(this post was a request from our friend over on the legacy blog)
But the latest has to do with the fact that the President just may be re-prioritizing the long standing pecking order of which Press outlets gets what access. Prioritizing the media isn't necessarily anything new. Most Presidents and press secretaries no doubt call disproportionately on outlets that they prefer, and give less attention to outlets they don't prefer. Our previous President refused to go anywhere near FOX News for the first seven years of his Presidency, in spite of the fact it was the number one cable news channel in the country. I don't recall anyone on the left attacking Obama for shunning the first amendment.
The reality here folks is that just because the same media outlets garnered priority over the past few Presidencies, doesn't suggest that it's any sort of constitutional requirement to continue to grant them priority. Especially considering that both the circulation, and the credibility of many of those top outlets have taken huge hits.
What's more, the most popular print newspaper today is the conservative Wall Street Journal. The most popular cable news is FOX News. The dreaded Breibart website now ranks third in a list of internet news outlets (ranking ahead of websites like MSNBC.com and ESPN.com). Just as conservatives are being elected in historical numbers, conservative media outlets are performing at all time highs as well.
The truth is that just because it's conventional media wisdom to suggest that the Washington Post, NY Times, CNN, and MSNBC deserve back stage passes to all political events doesn't make it a constitutional requirement. Donald Trump and his press corps have no more responsibility to provide access to CNN than a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton would have to provide access to Breibart. Does anyone seriously believe Clinton would be answering questions from a Breibart reporter?
A few weeks into his Presidency, Trump is on pace to triple the amount of Press conferences held by Obama. As long as Trump continues to hold these events and continues to answer upwards of forty questions from two dozen reporters each time, he is satisfying the first amendment requirements for a free press.
CNN and the Washington Post have made their choices. Now they can bark at the moon over the constitutional crisis of not being first in line anymore. Their arguments may convince the gullible on the left (who apparently will believe almost anything critical of Trump these days)... but they don't convince me.
48 comments:
You dodged the question. That has become your usual tactic.
Preventing access to the White House press room isn't the issue. It's legal, but stupid.
The President stated that "I am going to do something about it" in reference to the use of anonymous sources. The only way that he could do, is to prosecute the media reporters who use anonymous sources. If you remember the Pentagon papers case, when the President tried to prosecute the reporters and their employers? That was overwhelmingly reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
President Donald Trump is dangerously close to violating the First Amendment rights, guaranteed without exception on government actions.
On this you know damn well that I phrased my post correctly. It's amusing that rrb is unwilling or more likely, unable to write a coherent response.
Thank you for letting me repute your rather weak attempt to distort what I clearly said on the other blog.
You're a gutless hypocrite Roger because you refuse to address Obama's use of the DOJ to intimidate James Rosen and James Risen.
And until you do, nobody but nobody will seriously listen to you on this subject.
Roger - These press event have limited space available. Only a certain amount of people are allowed to attend and a certain amount are going to be told that there is not room for them.
- Are you with me so far or have you already become confused?
Assuming you understand that not everyone who wants to be in this room can actually be in this room, the question isn't whether or not Donald Trump is denying access to the media...
Because he isn't. In fact, he has actually taken steps to involve more members of the media, especially some that have been underrepresented in the past.
- Are you still with me, Roger... or are you confused yet?
So if he is holding press conferences and has as many reporters (if not more) than previous Presidents have had at their press conferences and press "gaggles'... then your issue cannot logically possibly be that he is not providing press access.
Your issue is 100% with which media outlets were given access... because they were not the media outlets than you would have liked to have seen in this recent press gaggle.
You don't understand.
My comment on Constitutional court, has NOTHING about the stupidity of the Trump presidency or access to the briefing room.
Your issue is 100% with which media outlets were given access... because they were not the media outlets than you would have liked to have seen in this recent press gaggle.
Is false. My comment was in response to the great and all knowing Donald J. Trump
I specifically excluded that.
Are you still confused?
Read what I said, CH
President Donald J. Trump railed against the news media Friday, saying reporters shouldn't be allowed to use anonymous sources. He said he's been a target of unrelenting criticism by unnamed people, and he predicted that negative stories would "dry up like you've never seen before" if anonymous sources were jettisoned.
The President said that the free press should not be "allowed" to us anonymous sources. If that was illegal, Richard Nixon would not have been exposed as a conspiratorial in the Water Gate burglary of the Democratic National Party. "Deep throat" has been unknown until within the last year of so. Woodward and Bernstein relied on "Deep Throat" . His comments today were nothing short of a direct assault on the Constitution.
Of course, any effort to limit sources would conflict with the First Amendment.
