pulled off what the Bush administration did with the Iraq war, where the "fourth estate" was essentially acting as the propaganda arm for the Bush Admin, with some token liberal caricature playing the role of the useful-idiot pacifist foil to some admin-approved war-monger?
 
Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy.

An adversarial relationship is one thing, banning the press from "news" briefings is a transparent attempt to force Cheato's Fake News to the forefront, and is a threat to the fourth estate.

Yeah, this is a form of news censorship. If people don't print what you like you don't let them cover the things they want to report on.

It works quite well in the Middle East, almost nobody will tell the truth about Hamas.
 
An adversarial relationship is one thing, banning the press from "news" briefings is a transparent attempt to force Cheato's Fake News to the forefront, and is a threat to the fourth estate.

I disagree. The status quo was worse. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about who the administration allows at the press briefings. Just ask yourself this - could the Trump administration have pulled off what the Bush administration did with the Iraq war, where the "fourth estate" was essentially acting as the propaganda arm for the Bush Admin, with some token liberal caricature playing the role of the useful-idiot pacifist foil to some admin-approved war-monger?

Rhetorical question, obviously. But ask yourself this: is it an improvement to ONLY allow admin-approved warmongers into press briefings?
 
Trump called the news media an ‘enemy of the American People.’ Here’s a history of the term. - The Washington Post

Adolf Hitler was allegedly an Ibsen fan. (Some historians say they believe that he read the plays as prophecy of the Third Reich.) He reportedly read “An Enemy of the People” closely, even weaving some key lines into speeches. His administration deployed this rhetoric to describe Hitler's main enemy: the Jews. “Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people,” Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels wrote in 1941. “... If someone wears the Jewish star, he is an enemy of the people. Anyone who deals with him is the same as a Jew and must be treated accordingly. He earns the contempt of the entire people, for he is a craven coward who leaves them in the lurch to stand by the enemy.” Around the same time, leaders of the Soviet Union were transforming enemy of the people into a major tool for oppression and silencing enemies. Vladimir Lenin, founder of the Bolsheviks, used “the peoples' enemies” as a label to stigmatize anyone who didn't fall into line when the revolution happened. Enemies of the people were ostracized and even their friends were under suspicion.

For foes of Joseph Stalin, being branded an enemy of the people was a death sentence. The Soviet leader deployed that language against politicians and artists he didn't like. Once branded, the accused were sent to labor camps or killed. Best case? An enemy would be denied education and employment. “It is one of the most controversial phrases in Soviet history,” Mitchell Orenstein, professor of Russian and East European studies at the University of Pennsylvania, told Voice of America
“For both Lenin and Stalin, journalists and intellectuals who didn't share their point of view were among the most hated enemies,” University of Washington professor Serhiy Yekelchyk told VOA. “In attacking them, both appealed to the people.”

Chinese dictator Mao Zedong deployed the phrase against people critical of his policies and dictates. The leader, who created a famine that killed 36 million Chinese, was obsessed with identifying and rooting out his enemies. As Zhengyuan Fu explained in “Autocratic Tradition and Chinese Politics”, every member of Chinese society, even children, were called on to root out the landlords, teachers, intellectuals and artists who opposed Mao. He wrote:

Members of society are divided into two major categories: the “people” and the “class enemy.” People describes the in-group, within which are workers, poor and lower-middle-class peasants, soldiers and cadres. The “class enemies of the people” refers to the out group … a highly arbitrarily assigned group whose members are defined by the party state.
While the “people” are described in terms of “warmth, friendliness, candor, courage, and everything that is good,” the class enemies are depicted as “cruel, cunning, morally degrading, always scheming, and evil,” Fu writes. In the enemies camp were who often were imprisoned.

Today, enemy of the people is still deployed. But mostly, you hear it from dictators. (Heads of former Soviet countries are particularly fond of the construction. Old dog, new tricks, etc.) It's never before been uttered by the leader of the free world. One more way in which Trump's presidency truly is unprecedented in U.S. history.
 
