View Full Version : CNN sues white house over blocking a reporter
arista
13-11-2018, 02:25 PM
CNN breaking news
https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media/cnn-sues-trump/index.html?adkey=bn
https://news.sky.com/story/cnn-sues-donald-trump-over-white-house-ban-11553320
Crimson Dynamo
13-11-2018, 02:31 PM
That nasty acosta was rude and disrespectful, period
jumped up twat
more money for lawyers
when will that odious news source learn?
arista
13-11-2018, 02:37 PM
That nasty acosta was rude and disrespectful, period
jumped up twat
more money for lawyers
when will that odious news source learn?
very true.
Liam-
13-11-2018, 02:38 PM
Good, you can’t try to censor your critics and expect to get away with it
Crimson Dynamo
13-11-2018, 02:42 PM
Good, you can’t try to censor your critics and expect to get away with it
he did not, he was trying to run a busy news conference and acosta overstayed his period which means others miss out. He showed NO respect or manners and should have been booted out on his arsehole
Crimson Dynamo
13-11-2018, 02:42 PM
watch the clip
he was rude
Liam-
13-11-2018, 02:45 PM
He was asking the questions that needed to be asked and Trump doesn’t like being asked difficult questions because he’s incapable of answering such questions, they’re trying to block someone from doing their job because they don’t want to deal with said difficult questions
Crimson Dynamo
13-11-2018, 02:47 PM
He was asking the questions that needed to be asked and Trump does t like being asked difficult questions because he’s incapable of answering such questions, they’re trying to block someone from doing their job because they don’t want to deal with said difficult questions
No he had an agenda and Trump answered his question and he should have sat down and let others ask, that is the protocol.
he was rude and disrespectful, a disgrace to the media
Liam-
13-11-2018, 02:52 PM
His only ‘agenda’ was to do his job, which the White House is now not allowing him to do because they’re worried about the questions they might get asked
arista
13-11-2018, 02:52 PM
He was asking the questions that needed to be asked and Trump doesn’t like being asked difficult questions because he’s incapable of answering such questions, they’re trying to block someone from doing their job because they don’t want to deal with said difficult questions
They will have to say One Question Only
when there is So many reporters waiting
Crimson Dynamo
13-11-2018, 02:54 PM
His only ‘agenda’ was to do his job, which the White House is now not allowing him to do because they’re worried about the questions they might get asked
he asked, he got a reply
now sit down and let others ask better balanced questions that dont reek of his hand-wringing liberal agenda
Oliver_W
13-11-2018, 02:55 PM
Surely CNN has other reporters they could send? Maybe ones who are less embarrassing?
arista
13-11-2018, 03:16 PM
Surely CNN has other reporters they could send? Maybe ones who are less embarrassing?
Yes Fecking loads.
They just want to create a Story
Shaun
13-11-2018, 03:28 PM
Wasn't he accused of manhandling a member of staff with some heavily doctored footage of her trying to snatch the microphone from him, edited to look like he shoved her away because it was super slowed-down? Just an embarrassing and blatant representation of that administration's refusal to live in the real world.
Oliver_W
13-11-2018, 03:35 PM
They just want to create a Story
They're certainly the experts there.
Livia
13-11-2018, 03:46 PM
Wasn't he accused of manhandling a member of staff with some heavily doctored footage of her trying to snatch the microphone from him, edited to look like he shoved her away because it was super slowed-down? Just an embarrassing and blatant representation of that administration's refusal to live in the real world.
Trump wouldn't lie to us, surely...……….
Surely CNN has other reporters they could send? Maybe ones who are less embarrassing?
I'm sure CNN have lot's of other repotrers.the problem with this current White House administration is that they want to chose who those reporters are.It's bloody scary to watch in 2018
:love:Wasn't he accused of manhandling a member of staff with some heavily doctored footage of her trying to snatch the microphone from him, edited to look like he shoved her away because it was super slowed-down? Just an embarrassing and blatant representation of that administration's refusal to live in the real world.
:love:
Wasn't he accused of manhandling a member of staff withsome heavily doctored footage of her trying to snatch the microphone from him, edited to look like he shoved her away because it was super slowed-down? Just an embarrassing and blatant representation of that administration's refusal to live in the real world.First of all, I don't think Acosta did anything illegal to that lady. Now we've cleared that bit up let's talk about the doctored video.
The video in question was a Paul Joseph Watson video, he's made another video explaining that the video was not doctored at all. The President also agrees and explains why it wasn't doctored, experts in this field also explain why it wasn't doctored. So why did the establishment media say it was? Because fake news wasn't just a made up concept, it's a real thing.
5RrSfMiAErc
First of all, I don't think Acosta did anything illegal to that lady. Now we've cleared that bit up let's talk about the doctored video.
The video in question was a Paul Joseph Watson video, he's made another video explaining that the video was not doctored at all. The President also agrees and explains why it wasn't doctored, experts in this field also explain why it wasn't doctored. So why did the establishment media say it was? Because fake news wasn't just a made up concept, it's a real thing.
5RrSfMiAErc
alf it was doctered..You know it aswell as me."the president also agrees"
I hope you will forgive me when I tell his opinion means fok all to me.no skin of my clit.you can carry on with your conspiracy theroies..me I ..like facts
Tom4784
13-11-2018, 06:18 PM
Good, it's disgraceful what has happened here and it's just another example of the administration's opposition to a free press. No journalist should be denied access to the right house for asking difficult questions or questions that the president does not like.
The whole 'Acosta was RUDE!' angle falls apart considering that Trump spent that press conference being terribly rude to multiple people himself but neither him or his fans will acknowledge that hypocrisy because they live in a fantasy world where they think that if they refuse to acknowledge something, it didn't happen.
First of all, I don't think Acosta did anything illegal to that lady. Now we've cleared that bit up let's talk about the doctored video.
The video in question was a Paul Joseph Watson video, he's made another video explaining that the video was not doctored at all. The President also agrees and explains why it wasn't doctored, experts in this field also explain why it wasn't doctored. So why did the establishment media say it was? Because fake news wasn't just a made up concept, it's a real thing.
5RrSfMiAErc
Oh god, the best way to ensure I won't watch a video is to put that dick's face on the thumbnail. He's an extreme moron that panders in fairy tales and falsities. Nobody who is that biased can ever be treated as a reliant or impartial source.
I'd sooner save my time because I know that video will just be pure spin and bull**** aimed at people who want to be told what they want to hear.
It's a simple way to clear this up. CNN are accusing Watson of doctoring the video, Watson is denying he doctored it, so why don't CNN have Watson on to debate this?
I don't believe your reason for not watching the video Dezzy, I think you just have a phobia of stepping outside your echo chamber, and that's fine and your choice, you just don't need to lie about it.
alf it was doctered..You know it aswell as me."the president also agrees"
I hope you will forgive me when I tell his opinion means fok all to me.no skin of my clit.you can carry on with your conspiracy theroies..me I ..like factsNah, I trust Watson more than CNN, Watson has far less to gain and far less to lose than they do. And Watson's evidence is better.
Tom4784
13-11-2018, 08:15 PM
It's a simple way to clear this up. CNN are accusing Watson of doctoring the video, Watson is denying he doctored it, so why don't CNN have Watson on to debate this?
I don't believe your reason for not watching the video Dezzy, I think you just have a phobia of stepping outside your echo chamber, and that's fine and your choice, you just don't need to lie about it.
Ironic considering you're the one trying to make out that the biased video is worth a damn.
I value impartiality, I value facts. I don't value fairy tales told by people on either extreme side. There is nothing to be learned from someone pushing falsities to serve their own agenda. You say I'm in an echo chamber but you're the one pushing this video despite the obvious biased nature of that youtuber because he appeals to your own agenda.
Trying to make out that an opinion is a lie is...well... Good luck with that, buddy.
Tom4784
13-11-2018, 08:16 PM
Nah, I trust Watson more than CNN, Watson has far less to gain and far less to lose than they do. And Watson's evidence is better.
You trust him more because he tells you what you want to hear.
No one really knows if it was doctored for sure or not. I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own. That concern there might as well be satire.
Some have speculated the choppy framerate may have been because of a conversion from 30fps (around that amount) video to a gif/gif-like format. The video that was released by the White House was the first one I watched and it did seem to be a very poor video. If they really pulled it from Alex Jones feed though, then that was just dumb. If they have access to the video, they should post original content.
There's very good reason for CNN to want to push this issue though of video doctoring, but it's not for the reasons most are suggesting it is. I don't think it has to do with partisanship at all.
As Alf has mentioned, there are many who are starting to prefer alternative sources to mainstream. There is a war between TV and social media/the internet for the "relevancy" crown as well. Online gets crazy views/clicks compared to TV now. It's a no-brainer that's where things are heading. Even Tucker Carlson (Fox) was recently interviewing with alternative media saying he was super jealous. Not only could they do whatever they wanted with their studio, but they had such an audience. Yes, they don't have the "footprint" of sattelite offices and such to cover for international events, etc... but I think it's no question, aside from local, Cable News is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
When I was watching the big networks before/post-2016, they did make it a regular point to pan all non-"mainstream" sources as suspect, potential fake news, "questionable", etc. Yes, that was usually right-wing, but they don't care about the right wing audience (Fox has them in the hole), so in downplaying it to be a left/right versus thing... what they're saying is, if you're like "one of us", then keep watching cable because we cater to you. Even though there are left-wing sources (Like The Young Turks). The demographics though favor right-wing media atm in terms of online. So CNN still has reasonble access to the female audience as well with their coverage of the Woman's March/feminism's goals, etc. So it's really just strategy I think more than partisanship.
Trump releases his updates on Twitter for example, and if you notice, many of the reporter's questions are about always about his tweeting. That's because they know that's what people are talking about, so they create little story archs around his Twitter persona. Even if the story doesn't go beyond navel-gazing, which makes their punditry look sad, but it's terrible for business if all people just go straight to twitter for the "buzz" and don't check with TV media on their opinion of it. Cable News here is really dependent on Washington for their audience, so if the President and his ilk start relying more heavily on online to get their message out, then there's really no other reason to watch cable then.
