• 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 Banned Cameras ?????

Dragonfly said:
There's a ginormous world of difference between a legal court proceeding and a White House PRESS Briefing.
Click to expand...

But the effect of affecting public perception via grandstanding or playing to the camera exists equally in both.
 
Mustachio said:
Why is it that in the UK, Parliament members shout at each other and it's called passionate debate, but when it happens in America, it's called "speechifying and grandstanding"? I don't believe that grandstanding by reporters had regularly happened during daily briefings, but let's pretend I think it happened every day time and time again - so what? The Democrats are losing all the special elections. The Republican base doesn't care what the mainstream media writes, they care what Breitbart opines.
Click to expand...

It isn't so much the grandstanding and speechifying that is the problem--though that is a problem--but the way it is then presented to the general public. If we had a free and honest and professional press, I doubt cameras would ever be banned because we would trust reporters to be truthful and ethical re what happened. That is no longer the case.
 
AlbqOwl said:
But the effect of affecting public perception via grandstanding or playing to the camera exists equally in both.
Click to expand...

A White House Press conference, by the very nature of what it is, should be open to being recorded and played back to all.

Unless of course the message being sent out is embarrassing.
 
Dragonfly said:
A White House Press conference, by the very nature of what it is, should be open to being recorded and played back to all.

Unless of course the message being sent out is embarrassing.
Click to expand...

It was fully open to be recorded. No audio was banned or discouraged. They just didn't allow cameras.
 
rocket88 said:
Freedom of speech! Freedom of the Press! The press should be free to report exactly what Spicer says and only that!
Click to expand...

No. The press should report whatever they dig up provided they can back it up, or label it as opinion.

It's no one else's job to make things easier.
 
The WH doesn't want the public to actually see Spicer and Huckabee-Sanders stammering with double-talk.

Their stock answers:

"The presidents tweet speaks for itself." "I haven't had that conversation with the president yet." "I'll get back to you on that."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
There was actually a good point made about this.
Instead of reporters acting out and being "activists" they could be journalists.

Kinda like how congress behaves in front of cameras vs how they behave when there aren't any.
Click to expand...
That's all fine and good, but it goes both ways. Instead of pimping for the cameras and their boss' approval, the press secretary could actually, oh I don't know, be a press secretary and own up to their words instead of being an apologist and a shill.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It isn't so much the grandstanding and speechifying that is the problem--though that is a problem--but the way it is then presented to the general public. If we had a free and honest and professional press, I doubt cameras would ever be banned because we would trust reporters to be truthful and ethical re what happened. That is no longer the case.
Click to expand...

You can try where others have failed by showing me where the mainstream media has printed "fake news," which editorials certainly don't count as or everything Sean Hannity says would qualify as "news," and his editorial BS in no way accurately depicts any version of reality.

The last time somebody gave me a list of "fake news" stories, I went through the first 6 and none of them were fake. The fake news is that there is fake news. I'm afraid I have no idea what your'e saying about when you say "re what happened."

Was the Obama administration bashed again and again for not being transparent? Yes it was. I agree that they were not transparent enough. Not honest enough with certain stories that they employed damage control on. But we need transparency, and if your feelings are hurt by a reporter saying something negative about the current administration, I'm not going to shed any tears for you.
 
Mustachio said:
You can try where others have failed by showing me where the mainstream media has printed "fake news," which editorials certainly don't count as or everything Sean Hannity says would qualify as "news," and his editorial BS in no way accurately depicts any version of reality.

The last time somebody gave me a list of "fake news" stories, I went through the first 6 and none of them were fake. The fake news is that there is fake news. I'm afraid I have no idea what your'e saying about when you say "re what happened."

Was the Obama administration bashed again and again for not being transparent? Yes it was. I agree that they were not transparent enough. Not honest enough with certain stories that they employed damage control on. But we need transparency, and if your feelings are hurt by a reporter saying something negative about the current administration, I'm not going to shed any tears for you.
Click to expand...

Have a nice day.
 
Praxas said:
So you're saying without cameras they can't make up anything?
Click to expand...

Did I say that? Nope.

I said that with or without cameras they, meaning the LW media will make it either way.
 
jimbo said:
Did I say that? Nope.

I said that with or without cameras they, meaning the LW media will make it either way.
Click to expand...

And without cameras the media can make up more because they don't have proof. You denied that.
 
jimbo said:
?????
Click to expand...

You said with or without cameras it is the same, clearly it isn't because without cameras anything can be said. At least with cameras people can decide.
 
rocket88 said:
Nobody on the right wants them to report information, they want them to report with a right wing bias.
Click to expand...

Lie.

Nobody is an extremist perspective.

Being honest is just fine with most people.

That of course does not mean asleep or complicit as they were during the obama occupation.
 
Praxas said:
You said with or without cameras it is the same, clearly it isn't because without cameras anything can be said. At least with cameras people can decide.
Click to expand...

With or without cameras the LW media is going to spin it. It makes no difference.
 
Helix said:
if that's the case, then major media outlets should just stop participating. let the WH talk to an empty room and / or email out power point presentations.
Click to expand...

I've been thinking for a few months that it would be AWESOME if all the media coordinated and didn't attend a briefing, or two. Just an empty room except for the Trump people.
 
akyron said:
Lie.

Nobody is an extremist perspective.

Being honest is just fine with most people.

That of course does not mean asleep or complicit as they were during the obama occupation.
Click to expand...

What is the Obama occupation and what would it have to do with this thread in which the trumPutin White House becomes more of 3rd world dicktatorship every day ?
 
jimbo said:
With or without cameras the LW media is going to spin it. It makes no difference.
Click to expand...

With video it's harder to do that. To deny that is to be an idiot.
 
jimbo said:
And that's mostly the point. Why bother allowing access if the so called journalists are not going to report and instead make stuff up?
Click to expand...

What has the WH press corps made up?
 
Praxas said:
With video it's harder to do that. To deny that is to be an idiot.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying.

A complete and uncut video tells the truth. Show intent, context, and inflection of those who are speaking.

Far more difficult to refute what was said, how it was said, and why.

The Johnny Depp thing is perfect proof of this. Hard for him to deny what he said or how he said it.

Much easier to spin if the only record of it is written words.
 
radcen said:
That's all fine and good, but it goes both ways. Instead of pimping for the cameras and their boss' approval, the press secretary could actually, oh I don't know, be a press secretary and own up to their words instead of being an apologist and a shill.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the point of the press sec, to be a shill for the pres?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom