Hacker News Reader

Comment by clamprecht | Hacker News Reader

For anyone who has actually watched these press briefings in their entirety: Does anyone else think these are pretty much the worst way to get to the bottom of issues? Here's how it seems to work:

* The press secretary (or President, or whoever) makes a statement

* He or she chooses a journalist to ask a question

* Journalist asks question

* Press secretary answers question in as much or as little detail as he/she wants

* Press secretary calls another journalist

* This goes on for maybe 20-30 minutes, and it's over.

How does this even help at all? It's not like the press secretary is going to answer a question that he/she doesn't want to answer anyway.

View on HN

These press briefings provide direct, multilateral, and unmoderated access to the Presidential Administration by the Press Corps. They are incredibly important to holding the administration to account for policy.

Can the administration spin their own narrative? Sure, but they can't directly control or audit the questions asked.

Now if only an actual Press Corps existed in this country.

Depends on if they start excluding organizations and lining up softballs from cranks.

yes but all Presidents do this, including Obama

Please name a news organization that was allowed to attend press conferences by Obama, then later banned because he didn't like what they had to say.

edit: Since you won't be able to find one by Obama, how about any president in the last 50 years?

>The administration has taken increasing steps in recent weeks and months to isolate the TV network, with some Capitol Hill veterans recalling no such similar steps by any president since Richard Nixon’s retaliation against The New York Times and The Washington Post during Watergate.

>“The point is this, and it really needs to be made: Fox is not just another television network,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.), a close Obama ally. “Fox has become the official/semi-official voice for the Republican Party, in opposition to the president. And I think calling them out is the only way to delegitimize them as political propaganda.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63167-congression...

Why would you post a link which proves my point for me?

>The effort hasn’t been a total blackout; White House press secretary Robert Gibbs still calls on Fox News reporter Major Garrett at press briefings

Obama decided not to go on some Fox talk shows one time which apparently hurt their feelings. It would be truly shocking if we had a president who wasn't nice to the press like that.

Thank god ours constantly reassures reporters that he would never have them killed, even though he hates them and thinks they are disgusting, and he has to remind us that he thinks people who kill reporters are bad people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxI04hcgRNg

He did not ban them from press conferences, in fact his press secretary called on their reporters.

>White House press secretary Robert Gibbs still calls on Fox News reporter Major Garrett at press briefings

So they were still invited to the briefings and still called on.

>Obama last month granted five interviews to Sunday political shows to discuss healthcare reform, but he did not sit down with Fox

That's the worst he did.

>And there is no evidence of any joint strategy by Democrats at either side of Pennsylvania Avenue to coordinate their efforts against Fox.

No additional steps or coordinated effort was made to exclude Fox.

To call this the same thing is disingenuous and incorrect.

You cannot be serious.

Suggesting this is somehow equivalent is way off the mark, at best it is grasping for straws.

Trump not sitting down with MSNBC to discuss immigration would be equivalent. Barring media outlets is completely unprecedented, because we have freedom of the press in the United States.

Obama had tried to do the same thing with Fox News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obamas-feud-with-fox-n...

The difference in this case is how wildly inaccurate their reporting has been. Nearly everyday they're misrepresenting what President Trump has said, and sometimes they outright lie. It borders on hysteria. Which is ridiculous, because if they didn't ratchet everything up to 11, they could make serious points against Trump.

For instance in the latest Sweden nontroversy, Trump misspoke when he tried to make reference to a report he saw on the Tucker Carlson show. Instead of having articles that would point out that a President should speak more clearly and that we expect more from him, instead they stated that he made up a terror attack! Really?! Instead of making a point that we could all agree with, they made themselves look bad to those of us who are non-partisans.

So the Treasury department tried to stop Fox from attending a meeting once, but didn't actually do it because it was wrong.

And he didn't go on a Fox Sunday news show one time.

Not really helping your case here.

They don't lie about him, they don't have to; they represent him as he represents himself. He says something out loud and they describe it, it's not their fault he changes his mind about what he wishes he had said after the fact.

He has taken to blatantly and explicitly lying about simple verifiable facts, and doubling down on those lies when challenged. How should the press deal with that besides calling it what it is? Why should they give him the benefit of the doubt after that?

The Obama feud with Fox News was heavily inflated by Fox News [1].

[1] http://www.mediaite.com/columnists/foxs-white-house-bans-fox...

You are making a false equivalency [1]. Every president has to manage relations with the press but Trump's press relations are not normal.

[1] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-battles-pres...

Obama complained about Fox news, but he never acted like this.

