It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Advisers consider banning and relocating press from the White House

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
GOOD! get the fake news riff raff out of the people`s house!




posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: gmoneystunt

The cognitive dissonance is appalling. You claim that we "need some new honest independent" media and you call for the White House to bring about this change by what? Waging a war with the media and selectively promoting or punishing media outlets based on how favorable the coverage of the administration is?

Clearly you do NOT want independent media — the government approving the press is the antithesis of independentyou want authoritarian control over the media.


No, not punish them on how favorable or not the news is, but rather how truthful the news reporting is. And not spun into bullsht like it is 99 percent of the time. By twisting how the news is acting as "favorable/non-favorable instead of what the real facts about this situation is, and that is how truthful and honest the reporting being done is. It has not been truthful or honest. I love how all the people who lost alongside Hillary twist everything into a more "Favorable" tasting plate of fake facts rather than truthful ones..

edit on 15-1-2017 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

It's amazing that Trump supporters are all for him being a dictator because he claims he's a republican. I hope you all get exactly what you want.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
This is yet more fake news from a mainstream media going all out to drive a narrative.

The truth is somewhat less controversial. The location of the press team in the Whitehouse may be moved to a bigger room to accommodate more news outlets that previously have been excluded.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: gmoneystunt

The cognitive dissonance is appalling. You claim that we "need some new honest independent" media and you call for the White House to bring about this change by what? Waging a war with the media and selectively promoting or punishing media outlets based on how favorable the coverage of the administration is?

Clearly you do NOT want independent media — the government approving the press is the antithesis of independentyou want authoritarian control over the media.


Fake News outlets should be excluded. There is no room for them... if an outlet reports fake news they should have their credentials removed. Period.

I hope that as Trump expands the number of news outlets that have access, he makes it clear that credentials will be withdrawn from those that lie to the public.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Everyone realizes that the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment, right?

OK, just checking.

It doesn't matter if YOU think it's "fake news". Your opinion doesn't matter. Let the people decide for themselves.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

This sounds like Communist Russia.

Who gets to determine what's "fake" or "real"? Who makes that judgement call? You? Trump himself?

Ignore what you think is fake, but intentionally cutting off types of reporting you don't like only will come back to bite you in the arse later.

What's good for your team now can just as easily be used to silence you at a later time.

What if the news you think is "true" gets called 'fake news" someday?

You wouldn't want your precious news sources called fake and banned, would you?
edit on 15-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

And if your username is correct I take if you are from the UK?

See, our founding fathers waged war against your country for the RIGHT to criticize the government, true or false. The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment they wrote. Before guns. Before anything else, freedom of speech and freedom of the press came first.

That is the legacy our founding fathers gave us here, in America. It may seem foreign to you, as you live in a different culture under a different paradigm.

Americans value diversity of thought (or used to) -- and we value the ability of the people to pick and choose what they feel is true or false for themselves.

Our government wasn't founded with the intention of having a hand in deciding what news is "allowed" or "banned". That is not the job of the government.

Conservatives, please explain to me how you want smaller government with less intrusion into your lives -- yet are A-OK with big brother stepping in and telling you what is "approved" news?

How is that not authoritarian?

How is that not unlike North Korea, the former USSR, or even the current Russian Federation? How is censoring the news and banning outlets from reporting not unlike Nazi Germany?



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

And if your username is correct I take if you are from the UK?

See, our founding fathers waged war against your country for the RIGHT to criticize the government, true or false. The freedom of the press is the FIRST amendment they wrote. Before guns. Before anything else, freedom of speech and freedom of the press came first.

That is the legacy our founding fathers gave us here, in America. It may seem foreign to you, as you live in a different culture under a different paradigm.

Americans value diversity of thought (or used to) -- and we value the ability of the people to pick and choose what they feel is true or false for themselves.

Our government wasn't founded with the intention of having a hand in deciding what news is "allowed" or "banned". That is not the job of the government.

Conservatives, please explain to me how you want smaller government with less intrusion into your lives -- yet are A-OK with big brother stepping in and telling you what is "approved" news?

How is that not authoritarian?

How is that not unlike North Korea, the former USSR, or even the current Russian Federation? How is censoring the news and banning outlets from reporting not unlike Nazi Germany?


Banning fake news outlets has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
You do realise that not every news outlet can get access to the WH now, right? Does that mean the WH is currently stifling free speech? Of course not.
The ridiculous sensationalising of everything you disagree with into a constitutional crisis has already worn thin.

As for our "different culture" regarding freedoms in the UK, learn your history. Before the Constitution, there was the Magna Carta.


edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

This sounds like Communist Russia.

Who gets to determine what's "fake" or "real"? Who makes that judgement call? You? Trump himself?

Ignore what you think is fake, but intentionally cutting off types of reporting you don't like only will come back to bite you in the arse later.

What's good for your team now can just as easily be used to silence you at a later time.