That's why Fox is more than happy to cater him in terms of his schedule, his call-ins, his weird ranting style on their network, etc... yes, it seems a bit friendly, but we can certainly say that about MSNBC/CNN during Obama era anyway. So I think Cable News will always be in bed with Washington to some degree in order to maintain their relevancy... but yeah, that same tactic that helps preserve them, may eventually rid them of all authenticity, so I think it is a difficult line to toe with the rise of online competition...
“It’s Our Job to Call Them Out”: Inside the Trump Gold Rush at CNN
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/inside-the-trump-gold-rush-at-cnn
Jeff Zucker, CNN President:
“People say all the time, ‘Oh, I don’t want to talk about Trump. I’ve had too much Trump,’ ” he told me. “And yet at the end of the day, all they want to do is talk about Trump. We’ve seen that, anytime you break away from the Trump story and cover other events in this era, the audience goes away. So we know that, right now, Donald Trump dominates.”
The strategy is working. Even though CNN still trails Fox News and MSNBC in prime-time audience size, its ratings have never been better. The average number of people watching on a given day has been above 700,000 each year since 2016, compared to around 400,000 in the pre-Trump news cycle.
Another CNN-related online video scandal some have probably forgotten by now...
CNN faces backlash over handling of doctored Trump video
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
The network said late Tuesday it had identified the Reddit user who originally posted an old WWE video of Trump "roughing up" pro wrestling maven Vince McMahon
Reporter Andrew Kaczynski said in an online story that CNN had found the Reddit user, who used the tag "HanA------Solo," and reached out to him Monday. Before returning Kaczynski's message the next day, the user posted a public apology for the Trump video — he called it a prank — and for some racist and anti-Semitic postings also made under that name. He said he was just trying to get a reaction and didn't mean what he said, and was closing his Reddit account.
CNN said online that it had decided not to publish the user's name because he is a private citizen who apologized, showed remorse and said he would not repeat his ugly behavior. "CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change," Kaczynski wrote.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
Ironic considering you're the one trying to make out that the biased video is worth a damn.
I value impartiality, I value facts. I don't value fairy tales told by people on either extreme side. There is nothing to be learned from someone pushing falsities to serve their own agenda. You say I'm in an echo chamber but you're the one pushing this video despite the obvious biased nature of that youtuber because he appeals to your own agenda.
Trying to make out that an opinion is a lie is...well... Good luck with that, buddy.Na! I put that video up as a counter argument to Shaun basically declaring that the video was definetly doctored, without a shred of evidence besides the word of the Trump hating mainstream media.
The mainstream media is dying and alternative media is taking over. And there's gonna be a lot of dirty tactics played by both to get there.
Tom4784
13-11-2018, 08:40 PM
No one really knows if it was doctored for sure or not. I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own. That concern there might as well be satire.
Some have speculated the choppy framerate may have been because of a conversion from 30fps (around that amount) video to a gif/gif-like format. The video that was released by the White House was the first one I watched and it did seem to be a very poor video. If they really pulled it from Alex Jones feed though, then that was just dumb. If they have access to the video, they should post original content.
There's very good reason for CNN to want to push this issue though of video doctoring, but it's not for the reasons most are suggesting it is. I don't think it has to do with partisanship at all.
As Alf has mentioned, there are many who are starting to prefer alternative sources to mainstream. There is a war between TV and social media/the internet for the "relevancy" crown as well. Online gets crazy views/clicks compared to TV now. It's a no-brainer that's where things are heading. Even Tucker Carlson (Fox) was recently interviewing with alternative media saying he was super jealous. Not only could they do whatever they wanted with their studio, but they had such an audience. Yes, they don't have the "footprint" of sattelite offices and such to cover for international events, etc... but I think it's no question, aside from local, Cable News is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
When I was watching the big networks before/post-2016, they did make it a regular point to pan all non-"mainstream" sources as suspect, potential fake news, "questionable", etc. Yes, that was usually right-wing, but they don't care about the right wing audience (Fox has them in the hole), so in downplaying it to be a left/right versus thing... what they're saying is, if you're like "one of us", then keep watching cable because we cater to you. Even though there are left-wing sources (Like The Young Turks). The demographics though favor right-wing media atm in terms of online. So CNN still has reasonble access to the female audience as well with their coverage of the Woman's March/feminism's goals, etc. So it's really just strategy I think more than partisanship.
Trump releases his updates on Twitter for example, and if you notice, many of the reporter's questions are about always about his tweeting. That's because they know that's what people are talking about, so they create little story archs around his Twitter persona. Even if the story doesn't go beyond navel-gazing, which makes their punditry look sad, but it's terrible for business if all people just go straight to twitter for the "buzz" and don't check with TV media on their opinion of it. Cable News here is really dependent on Washington for their audience, so if the President and his ilk start relying more heavily on online to get their message out, then there's really no other reason to watch cable then.
That's why Fox is more than happy to cater him in terms of his schedule, his call-ins, his weird ranting style on their network, etc... yes, it seems a bit friendly, but we can certainly say that about MSNBC/CNN during Obama era anyway. So I think Cable News will always be in bed with Washington to some degree in order to maintain their relevancy... but yeah, that same tactic that helps preserve them, may eventually rid them of all authenticity, so I think it is a difficult line to toe with the rise of online competition...
