Not a bad idea. The White House Press Corps is a small, insular, incestuous organisation. Opening questions to people outside the building could lead to something new.
Based on the current MO so far it will probably be to sites like Brietbart or other propaganda nonsense that the Trump team will have planted to call on.
Under another administration I would be hopeful, but the Trump administration appears openly interested in choosing organizations that only ask the kind of questions they want to answer.
> Under another administration I would be hopeful, but the Trump administration appears openly interested in choosing organizations that only ask the kind of questions they want to answer
How about we wait and see before passing judgement.
After all... this is brand new, and obviously done under the new administration.
We already had the first press conference in the new admin as well as Trump's last personal conference...going to say they have already set the precedent.
Wait and see what, exactly? A self-proclamed "war" with the media, and taking zero questions on day 1 of the administration is enough for me. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. That makes me disinclined to "wait and see".
Because the traditional media has been completely unbias and fair in their coverage so far?
Edit:
There are numerous examples of media bias and actual evidence of media collusion with Clinton and the DMC against Trump. What sort of bizarro world do we live in that people would rather make the truth disappear than acknowledge it?
I downvoted you because you're a new poster who trades in cookie-cutter self-victimizing political arguments heard a million times before. The bar needs to be higher for new posters, or HN will drown in this.
This account has been posting a lot of political and ideological comments, and accounts that do that primarily are abusing the site. We're not here to do battle on such grounds, but rather to indulge our intellectual curiosity.
Apparently challenging the uncritical liberal hive mind doesn't indulge your intellectual curiosity. It's better to just shout down views that make you uncomfortable. Didn't realize HN was intended to be a safe space.
And no substantive response to the clear evidence of media collusion has been given. Instead I've been attacked personally, flagged, and voted down so as to disappear.
Edit:
Try getting not your high horse.
The OP of this thread is dead, and what exactly did that comment do to generate so much hate besides suggest this move of including more media wasn't the end of world?
In this comment alone you've called the community an “uncritical liberal hive mind” and a “safe space” (which I read as mockery, but I could be wrong). These sorts of things are the sorts of things that prevent thoughtful, civil discussion.
You've also repeatedly complained about downvotes, which the guidelines ask us specifically not to do.
Controversial and opposing views abound on Hacker News. But it's the way that we express those views (clearly, thoughtfully, productively!) which furthers us along our goal of actually learning something, and we have to ask that all members participate this way so that we have a hope of continuing.
Not sure if everyone here actually saw all of the Sunday press shows. But it's far more than just your every day "war with the media" that other Presidents have gone through. Every White House reporter including Hume and Wallace from Fox News have said that what Spicer/Trump did was unprecedented in all their years of covering administrations.
To have a Press Secretary berate the press corp and demand they fall in line whilst simultaneously flat out lying is pretty extraordinary and very concerning. It's something straight out of 1984 and has Bannon's fingerprints all over it.
> Every White House reporter including Hume and Wallace from Fox News have said that what Spicer/Trump did was unprecedented in all their years of covering administrations.
As, incidentally, have former Press Secretaries of both parties.
> As, incidentally, have former Press Secretaries of both parties.
That's part of what gets me, really.
If this were another administration, people would celebrate this as something progressive and new. However, it's Trump, so it must automatically be terrible, regardless of the reasons put forth for this thing (which sound good and "progressive", honestly).
People aren't willing to even give it a chance before condemning it.
Of course people should be skeptical, especially since previous behavior has clearly lent reason to be skeptical... however, we shouldn't become jaded and start to view everything new from this administration as automatically bad or full of ulterior motives.
> If this were another administration, people would celebrate this as something progressive and new.
No, berating the press corps for failing to fall in line while spouting outright lies would not be seen as "progressive" under a different President. While this administration's manifestation has been correctly been called unprecedented in modern American history, that's a matter of degree; a lesser form was seen in the waning days of the Nixon Administration as the siege mentality during the Watergate scandal had taken hold, and that wasn't seen as progressive either.