If you actually would read what I said, you would not have looked foolish with this.
These press event have limited space available. Only a certain amount of people are allowed to attend and a certain amount are going to be told that there is not room for them.
- Are you with me so far or have you already become confused?
Assuming you understand that not everyone who wants to be in this room can actually be in this room, the question isn't whether or not Donald Trump is denying access to the media...
Because he isn't. In fact, he has actually taken steps to involve more members of the media, especially some that have been underrepresented in the past.
- Are you still with me, Roger... or are you confused yet?
So if he is holding press conferences and has as many reporters (if not more) than previous Presidents have had at their press conferences and press "gaggles'... then your issue cannot logically possibly be that he is not providing press access.
Your issue is 100% with which media outlets were given access... because they were not the media outlets than you would have liked to have seen in this recent press gaggle.
Roger -
President "A" averages 1.6 press conferences a month, takes an average of 6-8 questions, primarily from the same media outlets.
President "B" held 5 press conferences in his first month, has taken upwards of forty questions in a single press conference and has taken questions from over two dozen different outlets so far.
You have an issue with President "B" because you feel he is violating the first amendment by limiting the freedom of the press??
I am not confused here. This is quite obvious. This is classic Trump derangement syndrome... mixed in with your gullible nature to be easily manipulated by the very media outlets who feel their control of these events slipping away. There is no logic in your argument. None what-so-ever.
When Trump ran for the Presidency which he won over Hillary and her Cast of ALL STARS, he did it on the firm footing of economic growth and jobs.
"WASHINGTON – President Trump took to Twitter on Saturday... the media ignored some good news about his administration.
“The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo,” he tweeted.
In a follow-up tweet, he added: “Great optimism for future of U.S. business, AND JOBS, with the DOW having an 11th straight record close. Big tax & regulation cuts coming!”
Getting the Job done, keeping yet another Promise, all this WINNING BIGGLY , not tired of it yet.
Did the Dems pick their Leader YET, my vote, IF I had one would go to Keith Ellison. He is the voice, face and race of the liberal asshats.
"A" is clearly limiting the press access to the US Presidency, that would be wrong.
GOD, this is fun shit.
My comment was in response to the great and all knowing Donald J. Trump" HB channeling Dorothy, fits him well down to the white socks and heals and the fainting , don't forget the fainting.
Roger - An author or reporter can be sent to jail for refusing to reveal his or her source if the information in question happens to have been provided illegally. This was most recently upheld at the appellate level in 2014 and the USSC let this decision stand without reviewing it.
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/published/115028.p.pdf
So legally, there is not a constitutionally protected right for a reporter to use an unnamed source. If that unnamed source (such as those within the FBI) broke the law by leaking confidential information... then the reporter in question could be jailed.
Trump is correct by constitutional law and by legal precedent as it pertains to the illegal leaks.
As it pertains to using unnamed sources for things that would not constitute anything illegal (such as just something embarrassing but not confidential) Trump, like anyone else is entitled to hold that position.
Holding that opinion is neither unconstitutional or in any way an attack on the first amendment.
LOL...
"Earnest said reporters should give anonymous sources "a little less weight" because they were speaking anonymously. He added the problem with the Post story was it gives greater weight to outside anonymous sources than on-the-record sources in the White House."
You are, and you wont like it.
You are lying.
I did not make a claim that I was saying that limiting access to the press room is not in question by ME.
If the various banned media outlets, can make the claim that the banning access, is their comments. Do I have to ones more post exactly what I said. Hell why not
President Donald J. Trump railed against the news media Friday, saying reporters shouldn't be allowed to use anonymous sources. He said he's been a target of unrelenting criticism by unnamed people, and he predicted that negative stories would "dry up like you've never seen before" if anonymous sources were jettisoned.
The President said that the free press should not be "allowed" to us anonymous sources. If that was illegal, Richard Nixon would not have been exposed as a conspiratorial in the Water Gate burglary of the Democratic National Party. "Deep throat" has been unknown until within the last year of so. Woodward and Bernstein relied on "Deep Throat" . His comments today were nothing short of a direct assault on the Constitution.
Of course, any effort to limit sources would conflict with the First Amendment.
I did not refer to the banning of CNN, etc. Are you still confused by Trumpism?
So legally, there is not a constitutionally protected right for a reporter to use an unnamed source. If that unnamed source (such as those within the FBI) broke the law by leaking confidential information... then the reporter in question could be jailed.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Pentagon+Papers+case
s." Blackmun commented:
[T]his, in my opinion, is not the way to try a lawsuit of this magnitude and asserted importance. It is not the way for federal courts to adjudicate, and be required to adjudicate, issues that allegedly concern the Nation's vital welfare. The country would be none the worse off were the cases tried quickly to be sure, but in the customary and properly deliberative manner.