I disagree. The status quo was worse. Quite frankly, I don't give a shit about who the administration allows at the press briefings. Just ask yourself this - could the Trump administration have pulled off what the Bush administration did with the Iraq war, where the "fourth estate" was essentially acting as the propaganda arm for the Bush Admin, with some token liberal caricature playing the role of the useful-idiot pacifist foil to some admin-approved war-monger?

Rhetorical question, obviously. But ask yourself this: is it an improvement to ONLY allow admin-approved warmongers into press briefings?

Yes, if it means the rest of the media is ready and willing to call out the admin. Ill be worried when there is talk about banning the media from covering the administration. The single biggest problem with the fourth estate in the US is it's disgustingly cozy relationship with the very people they are suppose to act as watchdogs over. Like I said, if you want to see what fasiscm is like, watch the White House correspondents dinner. That is a real problem. Trump being a whiney little bitch is no where near as serious. Of course, he should always be called on being a whiney little bitch.
 
Come on, guys. He's not banning all media from his briefings, just the Jewish media.
 
Like I said, if you want to see what fasiscm is like, watch the White House correspondents dinner.

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day.

Of course, the day is not over yet...
 
Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy. It is certainly better than the sycophantic mouth-pieces the MSM has been for previous admins. If you truly want to see what fascism would look like in America, go watch the White-House correspondents dinner.

Yeah, it would be even better if Trump starting jailing reporters.
 
Honestly, I think this sort of adversarial relationship between the press and the White House is good for democracy. It is certainly better than the sycophantic mouth-pieces the MSM has been for previous admins. If you truly want to see what fascism would look like in America, go watch the White-House correspondents dinner.

Yeah, it would be even better if Trump starting jailing reporters.

Oh yeah, that's totally what I've always said.
:rolleyes:
 
Could be since you think a good adversarial relationship should include barring access to media.
 
Could be since you think a good adversarial relationship should include barring access to media.

See, the logic is like this:

The MSM is too sycophantic to the White House. This is exactly like fascism, especially if dinner is served and jokes are told.

Now that the MSM is having an adversarial relationship with the White House, banning them is the perfect way to reward them!

That makes total sense, just like the idea that a dinner and jokes are the hallmarks of a fascist regime.


See...that was easy!

:rolleyes:
 
Yes. That I don't agree with your remedy doesn't mean I don't understand your view that the press is too cozy with the White House.
 
Rhetorical question, obviously. But ask yourself this: is it an improvement to ONLY allow admin-approved warmongers into press briefings?

Yes, if it means the rest of the media is ready and willing to call out the admin. Ill be worried when there is talk about banning the media from covering the administration. The single biggest problem with the fourth estate in the US is it's disgustingly cozy relationship with the very people they are suppose to act as watchdogs over. Like I said, if you want to see what fasiscm is like, watch the White House correspondents dinner. That is a real problem. Trump being a whiney little bitch is no where near as serious. Of course, he should always be called on being a whiney little bitch.
Oh FFS honey. Only the kitchen has burned down so far, stop exaggerating about the danger.
 
Could be since you think a good adversarial relationship should include barring access to media.

I said any sort of adversarial relationship is preferable to the status quo - which was the MSM essentially acting as a mouthpiece for the administration -- except for the soft-balliest of softball questions every now and then to keep up appearances -- out of fear that the admin won't allow access to the briefings. As far as I'm concerned, this may light a fire.

Of course, a majority of liberals were absolutely silent about the Obama administrations unprecedented persecution of whistle-blowers, charging 8 different whistleblowers under the WWI era Espionage Act. That is more than double of all previous presidents combined. This being a very real threat of First Amendment principles. Of course, most self-described liberals I meet only give a shit about these sorts of things when Republicans are in office.

And of course, now the very same Democrats who have called Snowden a traitor that must "come home and face the music," are praising the leakers who exposed Flynn. Excuse me if I cannot stand the hypocrisy.

EDITED TO ADD:

And you know what? I'm going to challenge you to support your claim that I "think a good adversarial relationship should include barring access to media."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom