• 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 ?????

PeteEU said:
"Puts on his GOP hat"

It cant be a first amendment issue as there was no cameras when the 1st amendment was written.

"Takes off his GOP hat"

Granted there was not much of a free media either and it was only white male land and slave owners over 30 that were able to vote and run for office...
Click to expand...

Which is totally opposite of a GOP talking points. eyeroll
 
Praxas said:
Because without cameras it solidly be worse which is why your reasoning doesn't pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation on your part, but I doubt it.
 
Dragonfly said:
With cameras banned, CNN sends sketch artist to White House briefing - Jun. 23, 2017



So seriously? WTF? Is this kindergarten or what? A childish chess match with the most immature one making the rules?

What's the point of banning cameras? Isn't that potentially a 1st Amendment issue?

It's far easier to manipulate/twist words on page/screen than it is to manipulate video with sound.

The tone and context of the person speaking can be completely lost in the written word form.
Much easier to show that with simple video.
Click to expand...

Cameras were banned for whatever reason. I don't have a problem with it myself as too many of the more dishonest MSM try to catch one unflattering shot to characterize the whole event or to dishonestly clip one phrase out of the whole and try to make it look like what the person intended.

Audio however was 100% allowed so they can't say that they were limited to their handwritten notes.
 
Dragonfly said:
I'm not sure I get what you're saying here.

Are you suggesting the person speaking behaves differently when cameras are there, of the reporters report differently when the cameras are there?
Click to expand...

Yea.
When there are cameras are there they may act differently, potentially engaging in dramatics for show.
 
MACS-24 said:
Which is totally opposite of a GOP talking points. eyeroll
Click to expand...

Hey, if it aint in the constitution.. that is the GOP talking point every since Clinton got elected... that is until they were in power themselves, then the constitution went out the window of course..
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Yea.
When there are cameras are there they may act differently, potentially engaging in dramatics for show.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why cameras are so often banned from the courtroom or sensitive negotiations or private conversations. Just watch almost any congressional hearing for instance. Many of the congressional members spend most of their time speechifying and grandstanding rather than honestly eliciting information for an investigation. Would they do that without cameras in the room? I think they probably would not.

Same with House and Senate sessions. Many of the members who speak are playing to the cameras and how it will look on the 6 o'clock news or in their next campaign ad instead of engaging in serious debate and negotiations to pass honest, useful legislation. Would it be the same without the cameras? I would sure be interested to know.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Which is precisely why cameras are so often banned from the courtroom or sensitive negotiations or private conversations. Just watch almost any congressional hearing for instance. Many of the congressional members spend most of their time speechifying and grandstanding rather than honestly eliciting information for an investigation. Would they do that without cameras in the room? I think they probably would not.

Same with House and Senate sessions. Many of the members who speak are playing to the cameras and how it will look on the 6 o'clock news or in their next campaign ad instead of engaging in serious debate and negotiations to pass honest, useful legislation. Would it be the same without the cameras? I would sure be interested to know.
Click to expand...

If that is the intent, I really don't see a problem.
The journos can still ask questions and write their stories, just without the public hysterics.
 
PeteEU said:
Hey, if it aint in the constitution.. that is the GOP talking point every since Clinton got elected... that is until they were in power themselves, then the constitution went out the window of course..
Click to expand...

Do you know what is in the Constitution?
 
PeteEU said:
Sure, do you? Show me where it says that cameras have to be allowed in the White House?
Click to expand...

:lol: Nice strawman. Does he wear a red hat or blue hat?
 
AlbqOwl said:
Which is precisely why cameras are so often banned from the courtroom or sensitive negotiations or private conversations. Just watch almost any congressional hearing for instance. Many of the congressional members spend most of their time speechifying and grandstanding rather than honestly eliciting information for an investigation. Would they do that without cameras in the room? I think they probably would not.

Same with House and Senate sessions. Many of the members who speak are playing to the cameras and how it will look on the 6 o'clock news or in their next campaign ad instead of engaging in serious debate and negotiations to pass honest, useful legislation. Would it be the same without the cameras? I would sure be interested to know.
Click to expand...

There's a ginormous world of difference between a legal court proceeding and a White House PRESS Briefing.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Which is precisely why cameras are so often banned from the courtroom or sensitive negotiations or private conversations. Just watch almost any congressional hearing for instance. Many of the congressional members spend most of their time speechifying and grandstanding rather than honestly eliciting information for an investigation. Would they do that without cameras in the room? I think they probably would not.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MACS-24 said:
:lol: Nice strawman. Does he wear a red hat or blue hat?
Click to expand...

Hey if the GOP and the right can use this argument on everything from guns to abortion to segregation, then it is only fair that they also use it for this and anything else there is in question.

So again, where in the US constitution does it state that cameras must be allowed in the White House.
 
PeteEU said:
Hey if the GOP and the right can use this argument on everything from guns to abortion to segregation, then it is only fair that they also use it for this and anything else there is in question.

So again, where in the US constitution does it state that cameras must be allowed in the White House.
Click to expand...

Now you're adding new qualifiers? Should have just quit while you were behind. What you initially stated in #11 before all the fallacies, is a liberal thought.
 
My guess is Trump got tired of seeing Spencer stumbling over questions on tv. There is no noble purpose behind this move.
 
MACS-24 said:
Now you're adding new qualifiers? Should have just quit while you were behind. What you initially stated in #11 before all the fallacies, is a liberal thought.
Click to expand...

New qualifiers? I stated from the start that the constitution does not state that cameras are allowed in the White House. Has not changed.
 
PeteEU said:
New qualifiers? I stated from the start that the constitution does not state that cameras are allowed in the White House. Has not changed.
Click to expand...
Really? sounds like you were wrongly tying the GOP to the "living document " argument
PeteEU said:
"Puts on his GOP hat"

It cant be a first amendment issue as there was no cameras when the 1st amendment was written.

"Takes off his GOP hat"

Granted there was not much of a free media either and it was only white male land and slave owners over 30 that were able to vote and run for office...
Click to expand...
The times that I hear this it is almost always a left leaning view. Democratic:" the founders could not have imagine automatic weapons therefore, they aren't part of the 2nd." Conservative: "Really? I guess they couldn't imagine the internet either; should they ban free speech use from the Internet?" What you stated, as far as I know, is not a "GOP hat". Show evidence to the contrary. I'm curious.
 
Manc Skipper said:
We suffer similar attitudes to accountablity over here too. Andrea Leadsome (a senior Tory) complained that reporters asking awkward questions should be "more patriotic"!
Click to expand...



When the content of the message is ignored and one word is taken out of context and made the exclusive story then that is more than an awkward question. It is designed to not report the message but to drive their own agenda with a lie. We have had more than enough of that.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
My guess is Trump got tired of seeing Spencer stumbling over questions on tv. There is no noble purpose behind this move.
Click to expand...

So the WH is trying it's best to NOT give Saturday Night Live a running skit each week?

Makes sense actually.

Cutting back on embarrassing moments that are captured on video.
:D
 
Dragonfly said:
With cameras banned, CNN sends sketch artist to White House briefing - Jun. 23, 2017



So seriously? WTF? Is this kindergarten or what? A childish chess match with the most immature one making the rules?

What's the point of banning cameras? Isn't that potentially a 1st Amendment issue?

It's far easier to manipulate/twist words on page/screen than it is to manipulate video with sound.

The tone and context of the person speaking can be completely lost in the written word form.
Much easier to show that with simple video.
Click to expand...



Nazi assholes can't get their makeup right, especially that Kellyanne Conway

she actually looks like a makeup dummy, you know, like something folks would practice on for applying makeup
 
Dragonfly said:
So the WH is trying it's best to NOT give Saturday Night Live a running skit each week?

Makes sense actually.

Cutting back on embarrassing moments that are captured on video.
:D
Click to expand...

I guess that is easier than, you know, to just stop being embarrassing. :)
 
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...

Can they do that without a camera?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom