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: 5
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.


Bigger venue for the Whitehouse press. The Whitehouse conference center. More seats, equals more room, equals more press, equals more freedom of the press.

Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.




posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.


Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.

Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.


The press room is potentially being moved to a bigger venue in the Whitehouse to accommodate more reporters.
I think you might find the angst is from the existing reporters that don't like the fact they may be moved out of the West Wing. Sounds more like journalist ego to me. They don't like their exclusive little club getting bigger.

But, hey, making it about attacking the 1st Amendment sure makes for a good headline.

edit on 16/1/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The few big mouths that have controlled the tone and the information and the spinning are not happy. Maybe Donald could consider another room off to the side to be used as a safe space, complete with blankies, binkys, and a puppy or two. (Hope Breitbart News Network is added to the front row in the Press Room.)



posted on Jan, 16 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.


Bigger venue for the Whitehouse press. The Whitehouse conference center. More seats, equals more room, equals more press, equals more freedom of the press.

Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.


As Spicer asked, "is 49 seats adequate?" They had 400 press members at the last press conference, with many more unable to enter.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

"Another senior advisor" "I want them out of the White House, the official said"

Why doesn't the "senior" official have a name?

How "senior" is he? A E2 in the military is senior to a E1,

Words like "senior" "expert" "official" should be avoided at all costs because they place no actual requirement other than they sound good and people are programmed to listen to those kinds of people. Free your mind, don't fall for this stuff.

You don't notice the response from the person with a actual name was "no decision"



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 01:48 AM
link   
As I've said repeatedly... I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt until he is in office and making policy. Though his rhetoric during the campaign, his cabinet nominees, his statements since being elected, those in his inner circle, and much more, give me profound cause for concern. As I've also said repeatedly... I am neither a Clinton nor a Trump supporter. I believe in holding those in power's feet to the fire, on both sides of the isle. That has to include Trump, and anyone around him, as well.

So with that having been said... I don't care who is in office, which party they're from, or where they land in the ideological and political spectrum. I don't care if it's FOX, Breitbart, CNN, RT, Reuters, NBC, ABC, or the CSMonitor. (The last imo being more objective than most, but there is no such thing as unbiased media.)

The bottom line for me is this: Presidents deciding who gets to be in the press pool, and who gets favorable access to them as members of the press vs others, is not good for our polity, for freedom of the press, for the 1st amendment, or for an informed citizenry. I know everyone believes everything is "fake news" now, and both sides are calling one another's news sources by that moniker... but letting a president pick and choose in this manner is dangerous, disturbing, and frankly, bordering on totalitarian.

There is much dishonesty and spin in the media, often bordering on outright propaganda... on both sides. That's why it's critical for the media to operate freely and unfettered, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so that people can then fact check their claims, and make up their own minds. Does anyone really believe any politician - again, on EITHER side - if they begin to exercise power over which news outlets have access to them and which don't in this newly, more robust manner, will be able to resist the pull of favoring those most positive toward them?

I don't trust the media, either. No one should trust anything the media - or anyone else - says at face value without digging, either. But I trust politicians to CURATE the media EVEN LESS.

If life has taught me anything, it is this: Don't. Trust. Political. Leaders. Regardless of party, left or right, it doesn't matter. Don't trust them, don't give them a blank check to do these kinds of things. Hold their feet to the fire.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.


Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.



NO!! That would be crazy!!

Who in their right mind...Oh wait.

They could f up a happy ending.

just sayin'




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




It's sad watching the right cheer at the erosion of our 1st Amendment rights.


Who would oppose a bigger venue to allow in more press? The left.

Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now. Or is putting the press in a different building supposed to somehow equal increased access to the President to you?



Root cellar.

I like it.

With the other potato's and Michelle's canned tomatoes.






posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
The few big mouths that have controlled the tone and the information and the spinning are not happy. Maybe Donald could consider another room off to the side to be used as a safe space, complete with blankies, binkys, and a puppy or two. (Hope Breitbart News Network is added to the front row in the Press Room.)


