Irrelevant Press Corp

The spineless and anemic institution we call "the Press" is falling to the wayside quicker and harder with every passing day. Today we are culled into believing that we need credentials to ask questions and petition our Government. This is evident in the ridiculously scripted White House press corps. Actually, the very notion that their is a press corp; which is almost as elite and secretive as the lauded Priest classes of ancient cultures; serves only as a puppet show to the American People.

Questions are screened. How else would you explain the questions that are lobbed softer than your daughter's softball coach is tossing practice balls to build encouragement? Of course, this is all under threat that you will lose your exclusive access to the elite club of the who's who of Foggy Bottom's most irrelevant class: The Press.

Recently, the White House is starting to feel the "heat" from reporters within the corp. A new rule was declared that there is to be "no shouting questions at the president." This of course is a direct slap in the face of the notions of a Free Press and also a time honored tradition in regards to presidential access. Jay Carney, the president's professional spin doctor says "People shouted questions at him,...The purpose of the meeting is not to create a circus, but to negotiate, so today we're doing stills only." Fair enough in regards to keeping some sort of order, but that has long past with the failure to pass a budget and now onto this battle regarding the debt ceiling limit.

But is it not the right of the People to know exactly why the Government needs to borrow even more money than they already spend? And of current standards, the only way for the People to know what is going on is through the press corp; which has exclusive access to the President. We the lowly people have no such luck as we are not deemed worthy of being in the presence the President. With the list severely limited to a handful of vetted and selected pundits and journalist serving on the corp, the People rely upon them to do their job and ask the tough questions.

Their ability to do their job has been hand-tied even more severely than any time before. What is even worse is that not only have they been neutered by the White House, they have diminished their own presence by allowing themselves to be corralled into a neat little press corp. They have allowed themselves to be bought, indirectly, through exclusive access and lavish dinner parties. They have turned their backs on journalism in favor of favoritism. The press corp, through its own hand has made themselves irrelevant.


Sources:
Politico: No Yelling at Obama Today

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
The spineless and anemic institution we call "the Press" is falling to the wayside quicker and harder with every passing day. Today we are culled into believing that we need credentials to ask questions and petition our Government. This is evident in the ridiculously scripted White House press corps. Actually, the very notion that their is a press corp; which is almost as elite and secretive as the lauded Priest classes of ancient cultures; serves only as a puppet show to the American People........


Sources:
Politico: No Yelling at Obama Today

Non of this is anywhere near a new development in any way.

Either you are just waking up, or are viewing the present through a certainly limited and likely partisan lens.

I hate to break it too you but there have been other Presidents that have had far far tighter restrictions on the Press. There even used to be legislation making it a criminal offense to print anything negative.

Today is nothing compared to what it used to be.

I used one example of current events to highlight how irrelevant the corp and all of press has become. I know that the White House, including past administrations all have their own slew of restrictions and caveats that they like to induce into the "press corp". This however, was not the point and I am saddened that out of the whole of a post, that is all you two could hone in on.

The subject was not the current Administration, but rather the lackluster and failing press that is too caught up in lavish parties, knocking elbows with power and the fear of being run out of the corp is the subject. This has been a long time coming and I was highlighting that fact.

In other posts, I exhibited the extremely close relationship that Media bigwigs and heavy hitters enjoy with the Political Class. Anyone inside the credentialed system of journalism is the problem. They have to ask the very government they wish to report on (for possible abuses) to allow them to report, yet everyone is mum on that! Yet everyone wants to cherry pick my thread as viewing the situation through a "partisan lens" and "hate to break it to you" quips.

I don't know of any topics out right now that I can't find decent coverage on if I look for it. If you know of any that are not being covered then let me know and I will post decent links for them.

Don't tie your inability to look for information to the press corps. Unless of course you believe you should be spoon fed all your news.

Originally posted by kro32
I don't know of any topics out right now that I can't find decent coverage on if I look for it. If you know of any that are not being covered then let me know and I will post decent links for them.

Don't tie your inability to look for information to the press corps. Unless of course you believe you should be spoon fed all your news.

What are you dancing around here? I think the idea of a "press corp" is ridiculous. Access to the President is held into some secretive order that only the selected and connected can engage in. This is not a free press. Those that do have that connection dare not ask tough questions, dare not challenge the president and dare not show any critical thought in that room. If so, they can kiss their candy butts goodbye.

I don't expect anything to be fed to me. Even here, I laud the fact that people will point to a "non-mainstream news source" and claim gold because it is not MSM. I demand to either see the actual source, or have access to the source. See any thread in which I have given opinion in regard to Supreme Court cases. I am the one that has to post the actual ruling and opinion of the court and that sometimes is 2-3 pages in.