(Maybe you meant this as a comment on the Skype seats, but if so it has nothing to do with the post you respond see to or the part you quoted.)
If he only accepted questions from organizations that cover him favourably, that'd exclude most of the media. From what I've seen so far he only seems to refuse questions from media that delve into conspiracy-theory tier reporting - Russian piss orgies, "secret communications with Russia" that somehow look in every way like junk email about Trump hotels from an outsourced service he doesn't even control, that kind of thing. (Which is probably still a little ironic given his role in birtherism.)
I don't think such preferences are abnormal, not at all. It is a natural desire for an administration to want softball questions.
However I don't think most administrations would attempt to achieve them by disrupting the press corps. That claim probably can't be tested or evaluated fairly, partially because it's a fairly novel action, and partially because it's a complex hypothetical. I must admit it is just my political leanings driving me to this conclusion.
I guess another (unfair) way to look at is: I would rather have someone appear not to attempt to manipulate public opinion, regardless of if they actually are, because when you are at that level of power, I at least want you to ave your act together enough to keep halfway-decent PR. Thus the fact that it appears to me that they are making such weak attempts to manipulate says something, independent of the ethics of the action itself.
Several Internet-only sites are already members of the White House Press Corps, including hyper-conservative sites like Newsmax and the Daily Caller. Breitbart could have a seat in the briefing room if it wanted, and can certainly afford to do so.
Well Steve Bannon already works for the White House, so Breitbart can have a seat already. I'm guessing less credible "fake-ish news" news sources that paint the administration in a positive light (but don't have press credentials) will have those seats.
This gives people who are not from the major newspapers, magazines and TV stations access to ask questions at the briefing. Many of the majors don't even attend most briefings, so this could give more minor outlets much better access at low cost.
This is another opportunity to hide the physicality of the room. The Skype members probably won't have the same viewpoint that reporters in the room will have. Easier to spin noises in the background.
So basically, mainstream media is asking us annoying questions so we'll field them from people we like. Bets on how many of these Skype seats go to alt-right platforms and blogs? Bets on how often questions are fielded to these participants vs traditional media?
White House reporters aren't in the room because they lack the tech-savvy to be there; the New York Times can throw down against any Y Combinator startup in building technology.
Reporters are in the room because they're trained, professional reporters who have dedicated their careers to reporting on the White House. Diluting their influence is not necessarily a good thing.
One thing that is worth pointing out is that the chairs are all assigned seating to specific news organizations. This assignment is NOT done by the White House but the White House Correspondents' Association. So the Trump administration can't decide to, say, replace the Christian Science Monitor's or Al Jazeera's seat with Breitbart News.
The linked article doesn't discuss who is going to be allocating these virtual seats--and I rather suspect that it's going to be decided by the White House and not the White House Correspondents' Association. It's disappointing that the article doesn't mention this, since knowing the answer to this question is what really sets the purpose of the move. If it is to be given to the White House Correspondents' Association, then it is likely an attempt to give voice to a wider range of media... but if it's White House-controlled, then it's more likely an attempt to guide press briefings to only considering questions from more compliant news organizations.
Edit: There are 49 seats, not the 42 that I originally stated.
55 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 135 ms ] threadHow about we wait and see before passing judgement.
After all... this is brand new, and obviously done under the new administration.
The first two, though no questions were permitted at the first one (which itself is something of a signal.)
Edit:
There are numerous examples of media bias and actual evidence of media collusion with Clinton and the DMC against Trump. What sort of bizarro world do we live in that people would rather make the truth disappear than acknowledge it?
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/nbc-fact-check-trump-clinton-a...
We have evidence of media collusion with the Democratic party, but you rather engage in name calling and shooting of the messenger.
And no substantive response to the clear evidence of media collusion has been given. Instead I've been attacked personally, flagged, and voted down so as to disappear.
Edit:
Try getting not your high horse.
