Time for a press boycott of White House press conferences

Have the reporters apply online for a white house press pass, get them cleared by the SS and then every time the WH needs to do a press conference, have a random lottery of the cleared WH reporters that will be invited to attend and ask questions a couple of days in advance.

That way every WH press conference has new reporters that can ask questions and bring them back to their own towns or networks. Problem solved!

a reply to: soberbacchus

I think the words were pretty clear and in plain English. That the press is not a collective of professional journalists, editors and publishers. That freedom of the press is that you, yes even you, can produce your thoughts in the form of the written word without permission to do so. Sorta of like how people can go buy a gun, or form a church, or visit a neighboring state or talk on a telephone, or live stream a radio show, or have a blog, and so on without asking local officials ahead of time. Well except for buying a gun because of background checks unless you live in a state that allows person to person sales or inheritance from relatives.

To say that the press is only journalists and only journalists have certain rights and protections (outside of plagiarism, copywriter, etc) is an establishment of a noble class. That somehow my flier is not valued equally to a copy of a Huffington Post article regardless of the content or critique of the periodical.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I see you cherry picked court cases (and in fact some were taken from appeals but not to the end) to try to give some legitimacy to the point the president cannot ban press from white house

here is an interesting article that CLEARLY SHOWS that it is not that cut and dry.

theconversation.com...

In fact what is "consistent" is the press is granted no more access or privileges than any citizen has.

Just because your "the press" your still bound by privacy laws, private property, security laws, and other things.

your "press badge" does not give you the right to barge in and make people answer your questions.
it does not mean anyone has to talk to you or even give you the time of day.
from the man waiting for a bus to the president of the united states.

the cold hard fact is the white house press briefing are at the sole choice of the president .
He can choose to do or not do them.
choose who can be in there.
How long the session lasts
even who he lets ask questions, how many and when their "time is up"

I defy anyone to show where in the constitution that makes the press answerable to no one, can do what they want when they want.

scrounger

ok lets try to follow the goal of ats "deny ignorance" instead of what is happening here "relish in ignorance".

one.... trump isnt banning news outlets that are not favorable to him
he is banning ONE REPORTER who by any definition of the word did not show civility or respect.
he even batted away the arm of a page who job was TO TAKE THE MIC TO GIVE TO SOMEONE ELSE.


Two... CNN can still send another reporter.

Three.... no reporter is in jail for asking him questions or publishing anti trump reports.

four.... trump is not a "dictator" who is manipulating the press in any way.
has he blocked publication of anything like russia or central american countries ?
has he taken over tv, radio or newspapers?

NO HE HASN'T

In fact all he as done is call out reporters for their questions and articles he feels are wrong, giving wrong info, ect.
in short USING HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS to give his opinion on them
last I checked just because your the president you dont loose your constitutional rights.
along with the press is not some organization (individuals , groups or companies) that are shielded from comments, criticism and/or can do what they want.

so the REALITY is someone was a jag bag, lost his ablility to be there from HIS ACTIONS, and now people are crying about it because it is trump.

if this had been obama, clinton, hell even JFK the reporter would not have this kind of support.

So its a PRIVILEGE for a particular reporter or outlet to be there...NOT A RIGHT.

IMO I would love all those people to be kicked out and smaller outlets be let in for a change.

In fact Id love a revolving door lottery to be there.
no one gets to stay all the time and we get more diversity .

win win.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

NO HE HASN'T

Oh, if only he could.
But he can't.

Remember that bit about revoking broadcast licenses? Funny stuff. Right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

NO HE HASN'T

Oh, if only he could.
But he can't.

Remember that bit about revoking broadcast licenses? Funny stuff. Right?

nice OPINION of what YOU THINK trump wants to do.

care to provide PROOF of this?
Oh thats right you dont need proof just YOUR OPINION .

liberal anti trump logic

where OPINION is fact and nothing else matters

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

So, you don't remember?
Here's a refresher.
www.politico.com...


And more recently:
theweek.com...

But, alas. He can't.

a reply to: Phage

sigh

first lets look at the face value of the articles
he is "suggesting" action of a particular type.
Notice that after these articles there is ZERO policy to come of this.
No executive orders.
in fact no attempts of any time to follow up on it.

so your OPINION is flawed on this level

Second....
the licencing procedure has been used as a threat by the left before.
Did you forget the "fairness" doctrine they tried to push years ago where every outlet had to "allow the opposite view " to be on any media show?
if they didnt they could have their licences pulled?

this was not idle talk but an HONEST ATTEMPT to make regulatory policy.
Note it failed.

funny thing cant find any objection to using the licencing process as a weapon when the left tried (Not implied) to do that.