The decision was hailed as a great victory for advocates of Freedom of the Press. For the first time in the nation's history, the government had succeeded, if only during the appeals of the case, in precluding the press from publishing news in its possession. At least in the circumstances presented by the case, however, the Supreme Court held that such a prior restraint on freedom of speech violates the First Amendment. The practical effect of the decision, which carefully avoided any mention of the contents of the Pentagon Papers, was far less dramatic than suggested by the attention it received. The newspapers never did publish the portions of the Pentagon Papers that the government claimed were the most sensitive. In addition, further publication of the Pentagon Papers by newspapers around the country did not attract a great deal of attention or significantly affect the United States' policy on Vietnam. The Pentagon Papers case remains, however, an important precedent in support of freedom of the press under the First Amendment.
Wash away your tears caused by my demolition of your lie.
I'm off to the gym.
Dershowitz-‘If Keith Ellison Is Elected Chairman Of DNC I Will Quit The Democratic Party After 60 Loyal Years’ (VIDEO)"
Well , that is not what I want to hear.
The unity of the Democrat far left are at odds with my choice to run the DNC.
Nyuk says, Pres. Trump is a lying chickenshit surrounded by ditto heads. An EC aberration, similar to Dubya's, put that clown in office. The Repub Congress can either rein him in, or lose their majority in 2 years.
Roger -
The reporter in the 2014 was not threatened to be jailed because he wrote something... he was threatened to be jailed because he used an unnamed source and refused to turn over that source (eventually that source went to jail for leaking classified information).
The Pentagon papers was a specific ruling on whether or not newspapers had the right to publish sensitive government information (In the 1971 case, the most sensitive classified materials were withheld). It really didn't focus on the sources at all.
_____
Roger you burst here with bold letter repeating the mantra that Trump is out of control because he doesn't like the media using unnamed sources, especially when those unnamed sources are revealing classified information.
The revealing of classified information is illegal, and the Reporter that prints it and refuses to reveal that source could face jail time (2014 precedent).
He doesn't face jail time for printing the story. He faces jail time for protecting a source who has committed a crime.
So your 1971 case does nothing but confirm the former... but doesn't put a dent in the latter.
So tell Roger... did "you" not make this about the unnamed source? Because suddenly it feels like you want it to be about printing classified information instead? Which is it?
Unnamed sources?
Classified information?
Because your entire argument seems to ignore the former.
More to the point...
one in twelve have a great deal of confidence in the media.
four in twelve have no confidence in the media.
How many people actually are still gullible enough to believe a story that comes from an "unnamed source"? I certainly take everything from an "unnamed source" with a very large grain of salt, if I pay attention to it all all.
So Trump is probably giving the media good advice here. They have approval rankings that rank with herpes and traffic jams. People don't trust that they tell the truth. Perhaps if they named their sources, they would have a little more credibility?
Not one of Us here ever acted like this toward former Prez obimbo.
On Nov 9th , 2016 the left went to actual War against the US Voter and the President Elect.
The Democrat Left is deciding between an alt-leftist in Keith Ellison or one of the other 7 that are just run of the mill American haters.
It should be interesting how much further the New DNC Leader will take what is left of the Democrat Party to the left, they simply can not move at all to the center hard left.
So sad. The Coldheartedtruth is DOA
How many people actually are still gullible enough to believe a story that comes from an "unnamed source"? I certainly take everything from an "unnamed source" with a very large grain of salt, if I pay attention to it all all."
The same Salt that HB and his bbf Paul Krugman where shak'n and bak'n with on Nov 9th , 2016
One thing is unmistakable about ObamaNomics "The Lost Years" as President Trump works for the "forgotten Woman and Man" he has a mess on his hands. The media is doing some work over on the financial pages , unshackled now to tell the truth without fear of imprisonment by Obama and the likes of PlaceHolder and purely picked because she is black Lynch.
"When it comes to savings, Americans are falling short. Nearly 70% of adults have less than $1,000 in their savings accounts.
Retirement funds are looking equally bleak. In fact, about half of US families have zero retirement account savings."
couple that with 13 million added to food stamps in the last 8 years and home ownership at 40 year lows , the picture is bleak at best and IF you believe Moochelle "a TIME OF HOPELESSNESS".
ColdHeartedTruth is alive and well as is the life of being a reporter and the US Constitution.
The sun continues to rise and is warm everywhere but on the looney fringe coasts of the USA.