Again, the point here isn't the type of news or stories come out of the press. It is the fact that they are beholden to a Government in which they are supposed to be hounding for information. Except, they have to watch their toes so to speak because that very Government grants them access. I guess, since you are ignoring that portion of my argument, you are quite okay with that setup.

The government and the President get hounded all the time. Just because it doesn't happen from the few people that are part of the Presidents posse should in no way make you assume everyone is like that. There are plenty of other sources of news other than them.

Once again I have to ask, is there anything not being covered?

Answer is no. Why you care where it comes from still has me stumped.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Either you are just waking up, or are viewing the present through a certainly limited and likely partisan lens.

There is nothing "partisan" about pointing to a contradiction. The Press love to make a big deal about their "freedom of press" as long as it is the long established media who are the ones "afforded" this "privilege" of freedom of the press.

Contradictions do not exist, and when confronted with a contradiction it becomes necessary to check the premise.

Credentials for the press is a contradiction. This is not partisan politics, unless by "partisan" you mean those who are partial to freedom, as opposed to those who are partial to tyranny. That would then put Own Best Enemy squarely in the Freedom Party, and you squarely in the Tyranny Party.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Either you are just waking up, or are viewing the present through a certainly limited and likely partisan lens.

There is nothing "partisan" about pointing to a contradiction. The Press love to make a big deal about their "freedom of press" as long as it is the long established media who are the ones "afforded" this "privilege" of freedom of the press.

Pretending these are new tactics under this current administration, as the OP does, is certainly easy to interpret as being awfully short-sighted in terms of political understanding.

Credentials for the press is a contradiction. This is not partisan politics, unless by "partisan" you mean those who are partial to freedom, as opposed to those who are partial to tyranny. That would then put Own Best Enemy squarely in the Freedom Party, and you squarely in the Tyranny Party.

Um, yeah, and you hate puppies and kittens and dont help old ladies across the street.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Pretending these are new tactics under this current administration, as the OP does, is certainly easy to interpret as being awfully short-sighted in terms of political understanding.

The only pretense is on your part. OBE has not created a thread about Obama and his attitudes toward the press, he has created a thread questioning the validity of a press corps. That you actually need that explained to you reveals quite a bit about your ability to reason. In fact, because you have no valid argument, you instead rely upon on ad hominem attacks such as this:

Um, yeah, and you hate puppies and kittens and dont help old ladies across the street.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


The only pretense is on your part. OBE has not created a thread about Obama and his attitudes toward the press, he has created a thread questioning the validity of a press corps. That you actually need that explained to you reveals quite a bit about your ability to reason.

Actually, here in reality, the OP is making direct accusations about the 'press corp' under the current WH.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux In fact, because you have no valid argument, you instead rely upon on ad hominem attacks such as this:



Um, yeah, and you hate puppies and kittens and dont help old ladies across the street.

Just. Wow. You're kidding, right? You are quoting a tongue-in-cheek response to you calling me "squarely in the Tyranny Party. "

So, to recap, you have called me a fan of Tyranny and questioned my ability to reason, but then accuse me of personal attacks? REALLY?

ETA: why is it that the people who like to scream "Ad Hom attack" are usually the ones engaging in it?

After the recent relevations regarding the actions of the Murdoch news group in several different countries around the world, why SHOULD there be a free press?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Actually, here in reality, the OP is making direct accusations about the 'press corp' under the current WH.

Then support your argument with an actual quote from the O.P. instead of pretending it is true simply by way of reification.

The O.P. is making a direct accusation that credentialism has no place in the media. The Freedom of the Press is a long honored principle of law. No one needs credentials in order to be a member of the press, they only need to print their work in order to be a member of the press.

You are attempting to derail this thread and make it about partisan politics. That makes you the partisan hack, not the O.P.

Originally posted by babybunnies
After the recent relevations regarding the actions of the Murdoch news group in several different countries around the world, why SHOULD there be a free press?

Because all people everywhere have the absolute and unalienable right to act as a member of the press. That's the beauty of rights, they are a part of law and protected from people like you who show no regard for rights.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Then support your argument with an actual quote from the O.P. instead of pretending it is true simply by way of reification.

The O.P. is making a direct accusation that credentialism has no place in the media. The Freedom of the Press is a long honored principle of law. No one needs credentials in order to be a member of the press, they only need to print their work in order to be a member of the press.

Sure. Did you not read it?

A new rule was declared that there is to be "no shouting questions at the president." This of course is a direct slap in the face of the notions of a Free Press and also a time honored tradition in regards to presidential access. Jay Carney, the president's professional spin doctor says "People shouted questions at him,..

Originally posted by Jean Paul ZodeauxYou are attempting to derail this thread and make it about partisan politics. That makes you the partisan hack, not the O.P.

And yet you are the one accusing me of engaging in personal attacks. Ironic, no?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

Sure. Did you not read it?

Of course I read it. You have taken an example the O.P. uses to support his argument that credentialism is not appropriate for the press and are attempting to use it to "prove" the O.P. is being "partisan". It is disingenuous at best, and just flat out lying at worst.

As to your pretensions that you are the victim in this thread. First of all, I did not call you a tyrant, I pointed out the flaw in your argument that the O.P. was "viewing...through partisan lens". The flaw is that the O.P. is not arguing any party politics and is instead arguing points of law. As a point of law, there are certain unalienable rights the government has been expressly prohibited from trampling over, and freedom of the press is one of them. So, if the O.P. is being partisan at all, it is a partiality towards freedom, and because you've accused him of this partisanship, then that would necessarily put you in position of being partisan towards something other than freedom, which amounts to tyranny.

As to your other pretense of being wounded because I finally responded to your insistence of partisanship by pointing out it is you that is the partisan hack, if you don't want to be called partisan, or for that matter, then stop acting as a partisan and a hack.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I'm sorry. I didnt realize you were tying to be ironic by derailing this thread with personal attacks against me while claiming I am doing both myself. You seemed so genuine in your accusations that the subtle irony escaped me at first. Well done!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by incrediblelousminds

 

Sure. Did you not read it?

Of course I read it. You have taken an example the O.P. uses to support his argument that credentialism is not appropriate for the press and are attempting to use it to "prove" the O.P. is being "partisan". It is disingenuous at best, and just flat out lying at worst.

No, I took an example from the OP to prove my statement. Feel free to disprove my statement. All you have done so far, though, is to attack me, my methods, and affiliations. I am not the subject being discussed , despite your best efforts.

As to your pretensions that you are the victim in this thread.

I have not claimed to be a victim.

First of all, I did not call you a tyrant,

Well, thats good. I didnt say you called me a tyrant. I quoted you saying I am "Squarely in the Tyranny Party"

I pointed out the flaw in your argument that the O.P. was "viewing...through partisan lens".

Actually, what I said was "Either you are just waking up, or are viewing the present through a certainly limited and likely partisan lens."

I notice you carefully edited your version to intentionally take it out of context, and to carefully remove the word 'likely'.

The flaw is that the O.P. is not arguing any party politics and is instead arguing points of law.

Which is why i said he was likely viewing events through a partisan lens, in addition to possibly just becoming politically aware. From my own personal perspective, complaining about something THIS administration is doing, even though it has been going on for DECADES, might be a sign of someone experience partisan angst. You are free to disagree with this opinion of mine. Why you have chosen to derail the thread and attack me several times instead of merely addressing these points is, honestly, beyond me,

So, if the O.P. is being partisan at all, it is a partiality towards freedom

One cant be 'partisan towards freedom'. Partisan implies affiliation to a party.

, and because you've accused him of this partisanship, then that would necessarily put you in position of being partisan towards something other than freedom, which amounts to tyranny

Wait, so i DO support Tyranny? Isnt that one of those personal attacks you claim to not engage in?

As to your other pretense of being wounded because I finally responded to your insistence of partisanship by pointing out it is you that is the partisan hack, if you don't want to be called partisan, or for that matter, then stop acting as a partisan and a hack.

Goodness gracious. All that from a person claiming to not use personal attacks?

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

No, I took an example from the OP to prove my statement. Feel free to disprove my statement. All you have done so far, though, is to attack me, my methods, and affiliations. I am not the subject being discussed , despite your best efforts.

The subject being discussed is an elite press corp and credentials. This is what you have steadfastly avoided in this thread, all the while making this thread about you, then pretending I am making it about you.

You could have, if you actually agree with credentialism made an argument for it, instead of derailing the thread.

For example, it is a valid argument to point out that the White House cannot facilitate an entire nation of journalists and has to necessary limit the amount of journalists they let into the White House. This would be a valid argument worth discussing. Of course, you didn't make that argument, I just did. You instead attempted to derail this thread.

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
Pretending these are new tactics under this current administration, as the OP does, is certainly easy to interpret as being awfully short-sighted in terms of political understanding.

While I respect your interpretation, that was not the goal nor subject of the OP. They are current events and yes, I didn't go further back to show that each administration engages in them, I do not turn a blind eye to them either; as my response a few posts back explained.