• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House holds OFF-THE-RECORD briefing with reporters on Benghazi

trfjr

Banned
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
3,114
Reaction score
1,004
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting.

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.


W.H. holds off-the-record Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com


so why off the record? what was the purpose of the meeting ? is it so the media can coordinate the WH talking points with each other? is it so they can all perform the same spin to make this go away

Just more proof we have a state run media
 
What's the point of an off the record briefing to the media? They can't do anything overt with the information.....
 
What's the point of an off the record briefing to the media? They can't do anything overt with the information.....

A better question would be: WTF is an off-the-record briefing??
 
A better question would be: WTF is an off-the-record briefing??

Anything that is discussed in the meeting can not be reported on it has to be kept from the public
 
A better question would be: WTF is an off-the-record briefing??

It's where the state run press gets it instructions on how to handle the Benghazi Debacle.

Maddow, Matthews and Shultz are on the front row, I'm sure.
 
A better question would be: WTF is an off-the-record briefing??

It's the start of one of their stories, you know, the ones that go "a senior White House source today would not confirm on the record but hinted that President Obama can, indeed, turn water into wine".
 
It's the start of one of their stories, you know, the ones that go "a senior White House source today would not confirm on the record but hinted that President Obama can, indeed, turn water into wine".

I think it's going to be more along the lines of,

"It was confirmed, in an off the record breifing, that everything the whistleblowers are saying is a lie".
 
secrets, secrets, so many secrets

did you know that david rhodes is the brother of ben rhodes, the white house national security adviser for communications, whose many emails (now in the possession of evil darrell issa) tell the underlings at the cia exactly what they must and what they must not tell the american people is the truth

david rhodes is president of cbs news

David Rhodes - CBS News

so why is cbs leaning so hard on sharyl attkisson?

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, a persistent voice of media skepticism on Benghazi - The Washington Post

Sharyl Attkisson in talks to leave CBS - POLITICO.com

ask the brothers rhodes

this coverup is attempting now to extend its secrecy and concealment even BEYOND the multi level departments and agencies of the executive branch and into the realm of the television sets in our own living rooms

richard nixon must admire them their work, these masters of muggery---except they got caught

oh well

party on, progressives

it's gonna be a very long year
 
Anything that is discussed in the meeting can not be reported on it has to be kept from the public

Which begs to ask the question: why tell the media if they can't do anything with the information?
 
Which begs to ask the question: why tell the media if they can't do anything with the information?

I would guess it's to give them marching orders. I mean it. I no longer trust the press. Frankly? I think Fox is doing a good job reporting. I don't watch or listen to their infotainment -- just read the news on their website. It's one of the few. I'm more apt to get good information on Drudge them I am from major network news.

We're in trouble, folks. We really are.
 
Which begs to ask the question: why tell the media if they can't do anything with the information?
so to help the lap dog media spin it away so to help coordinate their stories to protect Obama and Clinton
 
I wonder if Fox and ABC had a seat at the table.
 
Carney has now stated that the briefing was considered "deep-background", not off the record, which means the 14 reporters invited can now use information in their articles by stating "White House source(s)".

I suspect that those not invited to the party are going to be pissed.
 
About time people start taking their heads out of the sand and facing demons.
 
A reporter can report what is said in an off the record briefing if they so desire. They still have freedom of the press. They just won't be allowed back in the WH at most.
 
Of course not. Fox isn't "mainstream" :roll:

If by "mainstream" you mean carrying water for Obama on a daily basis, then right you are. But FNC is in the news line up of every other "MSM" source, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC...

I think what you mean to say is that you don't like FNC because you like your news to ideologically agree with your point of view.
 
The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

The meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting.

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.


W.H. holds off-the-record Benghazi briefing - POLITICO.com


so why off the record? what was the purpose of the meeting ? is it so the media can coordinate the WH talking points with each other? is it so they can all perform the same spin to make this go away

Just more proof we have a state run media

the handlers of the president have to find a way to control the narrative about benghazi in the press.

this is a good way to do so, off the record meeting.
 
Of course not. Fox isn't "mainstream" :roll:

By "mainstream", you must mean "bought and paid for".

If Fox wasn't allowed in, this is the biggest admission of guilt yet.
 
Anything that is discussed in the meeting can not be reported on it has to be kept from the public


Most transparent administration ever.......
 
If by "mainstream" you mean carrying water for Obama on a daily basis, then right you are. But FNC is in the news line up of every other "MSM" source, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC...

I think what you mean to say is that you don't like FNC because you like your news to ideologically agree with your point of view.

I think Fox is as mainstream as anyone else. Usually when people are bitching about the "lame stream" media, they leave Fox out of that.

So what I mean to say is that any realistic interpretation of the term "mainstream" includes Fox. But a lot of people like to forget that when talking about the "mainstream."
 
He accused the Republican party of leaking the emails that had been openly shared with congressional committees and the Republican leadership by the White House. "The Republicans have chosen to politicize this, to leak this information to reporters – information we provided months ago." But he added: "The whole effort here by Republicans to find some hidden mystery comes to nothing."

White House under renewed criticism after leaked Benghazi emails | World news | guardian.co.uk

Now we have the White House complaining about information being released to the public. What happened to the most transparent admin in history?
 
I think Fox is as mainstream as anyone else. Usually when people are bitching about the "lame stream" media, they leave Fox out of that.

So what I mean to say is that any realistic interpretation of the term "mainstream" includes Fox. But a lot of people like to forget that when talking about the "mainstream."

Ok, then I misapplied that to you....I think you are spot on here.
 
I would guess it's to give them marching orders. I mean it. I no longer trust the press. Frankly? I think Fox is doing a good job reporting. I don't watch or listen to their infotainment -- just read the news on their website. It's one of the few. I'm more apt to get good information on Drudge them I am from major network news.

We're in trouble, folks. We really are.

Um, Maggie, these sort of discussions happen basically on a daily basis and always have. It's where you get all the news items that come from unidentified white house sources. When it's on the record, you get the person's name and title.
 
Back
Top Bottom