“It’s Our Job to Call Them Out”: Inside the Trump Gold Rush at CNN
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/inside-the-trump-gold-rush-at-cnn
Jeff Zucker, CNN President:
Another CNN-related online video scandal some have probably forgotten by now...
CNN faces backlash over handling of doctored Trump video
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
'Who cares if this video is doctored because other organisation doctors videos too!' Troubling logic.
It's fairly obvious just looking at the videos in comparison that the one the White House used was sped up to make the non-incident look like an act of aggression when it isn't. Either way, the White House used a video to push a narrative that was invalidated by the raw footage of the incident. You can try to minimalise that all you want but you won't erase that fact.
Tom4784
13-11-2018, 08:45 PM
Na! I put that video up as a counter argument to Shaun basically declaring that the video was definetly doctored, without a shred of evidence besides the word of the Trump hating mainstream media.
The mainstream media is dying and alternative media is taking over. And there's gonna be a lot of dirty tactics played by both to get there.
The White House went with a video that was specifically sped up at a certain point to send a certain message when the raw footage showed a different story. You can umm and ah over it all day long trying to find a way to invalidate the truth of the situation but you'll just waste your time.
'Trump hating mainstream media', I see you've truly drank the 'media is the enemy of the people' cool aid that Trump keeps putting out. All presidents get criticised when they **** up and Trump's presidency has been a trainwreck of lies and errors and all you're doing by pushing the narrative that the media is the enemy is making it so that Trump is beyond criticism which is awfully dictator-y if you ask me...
CNN's top story today is about CNN
They've finally achieved peak narcisism.
Twosugars
13-11-2018, 08:48 PM
Alf is always wrong so
The White House went with a video that was specifically sped up at a certain point to send a certain message when the raw footage showed a different story. You can umm and ah over it all day long trying to find a way to invalidate the truth of the situation but you'll just waste your time.
'Trump hating mainstream media', I see you've truly drank the 'media is the enemy of the people' cool aid that Trump keeps putting out. All presidents get criticised when they **** up and Trump's presidency has been a trainwreck of lies and errors and all you're doing by pushing the narrative that the media is the enemy is making it so that Trump is beyond criticism which is awfully dictator-y if you ask me...We'll see in 2020 if Trumps presidency is a train wreck the American people will tell us, not the mainstream media.
Alf is always wrong soI may well be, but I can only work with the tools that I'm given.
'Who cares if this video is doctored because other organisation doctors videos too!' Troubling logic.
It's fairly obvious just looking at the videos in comparison that the one the White House used was sped up to make the non-incident look like an act of aggression when it isn't. Either way, the White House used a video to push a narrative that was invalidated by the raw footage of the incident. You can try to minimalise that all you want but you won't erase that fact.
Not everyone we have disagreements with has some major personality flaws and/or agenda. So I would ask that we leave the personal assessments out of this discussion. Thanks.
People are destigmatized to being lied to, especially with politics. That's been the observation even before the era of "Fake News". That's why we do research. There's a wide-reaching mantra in our media, especially online, of folks attempting to be defacto "fact checkers". This is a dubious claim to make anyway because so much our news coverage is so "manufactured" for a certain audience. CNN can't claim this mantle, no different any other outlet. They're all playing the same game of musical chairs to a large degree.
Sometimes we do a need some reasonable context/interpretations in order to make sense of a set of facts. Sometimes this means putting facts on a scale and weighing them.
This is not what Acosta was doing though. He's been using his pass to be as disruptive as possible for months now to call attention to himself for months though. This is not journalism.
Concepts of "dodgy" video when it's concepts most people don't even understand don't seem to matter. The established facts are the following: There was an incident, he didn't hand over his mic and Trump got pretty pissed about it and revoked his pass. Some people deme this "activism", others call this a violation of press rights. That's why keyframe rates don't matter. The interpretation would be the same on either spectrum, whether there was doctored video or not.
Tom4784
14-11-2018, 12:21 AM
Not everyone we have disagreements with has some major personality flaws and/or agenda. So I would ask that we leave the personal assessments out of this discussion. Thanks.
People are destigmatized to being lied to, especially with politics. That's been the observation even before the era of "Fake News". That's why we do research. There's a wide-reaching mantra in our media, especially online, of folks attempting to be defacto "fact checkers". This is a dubious claim to make anyway because so much our news coverage is so "manufactured" for a certain audience. CNN can't claim this mantle, no different any other outlet. They're all playing the same game of musical chairs to a large degree.
Sometimes we do a need some reasonable context/interpretations in order to make sense of a set of facts. Sometimes this means putting facts on a scale and weighing them.
This is not what Acosta was doing though. He's been using his pass to be as disruptive as possible for months now to call attention to himself for months though. This is not journalism.
Concepts of "dodgy" video when it's concepts most people don't even understand don't seem to matter. The established facts are the following: There was an incident, he didn't hand over his mic and Trump got pretty pissed about it and revoked his pass. Some people deme this "activism", others call this a violation of press rights. That's why keyframe rates don't matter. The interpretation would be the same on either spectrum, whether there was doctored video or not.
You said as much in your post. Did you or did you not say the following? 'I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own' How else am I meant to take that other than what I said. I don't appreciate you making out that I'm insulting you for pointing something out that YOU wrote.
Oh, so now fact checkers aren't to be believed.... In the words of Monque Heart, facts are facts. You can put spin on them for a while but ultimately you can't lie about them or dilute them to be anything other than facts. Your point about interpretation errs too close to the attitude that opinions and facts are one in the same or that facts are somehow less infallible than someone's thoughts. A dangerous brand of 'logic' that I can't abide. Once again, facts are facts.
As I said before as a general point, why single out Acosta for apparently 'being rude' when Trump insulted multiple people in that press conference and was way ruder without purpose? Why highlight one side while ignoring the other being guilty of worse instance of rudeness? You're just trying to spin the story at this point. 'It's the fault of the journalist but let's ignore the wrongdoings of the White House in all of it.'
You're ignoring several facts and thus ignoring important context of those facts. Acosta challenged the president and in the next few days he lost his access and the White House commented on it saying it was because of an aggressive incident and then they used a sped up video to push that narrative although raw footage told a different tale. No amount of mental gymnastics or spin can change those facts. You can use any excuse you like but it won't change a damn thing.
Considering the bare facts and the narrative that the White House has pushed that has already been proved false, you can only really come up with one sensible solution and I shouldn't have to spell that conclusion out to a rational mind.
You said as much in your post. Did you or did you not say the following? 'I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own' How else am I meant to take that other than what I said. I don't appreciate you making out that I'm insulting you for pointing something out that YOU wrote.
Oh, so now fact checkers aren't to be believed.... In the words of Monque Heart, facts are facts. You can put spin on them for a while but ultimately you can't lie about them or dilute them to be anything other than facts. Your point about interpretation errs too close to the attitude that opinions and facts are one in the same or that facts are somehow less infallible than someone's thoughts. A dangerous brand of 'logic' that I can't abide. Once again, facts are facts.
As I said before as a general point, why single out Acosta for apparently 'being rude' when Trump insulted multiple people in that press conference and was way ruder without purpose? Why highlight one side while ignoring the other being guilty of worse instance of rudeness? You're just trying to spin the story at this point. 'It's the fault of the journalist but let's ignore the wrongdoings of the White House in all of it.'
You're ignoring several facts and thus ignoring important context of those facts. Acosta challenged the president and in the next few days he lost his access and the White House commented on it saying it was because of an aggressive incident and then they used a sped up video to push that narrative although raw footage told a different tale. No amount of mental gymnastics or spin can change those facts. You can use any excuse you like but it won't change a damn thing.
Considering the bare facts and the narrative that the White House has pushed that has already been proved false, you can only really come up with one sensible solution and I shouldn't have to spell that conclusion out to a rational mind.
This is too personal of a post for me to want to bother with. Sorry Dezzy, I'm out.
Crimson Dynamo
14-11-2018, 08:04 AM
No one really knows if it was doctored for sure or not. I'm not sure anyone cares either, because it's not like CNN/<insert media outlet> has never done any creative editing of their own. That concern there might as well be satire.
Some have speculated the choppy framerate may have been because of a conversion from 30fps (around that amount) video to a gif/gif-like format. The video that was released by the White House was the first one I watched and it did seem to be a very poor video. If they really pulled it from Alex Jones feed though, then that was just dumb. If they have access to the video, they should post original content.
There's very good reason for CNN to want to push this issue though of video doctoring, but it's not for the reasons most are suggesting it is. I don't think it has to do with partisanship at all.
As Alf has mentioned, there are many who are starting to prefer alternative sources to mainstream. There is a war between TV and social media/the internet for the "relevancy" crown as well. Online gets crazy views/clicks compared to TV now. It's a no-brainer that's where things are heading. Even Tucker Carlson (Fox) was recently interviewing with alternative media saying he was super jealous. Not only could they do whatever they wanted with their studio, but they had such an audience. Yes, they don't have the "footprint" of sattelite offices and such to cover for international events, etc... but I think it's no question, aside from local, Cable News is quickly becoming a thing of the past.
When I was watching the big networks before/post-2016, they did make it a regular point to pan all non-"mainstream" sources as suspect, potential fake news, "questionable", etc. Yes, that was usually right-wing, but they don't care about the right wing audience (Fox has them in the hole), so in downplaying it to be a left/right versus thing... what they're saying is, if you're like "one of us", then keep watching cable because we cater to you. Even though there are left-wing sources (Like The Young Turks). The demographics though favor right-wing media atm in terms of online. So CNN still has reasonble access to the female audience as well with their coverage of the Woman's March/feminism's goals, etc. So it's really just strategy I think more than partisanship.
Trump releases his updates on Twitter for example, and if you notice, many of the reporter's questions are about always about his tweeting. That's because they know that's what people are talking about, so they create little story archs around his Twitter persona. Even if the story doesn't go beyond navel-gazing, which makes their punditry look sad, but it's terrible for business if all people just go straight to twitter for the "buzz" and don't check with TV media on their opinion of it. Cable News here is really dependent on Washington for their audience, so if the President and his ilk start relying more heavily on online to get their message out, then there's really no other reason to watch cable then.
That's why Fox is more than happy to cater him in terms of his schedule, his call-ins, his weird ranting style on their network, etc... yes, it seems a bit friendly, but we can certainly say that about MSNBC/CNN during Obama era anyway. So I think Cable News will always be in bed with Washington to some degree in order to maintain their relevancy... but yeah, that same tactic that helps preserve them, may eventually rid them of all authenticity, so I think it is a difficult line to toe with the rise of online competition...
“It’s Our Job to Call Them Out”: Inside the Trump Gold Rush at CNN
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/11/inside-the-trump-gold-rush-at-cnn
Jeff Zucker, CNN President:
Another CNN-related online video scandal some have probably forgotten by now...
CNN faces backlash over handling of doctored Trump video
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/cnn-faces-backlash-over-handling-of-doctored-trump-video.html
:clap1:
excellent post Maru
Crimson Dynamo
14-11-2018, 08:06 AM
CNN's top story today is about CNN
They've finally achieved peak narcisism.
:laugh2:
Tom4784
14-11-2018, 03:23 PM
This is too personal of a post for me to want to bother with. Sorry Dezzy, I'm out.
It would be better to just admit that you don't have a counter argument rather than making out (again) that I'm insulting you as an attempt to degrade my points without forming a counter argument.
I resent what you are doing and I will call it out for what it is.
Tom4784
14-11-2018, 03:25 PM
Calling out CNN for being narcissists for reporting on a story that involves one of their employees whilst supporting Trump to the end? It just doesn't make much sense, does it?
arista
14-11-2018, 04:01 PM
Calling out CNN for being narcissists for reporting on a story that involves one of their employees whilst supporting Trump to the end? It just doesn't make much sense, does it?
Sure
But they keep going on about it
That Reporter
is a pain ,
trouble maker
Probably a good idea for their part
Fox News backs CNN lawsuit over Jim Acosta’s suspended press pass
https://nypost.com/2018/11/14/fox-news-backs-cnn-lawsuit-over-jim-acostas-suspended-press-pass/amp/
Fox News announced Wednesday it is supporting CNN’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over its suspension of Jim Acosta’s White House press pass.
“Fox News supports CNN in its legal effort to regain its White House reporter’s press credential,” Fox News president Jay Wallace said in a statement.
“We intend to file an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court. Secret Service passes for working White House journalists should never be weaponized,” he added.
“While we don’t condone the growing antagonistic tone by both the President and the press at recent media avails, we do support a free press, access and open exchanges for the American people.”
On Tuesday, CNN filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Washington, DC, seeking to have Acosta’s so-called “hard pass” restored after he was banned for tussling with an intern during a news conference with President Trump.
In addition to in-house counsel, the cable network has retained top legal talent, including former GOP Solicitor General Theodore Olson.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department responded to CNN’s lawsuit Wednesday by saying in a court filing that the White House rejects the notion that it can’t choose which reporters can be granted permanent press passes.
“The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences,” lawyers said in the filing, according to CNN.
Judge Timothy J. Kelly, a Trump appointee, has scheduled a hearing at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday.
Lawyers for CNN and Acosta are asking the judge for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction that would restore his access immediately.
They are also seeking a declaration that the president’s action was “unconstitutional, in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.”
This could protect other journalists against similar actions in the future.
“This is a very, very important case,” said Olson, who successfully argued for George W. Bush in Bush v. Gore.
He is representing CNN along with another prominent outside lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, and CNN’s chief counsel, David Vigilante.
Fox News, the president’s favorite TV network, also voiced support for CNN earlier this year when it slammed one of its former top executives, White House communications director Bill Shine, for banning a reporter from a press event after she shouted questions at Trump.
“We stand in strong solidarity with CNN for the right to full access for our journalists as part of a free and unfettered press,” Wallace said in July.
Kaitlan Collins, a White House correspondent for CNN, was acting as a pool reporter when she shouted questions about attorney Michael Cohen and Vladimir Putin to Trump at the White House.
Trump — who frequently uses “Fox & Friends” as fodder for his early morning tweets — also has hired several commentators from the network’s ranks, including national security adviser John Bolton.
Fox News is the first TV network to announce an intention to file a friend-of-the-court brief in support of CNN.
The Washington Post released a statement in support Tuesday night.
“We support CNN in its effort to restore the press credentials of its White House reporter,” CEO Fred Ryan said. “It is a journalist’s role to ask hard questions, hold the powerful to account and provide readers with as much information as possible.”
So where is the line exactly when someone is ritually disruptive? Throwing out would seem to be good enough, but then if that person is attempting "action journalism" (which CNN somewhat made history for), that may even reward the behavior.
I don't like that with the Press Conferences, especially ones with Trump, they've become back and forths /w personality contests blended in. Granted, half of that is his in line with the President's own tone. I'd expect some to be screaming matches and some reporters to be uncooperative every now and then, but not every single time they take the mic. I think that's the line of discretion for me. I'm actually surprised they tolerated it for this long without taking his pass because you would think there would be a basic code of conduct.... was my first thought when I heard about the story.
Calling out CNN for being narcissists for reporting on a story that involves one of their employees whilst supporting Trump to the end? It just doesn't make much sense, does it?Perfect sense.
Oliver_W
14-11-2018, 08:44 PM
Maybe Acosta should have been given a final warning or something - "if you can't conduct yourself with courtesy and decorum, and respect other reporters' right to ask questions, you won't be coming again."
Tom4784
14-11-2018, 10:53 PM
Perfect sense.
Of course it doesn't given that Trump is pretty much the very image of a textbook narcissist. I think this is just another example of double standards really.
Acosta is 'rude' but a word isn't said about Trump insulting multiple journalists throughout that press conference and you call CNN narcissistic while jamming your eyes shut to the fact that Trump is the most blatant example of a narcissist you could ever hope to find.
Until you resolve those hypocrisies, anything you say will hold very little water.
Of course it doesn't given that Trump is pretty much the very image of a textbook narcissist. I think this is just another example of double standards really.
Acosta is 'rude' but a word isn't said about Trump insulting multiple journalists throughout that press conference and you call CNN narcissistic while jamming your eyes shut to the fact that Trump is the most blatant example of a narcissist you could ever hope to find.
Until you resolve those hypocrisies, anything you say will hold very little water.I'm a complete prick!
Pity what I say doesn't hold water with you,, or you could have agreed.
Larry King just gave an interview to Mediaite on CNN. I can't link it as it's embedded on their website.
I actually think Larry King put this quite well. Particularly the bold. It's sad to put it this way, but it is unfortunately true.
“You’re not bigger than [Trump]. It isn’t about you, it’s about him,” King said. “CNN has become — as is Fox, and MSNBC — Trump networks. There’s the anti-Trump network, the partial anti-Trump network, and the pro-Trump network. But they’re not news networks.”
This is the article/video (interview) link:
Former CNN Legend Larry King: CNN is ‘Not a News Network’
https://www.mediaite.com/online/former-cnn-legend-larry-king-cnn-is-not-a-news-network/
Talk show legend Larry King said Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are no longer news networks thanks to their obsessive coverage of President Donald Trump.
Appearing on the Law & Crime Network — Mediaite’s sister website — on Thursday, King offered the media criticism while discussing CNN’s case against the Trump administration after they pulled Jim Acosta’s press credentials.
“I’m a big supporter of free speech, but on the other hand, there are 50 press passes at CNN to the White House,” King said while on the Abrams Media outlet this morning.
He also praised Fox News for throwing their support behind CNN — to the shock of many — since “you could have another president in three years who throws a Fox reporter out.”
King then continued discussing Acosta and Trump’s beef:
“Jim was a little out of line. I wouldn’t have gone that far, he answered one or two questions then he didn’t want to answer anymore. You got a room full of people all of whom have the right to ask questions. Jim might have gone a little far. The president kept going back to him… To me, you know what this was, eighth grade. It was the playground, ‘That’s my ball and I wanna play today on the team.’ It was childish.”
He advised Acosta to “try to learn as much as you can from” Trump in the press conferences, rather than making the story about himself.
“You’re not bigger than [Trump]. It isn’t about you, it’s about him,” King said. “CNN has become — as is Fox, and MSNBC — Trump networks. There’s the anti-Trump network, the partial anti-Trump network, and the pro-Trump network. But they’re not news networks.”
“A news organization leads the news, it doesn’t follow,” he added.
Watch above, via Law & Crime Network.
Tom4784
16-11-2018, 03:25 AM
Meh, just more pushing of a very dangerous 'Press is the enemy of the people' bull**** really.
Trump is the president of the US and when he ****s up or gets caught in a lie, it's going to be news just like it is with any other president. The whole blaming of the press is just an attempt to try and undermine the press so that he doesn't have to be beholden to them and that is a very typical Dictator quality.
All world leaders should answer to the press and the people.
All news has a bias in it some place. Trump's twitter is also a news feed, which is extremely biased. Should it be shut down too?
I think part of it is the tension has been building slowly between the White House and Press with each successive Presidency. Technology has a little bit to do with it, but I also think rhetoric has also increased in the US as well, across the board. I wouldn't blame that on the media, but maybe the constant access to data thanks to tech makes us more "addicted" to never-ending news cycles and so it's helped feed into that temperature increase.
For example, Clinton & Bush, the temperature was relatively high during their terms. Especially their second terms. Bush dealt as little with the press as possible after a point and it felt like we didn't really see him. He was defensive as well towards the end. The turn for the worse was during the Obama era. He as well had a very dim view towards his detractors.
“I think Fox is part of that tradition — it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world. But as an economic enterprise, it’s been wildly successful. And I suspect that if you ask Mr. Murdoch what his number-one concern is, it’s that Fox is very successful.”
President Obama Is Getting Revenge On Fox News For Their Years Of Lies
https://www.politicususa.com/2015/05/10/president-obama-revenge-fox-news-years-lies.html
Fox News nuked their bridges with the Obama administration a long time ago. Before the President first took office, Fox News was pushing racism and birtherism. Fox’s behavior has only gotten worse over the years. Fox News has openly tried to get this removed from office with their constant conspiracy theories and propagandizing.
Fox doesn’t get to have it both ways. They can’t be baselessly accusing the President of illegal behavior on a regular basis and expect to be rewarded with exclusive interviews.
The problem with Fox News isn’t that they are critical of President Obama. The problem with Fox News is that they are deeply partisan, and ignore facts and reality. Fox News doesn’t practice journalism. They practice partisan warfare disguised as journalism. For this reason, they should not be surprised that the White House has no interest in sending officials to appear on their network.
Obama Boots Reporters From Conservative Papers
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1
Barack Obama's campaign has booted from its airplane three reporters who work for newspapers that have endorsed John McCain.
The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board.
Any of this sound familiar?
This all didn't really start with Trump is my point. The "presidential" role in general has been declining for decades and now the media has taken a tabloid-ish view of the Presidency for the purpose of ratings. This has aided (but has not been the sole reason) for a degradation of trust between the WH and the media. The adversely affected American sentiment because it further fueled the inclination for non-partisan (just average Joes) to think the whole thing was rigged and needed to be "reset".
When I was younger, we used to see Presidents featured more prominently, positive exposure, not so much suspicion, and even "proud" of them... can't remember the last time I felt like we have been "proud" of our President. Obama didn't live up to his campaign hype. But there used to be at least a thin layer of comradery between the White House and the media, and little statements here and there that positively resonated with the nation were still a thing. However, around the time Clinton left and Bush 2nd came in, we started seeing less of the President and a more conspiratorial press... this has been the cause with both sides. Bush was the victim of many conspiracies as well... Obama more after him... and then Trump now of course, but he thrives off of any press I think...
So on the other hand, we see much more of Trump. Much moreso than it felt with the others but it's virtually non-stop. That leads to never-ending news cycles and tensions that never recede. I see on one hand Trump likes to be his own PR as it keeps his base energized, but non-stop Trump is putting a big strain culturally. The media is trying to keep up and some are doing a better job than others, so this is a tense competition for them... politically and financially I think... to have the "last word" coverage-wise.
arista
16-11-2018, 04:25 PM
Judge rules White House must return access to CNN reporter
https://news.sky.com/story/judge-rules-white-house-must-return-access-to-cnn-reporter-jim-acosta-11555896
[A federal judge in Washington has ordered the Trump administration
to return the press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta.
US District Court Judge Timothy Kelly,
an appointee of the president,
announced his decision on Friday.]
Liam-
16-11-2018, 05:15 PM
Good
Alex Jones should apply for a press pass.
It's a temporary order. I guess they're fighting it out.
The judge, a Trump appointee, declared that precedent had been set that the White House should have given Acosta due process before taking away his credential and that harm to the reporter had already occurred. He said that CNN is likely to succeed on Fifth Amendment grounds and that the harm to Acosta outweighs the government's need for an orderly press conference.
About the press pass:
A hard pass is essential for White House reporters because it provides access to areas designated for journalists in the West Wing, on Air Force One, and in other secured areas during presidential trips, which are routinely covered by the White House press corps. For a White House correspondent like Acosta, the White House, or wherever the President is travelling, is his workplace. Indeed, Acosta often writes and broadcasts directly from the White House, working out of a booth in the press area known as the “lower press room” or from the “upper press office,” in close proximity to the Oval Office and the offices of the Press Secretary.
Because Acosta’s work requires his physical presence at the White House or on the road with the President, he often goes weeks or months without visiting CNN’s Washington bureau. Accordingly, the press credentials allowing access to the White House grounds and press complex, and to the President and his entourage during trips, are necessary to provide workplace access. Without this credential, a daily White House correspondent like Acosta effectively cannot do his or her job.
Tom4784
16-11-2018, 06:23 PM
Alex Jones should apply for a press pass.
Press passes are for the actual press, not delusional hate mongerers.
The man is indefensible he lied about the parents of murdered children in a school shooting to make them a target of threats and hatred, some of which have had to move multiple times beccause of harassment from that prick's fans who buy every morsel of bull**** he craps out.
Matthew.
16-11-2018, 06:25 PM
Alex Jones can piss off
Tom4784
16-11-2018, 06:26 PM
I'm glad that the White House's outrageous attitude has been clocked by the judge, it's sad that people will defend the suppression of the media and thus the eroding of their own rights just because Trump and by extension, the white house, sings them a song that they want to hear.
VqpVg8tBlU8
"Middleground ruling". Not the purple wave again.
Maybe they think they can win, but I don't feel it's worth pursuing much further in the courts. The revocation was enough to send a message, and Acosta should eventually get his pass back either way. They will put rules in place and they will be expected to follow them. As for Trump and his behavior going forward, ... who knows what will happen next. Season 2 of The Trump Show continues. Mueller investigation is supposed to be finalizing soon and they're going to be tied up with that I think...
Well there goes that spoiler...
1063531945554927616
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.