Who constantly questioned his legitimacy as president, made up the "terrorist fist jab", and gave him shit for asking for fucking dijon mustard.

so what? why should he give any airtime to a media company that has blatantly slandered him, propagated toxic vitriol, and vehemently opposed him?

Then why should Obama have given any airtime to Fox? Why should the next democratic president? And now you see the problem: suppressing journalism that you don't agree with is a fucking dangerous precedent.

I think you mean that it sets a "dangerous president", as in #unpresidented [1].

[1] http://www.snopes.com/trump-sends-unpresidented-tweet/

It's two fold: 1) I agree the President shouldn't suppress journalism so long as it's respectful as that could set a "dangerous" precedent. 2) CNN has been one of the major proponents of the Trump is Hitler/bigot/racist/xenophobe/x_____ist/phobe AND the bullshit, racist, anti-white people narrative started under Obama's watch and they have set a dangerous precedent of abusing their size and power to lead half the country into civil unrest and make them believe that Trump is to blame for all of their problems.

Obama didn't exclude news organizations because he didn't like them when he was president as far as I'm aware and if he did I'm going to be just as mad at him as I am at Trump.

did Obama call on conservative leaning publications? I'm pretty sure he favored the ones in the front row, the ones that favored him.

Yes, he did call on conservative leaning publications. Your vague memories are incorrect.

December 2012: Several journalists reported that MSNBC hosts were meeting privately with President Obama to discuss the impending “fiscal cliff” fight. May 2013: NPR’s Ari Shapiro reported that President Obama was meeting privately with “lefty columnists,” but hastened to add that there was “nothing nefarious” about it. November 2013: President Obama met again with liberal journalists, as Obamacare struggled with the failure of healthcare.gov and other problems. March 2015: Politico’s media reporter, Hadas Gold, reported that “a group of journalists and columnists,” all on the left, met privately with President Obama, but the White House refused to say “who else was at the meeting or what was discussed.”

Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?

I'm sure if you were at all open to his point, you could really figure it out.

Why bother posting the comment at all if you don't actually want to discuss it?

To be fair, your initial response was not particularly conducive to continuing the conversation. Why would they choose to respond to someone who is apparently antagonistic?

Which initial response?

My first comment in this thread was responding to a baseless comment about someone's own memory, so I didn't feel the need to put a lot of effort providing sources.

My first reply to billfor was a question asking for clarification on his comment.

I don't see in what way I'm being antagonistic. As to why would they choose to respond, I don't know, but they did choose to, so I don't see why asking for clarification is such a bad thing.

Apologies for not looking far enough up the thread. I am referring to this comment:

Where have you copy-pasted this list from and what is it's relevance?

Perhaps it wasn't your intent, but this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation". With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.

It's very clear that it is copy-pasted from somewhere, just from the formatting of the text, so I was honestly wondering where it was from. As it is it's just an unsourced block of text without any commentary about what they meant to show by it or even if it is accurate.

>this can easily be read as "you're just copy/pasting stuff that doesn't have anything to do with the conversation".

Good, because that is what I meant. Until they can show the source of that information and can explain why they posted it I have no way of knowing if it has anything to do with the conversation.

>With contentious topics, extra care needs to be taken to ensure constructive conversation.

I do not consider just copying blocks of text at someone without any attempt at elaboration a constructive conversation. I asked a valid clarifying question and I feel no need to beat around the bush. Nothing in my comment was unnecessary or aggressive. Read it literally, as that is the way it was written.

If you no longer think the person you're engaging with is interested in constructive discussion, it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism. If you're interested in rehabilitating it, you need to make it abundantly clear that that's what you're doing. Otherwise, just leave it be.

Given the nature of internet forums with text being the only medium, you do need to take extra care to ensure the best possible reading of your comments. I wasn't the only one to read your comment in a negative way (as another commenter posted as well), and your comment didn't elicit the response from 'billfor that you were looking for. The bar needs to be higher. Although it happens much too often, HN isn't intended for battle or point-scoring debate: it's intended for substantive, constructive discussion.

Similarly, at this point I don't think I've done an adequate job in presenting what I've intended, so I'll leave it at that.

>it does absolutely no good to make it worse by raising the level of antagonism.

I do not believe I did so. Again: I asked an honest question to which I honestly want to know the answer.

Apparently, the only link that comes up in a search is:

http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=64995 "Media outrage at White House briefing is more 'Fake News' - Look ..."

Awesome! Thank you, I appreciate it. Looks like that's just a rehost of a Brietbart article.