CA is about to leave the union, sweet news indeed.
Liberals love to complain about the rules of the game after they are soundly defeated, feeling they had to have lost because someone cheated. Fact is, it is/was a National Election, not a looney fringe states election.
BTW,,,,, the unnamed source did bring down Nixon.........LOL seems to me they need to keep sources under wrap or you will never have a source.. Go away goat breath, you post is just plain stupid.
Also Roger 1, CH -10 with his inane logic and complete blindness. Just sayin'
Kinda like Jason C complaining he is being bullied by his constituents....LOLOLOL The same guy who is still investigating hillary...So sad he can't put on his man clothes.
Or faux news scoop. Swedish ‘national security advisor’ interviewed by Fox News is unknown to Swedes
The Dagens Nyheter newspaper reported that neither the Swedish armed forces nor the Foreign Ministry had heard of Nils Bildt.
How you doing Buddy?
Still stiffing your kinds out of your money, failing to support them?
3:20 p.m. ET, February 25, 2017 – Tom Perez is elected the chair of the DNC after the second round of voting. Perez motioned for Keith Ellison to be elected as Deputy Chairman of the DNC"
Congrats, you went with a white old man and a girl .
There's little support for repealing Obamacare, a new McClatchy-Marist Poll finds. Fifty-eight percent of Americans either want the Affordable Care Act to remain a law or to change it so that it does more. Only 31 percent want to see it repealed completely, while another 7 percent want to see it changed to do less. Yet the Republican-led Congress has already taken the first steps to kill the 7-year-old law, and President Donald Trump is fully supportive. “The fact that Obamacare is something that people would miss if it were gone, we're seeing that not only in poll numbers, but at the town hall meetings and, I think, in the reluctance of the administration and Congress to move as quickly as they
DNC Chairman took two rounds.
Ellison was supported by the following loser All Stars, according to the Daily Kos.
Fake Indian Warren
Fake Human Chuckie SMucker
Fake Democrap Burnie Sanders, wow
Anonymous califat said..."
Hi Opie
Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time. 60% of Republicans doesn't believe in evolution.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/
The fact that most Republicans don't believe the media, is related to their doubt science.
I'm going to tell you one last fucking time.
The President threatened the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You are so dumbfounded by Trumpism, that you ignore the FACT that I didn't claim that he is violating the first amendment by excursions of CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times.
This doesn't have any wiggle room, so you have to mischaracterized my comments.
President Donald J. Trump railed against the news media Friday, saying reporters shouldn't be allowed to use anonymous sources. He said he's been a target of unrelenting criticism by unnamed people, and he predicted that negative stories would "dry up like you've never seen before" if anonymous sources were jettisoned.
The President said that the free press should not be "allowed" to us anonymous sources. If that was illegal, Richard Nixon would not have been exposed as a conspiratorial in the Water Gate burglary of the Democratic National Party. "Deep throat" has been unknown until within the last year of so. Woodward and Bernstein relied on "Deep Throat" . His comments today were nothing short of a direct assault on the Constitution.
Dayum free press can only report fake news....like millions of illegal votes.....a massive win.....bus loads brought to NH to vote.....china's GW hoax.....yep and it is getting worse here as our esteemed host has been brainwashed by Bachmann and trump.. Save a BAKER from baking....LOL
Donald Trump announced via twitter he will not be attending the White House Correspondents dinner.
Roger calls it a grave danger to the 1st amendment.
Commonsense said...
Donald Trump announced via twitter he will not be attending the White House
Just like you densa boy.....he has no sense of humor. Good, the country will notice he has no balls.
To the extent the country cares at all they would probably support Trump's decision.
As for me. Can't wait for CSPAN to broadcast a bunch of mean-spirited journalist and Hollywood A-listers laughing and clapping at mean, vulgar jokes at Trump's expense.
Yeah, that will show the American people who's in charge.
Blogger Commonsense said...
Donald Trump announced via twitter he will not be attending the White House Correspondents dinner.
Roger calls it a grave danger to the 1st amendment.
How can we believe that he's Mensa qualified.
I have shoved the lies up his rectal exit. I was very specific. No wiggle room, because I didn't want to be questioned, so I was precise.
LMAO Fatty spent the day trolling me and I wasn't even around.
What an absolutely pathetic existence. And I told you before, your desire for my attention is unhealthy, like the all the pies you inhale.
What a loser!
vI have shoved the lies up his rectal exit. I was very specific. No wiggle room, because I didn't want to be questioned, so I was precise.
You were very bombastic. And you still haven't explain why Obama's intimidation of Risen and Rosen was not a threat to the 1st amendment while Trump criticism is.