Lastly in the first article alone trump own words were asking for HONESTY in reporting.

"The press should speak more honestly. I mean, I've seen tremendously dishonest press. It's not even a question of distortion," Trump added. "And then they have their sources that don't exist, in my opinion, they don't exist. They make up the sources. There are no sources."

I could fill this whole page on press dishonesty, mis quoting, and outright ignoring of the truth.

the licencing process is to ensure that the LIMITED licences available go to outlets that meet the RULES.
Lying in reports, slander, ect kinda violates those rules.

so again PROOF that he has policy, executive orders, or just active attempts to do what your claiming?

Scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Notice that after these articles there is ZERO policy to come of this. No executive orders. in fact no attempts of any time to follow up on it.

Right. Because he cannot do anything about it. Nor should he be able to do anything about it. He can, on the other hand, pull a press pass. And he did so.

I could fill this whole page on press dishonesty, mis quoting, and outright ignoring of the truth.

Sort of like the president? Or is that a matter of opinion?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: scrounger

Notice that after these articles there is ZERO policy to come of this. No executive orders. in fact no attempts of any time to follow up on it.

Right. Because he cannot do anything about it. Nor should he be able to do anything about it. He can, on the other hand, pull a press pass. And he did so.

I could fill this whole page on press dishonesty, mis quoting, and outright ignoring of the truth.

Sort of like the president? Or is that a matter of opinion?

wow the mental gymnastics and attempt at deflection of what was asked DIRECTLY of you puts jackie chen stunts to shame.

your first point is he cant do anything about it.

but your original point was he wants to do it and your overtly implying that he could.

if he cant then what are you worried about since words cant hurt/accomplish it?

seems you want to justify your anti trump with it but at same time claim he cant.
you cant have it both ways and it be fact...thats called doublethink.

Second....
there is ZERO proof to back up he wants to do it.
no policy, no executive orders, hell no followup of ANY KIND..

third....
I proved USING YOUR OWN SOURCE that he was chastising the press for not being honest , false information , and untruthful reporting.
that such activity (NO MATTER WHO ITS ABOUT, be president or hotdog vendor ) should not be tolerated and punished.

you took a few lines and tried to narrate it outside of the whole article.
hell even the article itself showed that, and they hate trump.

lastly and most laughable comment is "sort of like the president"
sorry but the articles your using, your original point and what I pointed out is about THE PRESS/MEDIA.
Not trump .
your attempting to deflect and not answer the point I made of the press by saying kindergarden comment "but he is doing it"
if you wish to debate the president truth or not THATS A SEPARATE ISSUE /DEBATE.
does not in any way absolve or justify what the press is doing.
or to put it another way its ok to hit you because you have hit someone else?
see how your logic falls apart?

overall you cant defend your position with facts so you resort to deflection , not addressing the points , emotion and self righteousness...

Scrounger

a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually the President can refuse access and government can on any privately owned government establishment or facility.

White house access for any member of the press is up to WH officials.

TextSince the Supreme Court said in its 1972 Branzburg ruling that journalists have no right to insist on greater access than the general public

www.houstonchronicle.com...

The only reason for which a journalist cannot lawfully be banned is if the ban was a result of retaliation for what they publish or write or state, which would violate the first amendment.

being named the "People's" house does not authenticate non existent legislature of "Right" to access.

Your statement implying otherwise is based on an Argument from Ignorance.

TextGovernment agencies can regulate the “time, place and manner” of speaking, the Supreme Court has ruled, as long as the restrictions are reasonable and enforced evenhandedly. Were a case to go to court, Collins and CNN might have to demonstrate that other journalists have shouted friendlier questions without consequence.

Also there is this

TextIn a similar case in Maryland, a news organization lost a lawsuit against Maryland’s former governor.

The Maryland case shows how difficult it can be to prove a retaliation claim. In that 2006 case, a federal appeals court ruled that Gov. Robert Ehrlich did not violate The Baltimore Sun’s First Amendment rights by directing his administration to stop returning calls or granting interviews to a reporter and columnist whose coverage Ehrlich considered unfair.

The appellate judges found the idea of a “right” to interview the governor’s aides to be a problem. If The Sun could sue over being denied access to the governor’s staff, they said, what would stop a reporter from bringing a First Amendment claim whenever his competitor gets an exclusive interview?

In essence, the judges ruled, the governor did what politicians routinely do: Talk only to the journalists they trust.

So your point about the consistency of Courts was heavily lacking in specific clarification and Detail.

But it's ok,
I know you tried your hardest to post only the information that supported your People's House fantasy law.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: TheRedneck

I remember when freedom of the press meant that you had the freedom to publish your ideas, even if it was just handwritten pamphlets. Not sure when the press came to mean an exclusive club separate from the masses. I wonder if the Supreme Court makes a distinction, thereby establishing a noble class of sorts?

Saying what you want about the government is a right.
I'm not sure direct access to officials is. Unless they are out in public, of course.

The president can keep anyone out of the White House he wants to. Is it a good idea to do so? I think not.

I know right? they might report 90 percent negatively on him if he did such a thing.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: soberbacchus

Yes. Yes it does.

Do "newsmen" have security clearances?

That is the core of their pass.
That also gets to the nature of your question.

The only thing that defines the WH Press Pool as "Journalists" is either the President/WH or the White House Correspondence Association declaring they are and telling the Secret Service to conduct the special background check/security clearance to afford them access to the Brady Press Briefing Room, the WH press quarters in the basement etc.

At it's core the thing that sets the WH journalists apart from anyone else that wants to claim journalist status is the special secret service security pass, granted by the secret service and the background check initiated at the request of the WHCA or the WH.

It is called a "Hard Pass" because it issued by secret service after extensive security background checks.

On the rare occasions when it has been revoked in the past it has been due to security issues cited by Secret Service.

originally posted by: ConspiracyofRavens
a reply to: soberbacchus

Actually the President can refuse access and government can on any privately owned government establishment or facility.

White house access for any member of the press is up to WH officials.

TextSince the Supreme Court said in its 1972 Branzburg ruling that journalists have no right to insist on greater access than the general public

Alas..

Not sure why people still post this red herring.

Q&A requires a journalist present and asking a question PLUS a person willing to answer it.

You are correct. "Journalists" can not insist that Presidents or politicians talk to them or grant "Journalists" PLURAL greater access.

Politicians though can not exclude selectively what journalists can be present in public press conferences.

They don't need to hold the press conferences.
They don't need to call on the journalist.

But they can't selectively "ban" a journalist without sound reason, which has been in the past Secret Service citing security issues.

The Brady room actually has on 49 seats, with a good number standing.

Capacity is the limitation. WHCA and WH decide on who the secret service vets for hard passes.

I am surprised some folks aren't following the logic/legal precedence here.

a reply to: ConspiracyofRavens

you cited a 1972 case about access.
(otherwise no one can force someone to answer questions or have a press conference)

But once access is given in the form of a press conference, it is a different case.

1977 Sherill ...more recent than what you cited, and deals with pass denials vs. the broader question of whether a politician must grant access.
AKA Trump doesn't have to give a conference or answer questions, but once he does it is a different question whether he can deny certain reporters access to that press conference without reason.



How does one get a Hard WH Press Pass?
.....
Although there exist no written procedures pertaining to the issuance of press passes for the White House, it was established in the District Court that these passes are routinely obtained in the following manner.

(1) A journalist submits a request for a pass to the White House Press Office.
(2) After determining that the applicant has:
- obtained a pass for the House and Senate press galleries,
- resides in the Washington, D. C. area,
- and needs to report from the White House on a regular basis (the latter usually being verified by an editor of the publication for which the applicant is a correspondent),

(3) the Press Office forwards the application to the Secret Service for a security check, including a background FBI investigation.

Whether a pass is then issued depends solely on the recommendation of the Secret Service.

If the application is denied, the journalist is informed, orally or in writing, that the denial is "for reasons relating to the security of the President and/or the members of his immediate family

...