What if the news you think is "true" gets called 'fake news" someday?

You wouldn't want your precious news sources called fake and banned, would you?


Interesting that you are not so concerned (at least I have not heard you rail against it) that companies like Facebook are using 3rd parties to 'decide' what is fake news.
It seems you are fairly selective about your cries of foul play.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
Everyone realizes that the 1st Amendment comes before the 2nd Amendment, right?

OK, just checking.

It doesn't matter if YOU think it's "fake news". Your opinion doesn't matter. Let the people decide for themselves.


An irrelevant point. The Whitehouse can not let every news outlet in the world operate within it's grounds. Decisions have to be made. Clearly, journalists who have the integrity not to lie to the public should be given preference.

Regardless, the entire premise that Trump is looking to reduce access is false. He is looking to expand it.
edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care if a private company wants to self-censor its private product that people voluntarily consume.

And in any case, there is only so much room at the WH, that is why not every single news outlet that wants in can reserve a spot.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Imagine if talk radio and bloggers had access to the whitehouse press, it would spell the slow death of old media. More press and more transparency is a brilliant move, and the greatest way to balance the media scale.


Unless it's a bunch of fans that just say nice things rather than journalists who research and might not agree with Trump, might try to expose something if he is doing wrong, no? The death of journalism would be a bad thing. Unless you like an authoritarian government



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

I don't care if a private company wants to self-censor its private product that people voluntarily consume.

And in any case, there is only so much room at the WH, that is why not every single news outlet that wants in can reserve a spot.


So you don't REALLY care about freedom of speech. Gotcha.

As for your second point - EXACTLY what I said. So who decides who gets in? You?
I'd suggest it would be the Whitehouse and those news outlets that are honest should be given preference.
edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:42 PM
link   
I hope trump opens a feedback website. he should be able to allow the few good press to stay. Make cnn even madder.
edit on 1/15/2017 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

But just imagine if Obama banned all journalists except ones that would only ask him soft-ball (easy) questions? I certainly wouldn't like that. I don't hate Obama but I would be first in line to oppose him doing something like that.

It's like changing the rules for yourself to make the game easier to play. Sure, at first it might seem like a good idea -- as "fake news" journalists with an agenda just waste time, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. It very quickly can create an echo chamber of "yes men" -- which i something Trump has done all his life.

On a totally unrelated, totally off-topic and random matter -- since your from the UK is mincemeat pie any good? I made one last night from a jar of mincemeat. It smelled OK, but I haven't worked up the courage to eat it. It has apples, raisins and stuff in it. It was on sale now that Christmas was over, so I dumped it into a pie crust and made it.
edit on 15-1-2017 by Kettu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
I hope trump opens a feedback website. he should be able to allow good press to stay.


That's a good idea. Let the people decide and then he can kick out the least trustworthy and replace them.



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I see no real reason to have a news corp at the White House. If the POTUS has something to say. There are other ways to get the information out to the public. For instance YouTube.


Trump favors Twitter. Like most teenage girls.



Time to catch up with the times eh, "grandpa?".

Video killed the radio star, don't forget.

Why do you hate technology?






posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kettu
a reply to: UKTruth

But just imagine if Obama banned all journalists except ones that would only ask him soft-ball (easy) questions? I certainly wouldn't like that. I don't hate Obama but I would be first in line to oppose him doing something like that.

It's like changing the rules for yourself to make the game easier to play. Sure, at first it might seem like a good idea -- as "fake news" journalists with an agenda just waste time, but it also sets a dangerous precedent. It very quickly can create an echo chamber of "yes men" -- which i something Trump has done all his life.

On a totally unrelated, totally off-topic and random matter -- since your from the UK is mincemeat pie any good? I made one last night from a jar of mincemeat. It smelled OK, but I haven't worked up the courage to eat it. It has apples, raisins and stuff in it. It was on sale now that Christmas was over, so I dumped it into a pie crust and made it.


No one is even discussing kicking out journalists who ask tough questions.
I do think rude and disrespectful journalists are liable to be kicked out, which is fair enough (although I would expect them to be fired from their companies before their credentials were removed).

Trump's idea to open up the WH to more journalists is a good one, as the echo chamber you are worried about has already taken hold over the past few years.

As for mincemeat pies - no idea really, but my advice would be to go with a Cornish Pasty.
edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Ceeker63
I see no real reason to have a news corp at the White House. If the POTUS has something to say. There are other ways to get the information out to the public. For instance YouTube.


Trump favors Twitter. Like most teenage girls.



Time to catch up with the times eh, "grandpa?".

Video killed the radio star, don't forget.

Why do you hate technology?





Trump's twitter followers now number close to 20m and they are a mix of pro-trump and anti-Trump. It's growing fast.. so fast he really does have a direct channel to the people. Interestingly, Obama has 80m, but has obviously not mastered the medium.
edit on 15/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join