The OP of this thread is dead, and what exactly did that comment do to generate so much hate besides suggest this move of including more media wasn't the end of world?
You've also repeatedly complained about downvotes, which the guidelines ask us specifically not to do.
Controversial and opposing views abound on Hacker News. But it's the way that we express those views (clearly, thoughtfully, productively!) which furthers us along our goal of actually learning something, and we have to ask that all members participate this way so that we have a hope of continuing.
Sounds very scientific. Except when change happens.
But that's the point, isn't it? The "best predictor" bit means that the "Except" clause usually doesn't happen.
Adding Skype seats is insufficient to suggest Trump is changing his spots.
People have been saying he will stop behaving like a petulant child when he was elected.
Didn't happen.
Then when he officially took over.
Still not happening.
Their entire campaign was full of moments of tu qoque, ad hominems, and now alternate facts.
But yeah, they added a few Skype seats. Sure fire sign Trump is changing for the better
To have a Press Secretary berate the press corp and demand they fall in line whilst simultaneously flat out lying is pretty extraordinary and very concerning. It's something straight out of 1984 and has Bannon's fingerprints all over it.
Video from Fox News Sunday panel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsV305yfG2o
As, incidentally, have former Press Secretaries of both parties.
That's part of what gets me, really.
If this were another administration, people would celebrate this as something progressive and new. However, it's Trump, so it must automatically be terrible, regardless of the reasons put forth for this thing (which sound good and "progressive", honestly).
People aren't willing to even give it a chance before condemning it.
Of course people should be skeptical, especially since previous behavior has clearly lent reason to be skeptical... however, we shouldn't become jaded and start to view everything new from this administration as automatically bad or full of ulterior motives.
No, berating the press corps for failing to fall in line while spouting outright lies would not be seen as "progressive" under a different President. While this administration's manifestation has been correctly been called unprecedented in modern American history, that's a matter of degree; a lesser form was seen in the waning days of the Nixon Administration as the siege mentality during the Watergate scandal had taken hold, and that wasn't seen as progressive either.
(Maybe you meant this as a comment on the Skype seats, but if so it has nothing to do with the post you respond see to or the part you quoted.)
Trump goes beyond preferences... he only wants favorable questions from organizations that will cover him favorably.
It may turn out that you're correct, but there's not enough data to make a meaningful comparison yet.
However I don't think most administrations would attempt to achieve them by disrupting the press corps. That claim probably can't be tested or evaluated fairly, partially because it's a fairly novel action, and partially because it's a complex hypothetical. I must admit it is just my political leanings driving me to this conclusion.
I guess another (unfair) way to look at is: I would rather have someone appear not to attempt to manipulate public opinion, regardless of if they actually are, because when you are at that level of power, I at least want you to ave your act together enough to keep halfway-decent PR. Thus the fact that it appears to me that they are making such weak attempts to manipulate says something, independent of the ethics of the action itself.
Basically, imagine a show that takes place in the dystopian future of Continuum.
(yes Microsoft, that's you)
Reporters are in the room because they're trained, professional reporters who have dedicated their careers to reporting on the White House. Diluting their influence is not necessarily a good thing.
One thing that is worth pointing out is that the chairs are all assigned seating to specific news organizations. This assignment is NOT done by the White House but the White House Correspondents' Association. So the Trump administration can't decide to, say, replace the Christian Science Monitor's or Al Jazeera's seat with Breitbart News.
The linked article doesn't discuss who is going to be allocating these virtual seats--and I rather suspect that it's going to be decided by the White House and not the White House Correspondents' Association. It's disappointing that the article doesn't mention this, since knowing the answer to this question is what really sets the purpose of the move. If it is to be given to the White House Correspondents' Association, then it is likely an attempt to give voice to a wider range of media... but if it's White House-controlled, then it's more likely an attempt to guide press briefings to only considering questions from more compliant news organizations.
Edit: There are 49 seats, not the 42 that I originally stated.