The Courts Decision was that the Secret Service has to explain it's reasoning within a security context.
(Not WH - cuz they don't issue or revoke passes - the passes are Sec Service issued)

Secret Service must:

"devise and publicize narrow and specific standards" for press pass denials,
and to institute procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial,
the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence,
and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass.

openjurist.org...

edit on 12-11-2018 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: scrounger
a reply to: soberbacchus

the cold hard fact is the white house press briefing are at the sole choice of the president . (Not sure what you mean? the room?)
He can choose to do or not do them. (TRUE)
choose who can be in there. (FALSE)
How long the session lasts (TRUE)
even who he lets ask questions, how many and when their "time is up" (KINDA - It depends on who calls on - but there is now legal precedent/law around shouting questions or how long etc. That is usually handled by the WHCA and WH talking it out if there is a general disciplinary or behavior issue)

I defy anyone to show where in the constitution that makes the press answerable to no one, can do what they want when they want.

Freedom of the Press.
They answer to the Public, just like the President.
They do not answer to a President.
that would the territory of despots and dictators.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: soberbacchus

To say that the press is only journalists and only journalists have certain rights and protections (outside of plagiarism, copywriter, etc) is an establishment of a noble class. That somehow my flier is not valued equally to a copy of a Huffington Post article regardless of the content or critique of the periodical.

Who says the Press are only anything?

Straight up - the right wing is trying to sell "the press" as conceited elite in an aim to support the "enemy of the people" propaganda.

I would have thought it would have been a failed effort around here, but obviously not.

Try this: By literally any definition of "press" the courts have ever hinted at, ATS would qualify.

The base definition of "Press" according to the courts is some entity or person that communicates data to the public.

Blogs, youtube channels, forums etc. all qualify legally.

So where does this "elite" "noble class" stuff come from?

The WH Press Pool is determined as thus. THIS IS WHAT DISTINGUISHES THEM FROM THE REST OF THE PRESS, NOT THE PRESS ITSELF BEING SOME NOBLE CLASS.

How does one get a Hard WH Press Pass?
.....
Although there exist no written procedures pertaining to the issuance of press passes for the White House, it was established in the District Court that these passes are routinely obtained in the following manner.

(1) A journalist submits a request for a pass to the White House Press Office.
(2) After determining that the applicant has:
- obtained a pass for the House and Senate press galleries,
- resides in the Washington, D. C. area,
- and needs to report from the White House on a regular basis (the latter usually being verified by an editor of the publication for which the applicant is a correspondent),

(3) the Press Office forwards the application to the Secret Service for a security check, including a background FBI investigation.

Whether a pass is then issued depends solely on the recommendation of the Secret Service.

If the application is denied, the journalist is informed, orally or in writing, that the denial is "for reasons relating to the security of the President and/or the members of his immediate family



openjurist.org...

a reply to: soberbacchus

A journalist submits a request for a pass to the White House Press Office.

That in itself shows definitively that there is no right to be at the press conference. One does not have to ask to exercise a right!

• I do not need to ask anyone to speak my mind.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to be secure in my home.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to practice my chosen religion.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to own a firearm.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to be able to vote.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to be able to hang out with friends.
  
• I do not have to ask anyone to be able to move about freely.

I DO have to ask for permission to attend a White House presser.

The only one claiming there is an elite class is you. We're discussing your assertion that somehow there is a right for a reporter to be at a White House presser. You are the one claiming there is an elite group with exclusive rights, because you are claiming a reporter has this special right to be somewhere the rest of us do not.

The only thing the courts have said is the government cannot censor by removing access for select individuals based on not liking someone. They most certainly can ban someone for refusing to give up the mic when told to. IT'S NOT THEIR MIC!

My God, man, wake up. There's hot coffee if you need it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: soberbacchus

A journalist submits a request for a pass to the White House Press Office.

That in itself shows definitively that there is no right to be at the press conference. One does not have to ask to exercise a right!

• 
  
  
  

You are conflating the application process with revoking.
They have different standards.
Like issuing a drivers license. It can not be revoked arbitrarily.

The Hard Pass is Secret Service Credentials. Secret Service needs to be the one to revoke.

The White House Press Office only determines their eligibility for application.

I will continue to provide links, since you seem to think reality is a personal invention of mine, but somehow I doubt you are actually reading or researching the issue.

Here, from Foreign Policy Magazine 8 years ago.
foreignpolicy.com...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled then that the White House must provide notice in such a case, as well as an opportunity for a journalist to respond and a written opinion from the White House explaining its reasoning that a court can examine.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Specifically here:

Secret Service must:

"devise and publicize narrow and specific standards" for press pass denials,

and to institute procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial,

the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence,

and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass.

openjurist.org...

a reply to: soberbacchus

A drivers license is not a right.

Neither is access to the West Wing.

TheRedneck