Why were you silent when Obama was shredding the 1st amendment by intimidating journalists, and forcing catholic charities to pay for birth control?
For being very precise you somehow keep skipping that point.
You are becoming the joke du jour, pauline. I don't spend 5 seconds on you since you are such an easy mark to to make fun of. Thanx for the thought, as you seem to be bothered by me. Good, yer still an idiot.
Sure fatty, that's why your dumbass put the same troll post on 2 different threads yesterday.
LMAO
I either matter to you or you're fucking retarded, you choose...
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
And I'm out the rest of the day spending time with my daughter, so troll away loser
On this you know damn well that I phrased my post correctly. It's amusing that rrb is unwilling or more likely, unable to write a coherent response.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
actually alky, i already addressed this in the previous post.
remember this?:
"“co-conspirator” for soliciting classified information threatened to criminalize press freedoms protected by the First Amendment. "
it came from here:
Justice Department’s scrutiny of Fox News reporter James Rosen in leak case draws fire
Journalists, First Amendment watchdogs and government transparency advocates reacted with outrage Monday to the revelation that the Justice Department had investigated the newsgathering activities of a Fox News reporter as a potential crime in a probe of classified leaks.
Critics said the government’s suggestion that James Rosen, Fox News’s chief Washington correspondent, was a “co-conspirator” for soliciting classified information threatened to criminalize press freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Others also suggested that the Justice Department’s claim in pursuing an alleged leak from the State Department was little more than pretext to seize his e-mails to build their case against the suspected leaker.
“It is downright chilling,” Fox News executive Michael Clemente said in a statement. “We will unequivocally defend [Rosen’s] right to operate as a member of what up until now has always been a free press.”
Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said, “Asking for information has never been deemed a crime.”
The reactions followed a Washington Post report on the inner workings of a Justice Department investigation into a possible leak of classified information about North Korea.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/justice-departments-scrutiny-of-fox-news-reporter-james-rosen-in-leak-case-draws-fire/2013/05/20/c6289eba-c162-11e2-8bd8-2788030e6b44_story.html?utm_term=.2f4a4a1017d8
let us know when trump stoops to the level of 0linsky when dealing with the press.
until then, shut the fuck up on this topic. you're an asshole, and an ill-informed asshole at that.
Woodward to the left--- "Stop Whining"
Rachel Madcow, she is post op tranny , right?
And you still haven't explain why Obama's intimidation of Risen and Rosen was not a threat to the 1st amendment while Trump criticism is?" CS
HB is unable to go past his cut n paste, to think on his own. It was said correctly earlier, HB does not answer questions.
LMAO
I either matter to you or you're fucking retarded, you choose...
You really are an idiot, pauline......Keep believing what your simple mind tells you. LOLOL
And I'm out the rest of the day spending time with my daughter, so troll away loser
And I'm in my Blairsville cabin, enjoy in view. So fat away cali, it is all you got. LOLOLO
The fact that most Republicans don't believe the media, is related to their doubt science.
I'm going to tell you one last fucking time.
The President threatened the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
seriously...
you consider criticism of a pack of narcissistic biased assclowns a "threat" to the first amendment...
...while denying the actual legal actions 0linsky took against rosen and risen?
and yet you demand your opinion on this topic be taken seriously.
it is no wonder that you have absolutely no credibility around here. none.
Former NAACP branch president Rachel Dolezal, who lied about being black but still identifies as black, is now jobless, living on food stamps and expects to lose her home next month.
“There’s no protected class for me,” the former NAACP branch president told The Guardian. “I’m this generic, ambiguous scapegoat for white people to call me a race traitor and take out their hostility on. And I’m a target for anger and pain about white people from the black community. It’s like I am the worst of all these worlds.”
Dolezal has applied for over 100 jobs, but has received no offers, even from a supermarket. She has, however, been offered work in porn and reality TV. While a friend helped pay her rent for February, Dolezal expects she’ll lose her home next month.
“I do think a more complex label would be helpful, but we don’t really have that vocabulary,” said the former Africana studies instructor. “I feel like the idea of being trans-black would be much more accurate than ‘I’m white.’ Because you know, I’m not white.”
“It wasn’t like the honest thing to do is say, ‘I’m white’, because race is a social construct,” stated Dolezal to The Guardian. “And this gave me this great sense of internal freedom: I wasn’t actually all fucked up. I was actually on to something this whole time.
On more life destroyed by the Liberals, damn you would think all of those so called big hearted rich liberals would help out this sista'
The President threatened the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution"
Nope
Post a Comment