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.
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.
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.
How about we wait and see before passing judgement.
After all... this is brand new, and obviously done under the new administration.
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.)
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.
The first two, though no questions were permitted at the first one (which itself is something of a signal.)