And that 12' gator.

Nice.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: AceWombat04
As I've said repeatedly... I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt until he is in office and making policy. Though his rhetoric during the campaign, his cabinet nominees, his statements since being elected, those in his inner circle, and much more, give me profound cause for concern. As I've also said repeatedly... I am neither a Clinton nor a Trump supporter. I believe in holding those in power's feet to the fire, on both sides of the isle. That has to include Trump, and anyone around him, as well.

So with that having been said... I don't care who is in office, which party they're from, or where they land in the ideological and political spectrum. I don't care if it's FOX, Breitbart, CNN, RT, Reuters, NBC, ABC, or the CSMonitor. (The last imo being more objective than most, but there is no such thing as unbiased media.)

The bottom line for me is this: Presidents deciding who gets to be in the press pool, and who gets favorable access to them as members of the press vs others, is not good for our polity, for freedom of the press, for the 1st amendment, or for an informed citizenry. I know everyone believes everything is "fake news" now, and both sides are calling one another's news sources by that moniker... but letting a president pick and choose in this manner is dangerous, disturbing, and frankly, bordering on totalitarian.

There is much dishonesty and spin in the media, often bordering on outright propaganda... on both sides. That's why it's critical for the media to operate freely and unfettered, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so that people can then fact check their claims, and make up their own minds. Does anyone really believe any politician - again, on EITHER side - if they begin to exercise power over which news outlets have access to them and which don't in this newly, more robust manner, will be able to resist the pull of favoring those most positive toward them?

I don't trust the media, either. No one should trust anything the media - or anyone else - says at face value without digging, either. But I trust politicians to CURATE the media EVEN LESS.

If life has taught me anything, it is this: Don't. Trust. Political. Leaders. Regardless of party, left or right, it doesn't matter. Don't trust them, don't give them a blank check to do these kinds of things. Hold their feet to the fire.

Peace.



You related to Carl Rove?

If not you are just another chump with a vote.

Use it wisely.





posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:26 AM
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.


Don't bother.
They're in too deep.
They can't see the danger.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Ohanka

Sure just think what he could get up to when there's nobody looking.
You realize they are supposed to be where ever the president is so they can report what he does where he goes and who he sees right?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 04:33 AM
link   

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.

They are there to watch him. What if there was an assassination attempt? What if a fire broke out. They are supposed to cover him like the secret service is there to protect him. Remember the big deal when he ditched them in New York?
Just another dictator move.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

When they want to expand media coverage, and the traditional msm is up in arms over it, how are you arriving at your conclusion?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   
A very interesting stat on online viewership consisting of 38,800 channels. This video list the top ten. youtu.be...

PBS news hour 10
white house 09
Hilary Clinton 08 Only because of the election IMO
CNN 07
NBC 06
ABC 05
Fox News 04
Young Turks 03
Alex Jones 02
Next new network 01



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Well I hate to say this but it was on the news when he ditched the press Corp in New York right after the election. So he could go out to dinner. Remember that?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

And what expansion? What are you referring to?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Yup... Remember when Obama did it as President back in 2010and not President-elect?? Or when he ditched the press corp while in Canada? Or in 2015 when he ditched the press corp to play golf? Or do you choose to ignore it because it was President Obama?

* -Obama Ditches White House Press Corps 06/12/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011
* -Obama disappears, abandons press corps

There is an agreement with the press corp and the white house with regards to going everywhere the President does. An agreement, not a law.

edit on 17-1-2017 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.


Bigger venue for the Whitehouse press. The Whitehouse conference center. More seats, equals more room, equals more press, equals more freedom of the press.

Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.

No one here seems to think that's a problem.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Bigger venue for what? The White House? Because this looks like the White House will be a smaller venue for the press now.


Bigger venue for the Whitehouse press. The Whitehouse conference center. More seats, equals more room, equals more press, equals more freedom of the press.

Except it isn't in the White House and takes the press away from the goings on in the executive branch.

No one here seems to think that's a problem.


Apparently you do and it apparently only applies to Trump.



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join