Seems like some of the events disagree with the collation article:

>On Thursday, Fox News’ Ed Henry tweeted that MSNBC hosts Ed Schultz and Lawrence O’Donnell, as well as Ezra Klein of the Washington Post and Fox News’ Juan Williams, had been invited for a private off-the-record chat with President Obama.

So not exactly the "lefty" conspiracy painted in the root article.

He may have inferred from your tone a common algorithm:

1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.

>Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.

A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description.

I mean, if we want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:

1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.

So... you did understand what he said, and are assuming he's hostile? This seems to contradict that you were asking honest feedback.

What? No, I don't understand what he said. It was a list of dates and events that I don't know are true or accurate, without any context of why he commented them. I was referring to you when I said

>Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value

I made no claim that I wish you accepted at face value. So as far as i understand, you must be referring to bills claim. Otherwise, to which claim are you referring?

Assuming it is bills claim to ehich you refer, if you don't understand the context, how can it be a claim?

This is exactly the strategy the WH is starting to employ.

Look at Russian tactics against the press in 2006-2007 and you can predict the WH next move. They are stealing from their playbook.

Revoke. Replace. Erode.

Maybe Infowars will get the president on the record about Pizzagate.

Alex Jones loves Donald Trump. He's unlikely to hold him to account for anything, except maybe not being paranoid enough, until his audience drops and new ideas come crawling out of whatever hole Alex keeps them in.

I would say he's a joke, but it's way creepier than that.

I hear there are two new administration approved newspapers: The Truth and The News. (Известия)

And it's very well known that there is no news in the Truth, and no truth in the News.

There is a good write up on how Putin manages his media relations and uses it as a "powerful weapon" [1].

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/ho...

What is the next move?

Here are some examples:

https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-medi...

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/you-thought-this-was-roc...

I don't see anything about next moves in either. The only thing I could get from the first one is that Trump will produce a lot of bullshit. That's not exactly next move, he's doing it for years now. The second one mostly devoted to mocking Trump's first press-conference, still no next moves.

The linked piece says much more than that, of course.

More words, same content.

Masha Gessen's outstanding piece from November is holding up pretty well: http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/10/trump-election-autoc...

"The national press is likely to be among the first institutional victims of Trumpism. There is no law that requires the presidential administration to hold daily briefings, none that guarantees media access to the White House. Many journalists may soon face a dilemma long familiar to those of us who have worked under autocracies: fall in line or forfeit access."

"Stealing"? Vladimir let Donald borrow the book and make photocopies, and he's happy to explain all the parts that are not clear.

Vlad also showed off his bling to The Donald that he stole from Robert Kraft.

Right. Because last I heard Trump just nationalized CNN and had state-controlled oil monopoly buy NYT and replace all previous editorship with his cronies.

TRUMP: Wait. Let's see. Who's -- I want to find a friendly reporter.
QUESTION: Mr....

TRUMP: Are you a friendly reporter? Watch how friendly he is. Wait. Wait. Watch how friendly he is. Go ahead.

a few minutes later, with a different reporter:

TRUMP: Now, that's what I call a nice question. That is very -- who are you with?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/16/politics/donald-trump-news-con...

I thought your comment was a joke at first glance, because I often make jokes in this format.

It's an actual transcript. I'm a little flabbergasted.

The price good people pay for indifference to public affairs (ie populism, corruption and Electoral College ineptitude) is to be ruled by evil simians.

-Plato

This is exactly why journalism today is mostly lacking in integrity: journos having to cozy up to and not offend officials to maintain access. Without viable, advarasial news, society is headed towards a precipice of greater corruption and authoritarianism because the press failed to hold leaders accountable for their actions.

You mean softballs like:

- Golf, what does it do for you?

- How does your golf game hold up next to Tiger’s?

- What has enchanted you the most from serving in this office?

- In this fatherless world, where did you learn to love?

- Are you ready to call yourself the ‘comeback kid’?

- You definitely have some impressive accomplishments….And more than a lot of presidents who manage to get reelected. My question is, is it enough?

- Have you given up on the Republicans?

- I’m wondering if you think that [Republican presidential candidates are] uninformed, out of touch, or irresponsible?

All actual questions press asked Obama: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/13-hard-hitting-questions-...

Reporters can ask whatever they want, including stupid/uninteresting questions, that's the point.

But limiting who can attend is only a move to signal they don't want hard questions and if you ask them you get banned.

Nobody wants hard questions, as such, but I agree it would be good for the President to allow diversity of viewpoints be represented in the press pool. I'm just saying journalists being soft and submissive towards the government with which they are politically aligned is not exactly the new thing that Trump threatens to unleash on us - it has happened many times before.

Allowing only those who are soft to ask questions is new.

Are you sure? Here is the report about closed sessions with reporters that Obama held:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/us/politics/calculated-ca...

It's not that some of the press was excluded, it's not that only "trusted" media was invited, it's that they agreed to not even report on what they talked about or who they met with. I think private meetings with no mention of them and reporting based on this as if they arrived to it by themselves and not were instructed by the administration is much cozier relationship than just being invited or not invited in one briefing.

If that's all they could find after eight years in office, you're making the opposite point to the one you think you're making.

Why that would be all? Of course it's not all. It's just one random article that I've seen couple of days ago, I didn't make a full survey of whole 8 years. It is enough though to establish the fact that the some of the press did field softball questions to Obama - in addition to publicly gushing about how awesome he is - which fact should be obvious to anybody who paid any attention through his tenure.

You didn't read the article did you? Most of these questions were asked in TV interviews which are generally very favorable to the President.

Are they generally favorable to Trump too?

You didn't read the article did you?

The guidelines ask us

Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No, I meant the softballs coming from the Skype seats.

(yes yes, there have been reasonable questions from the Skype seats too)

> but they can't directly control or audit the questions asked

That's exactly what's happening - they're skipping the reporters and now excluding the news organization entirely.

> How does this even help at all?

It's basically (when run the traditional way) a means for the press corps to apply pressure, if an issue is either emergent or common, a substantive question is likely to be asked and answered on it, and followup can occur on other forums, which are less public and provide less pressure on their own, but far more fertile when the issued been raised based on the public questions and responses (or lack of response) and stories based on that are out or imminent.

OTOH, if you bar outlets that tend to ask bothersome questions from the briefing in favor of friendly outlets, that breaks down.

It's worth reading about why these things exist [1]. The ability to ask questions is powerful whether or not they are answered [2].

[1] https://www.whitehousehistory.org/the-president-the-press-an... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/water...

You're right in that this does not significantly block NYT, etc.'s ability to gather news (btw you can check the transcripts online: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings) but it's an important symbolic gesture by the White House.

Here's a cool post of how the 49 seats assignments have changed over time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/03/25/ho...

Blocking only NYT might not change things significantly, but showing that they will ban anyone who asks difficult questions means the ones who are left will think twice. The ones who keep "misbehaving" will also get banned. That will change things for everyone trying to get news.

The banned parties should make an alternative venue that asks questions of shadow governments. It will be more interesting and erode the Presidents power to choose how to address the people by overshadowing his useless PR and making the other governments easier to imagine.

Shadow? Like this? http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Tampa-town-hall-meeti...

Also fun, but I didn't mean a cutout of trump.. an actual clinton or sanders, or anyone who has some backing to run next term can build a shadow cabinet and start answering the NYTs questions.

That's an esoteric use of "shadow government".

It's typically used to mean a secret cabal that holds the real power.

I took him to mean "shadow" as how it's used in the term "shadow cabinet" in parliamentary democracies, particularly the UK.

Exactly. I would expect the UK's media to use the shadow cabinet to take back the floor.

If the only questions that are asked are softballs, then the only clips that CNN, etc, can air from the press conferences are well-prepared, pat answers. Which will tend to make the administration look better, rather than spluttering and indignant.

I agree its not optimal, but at least the president gets challenging questions from time to time and his reaction will be analyzed by the press and people. If they choose not to answer that is also an answer. if they choose to ignore hard questions, that is also an answer. in case of Trump he gets tripped up and starts blatantly lying and blaming everyone else. it works

It's not useless at all. Banning CNN and other relatively hostile or left leaning news corps is not really meant to protect Trump from them. After all, their readership is likely in large part against Trump already.

No, the move is a warning to the news organizations who stay. It's a message that they will be kicked out if they don't push stuff that the administration likes.

Note that TIME and the AP refused to take part if others were excluded.

in todays non-televised press meeting, not in future press briefings.

I don't think that is even the issue. It is essential for him and his followers to brand media as the enemy. As long as they are angry and against him it works for him, ie his followers see any negative repirting as hit jobs by spoiled liberal journos. They don't realize that they are helping him with all the outraging.

You're right, the press briefings are absolutely useless. That said, the message sent by this is not a good one.

No, it isn't a good message at all.

In fact, I'd say it's downright ominous.

FCC is in the middle of legalizing regional monopolies, DEA is busy banning Kratom in the middle of the worst opiate crisis in decades, and the White House is barring media outlets from press briefings.

it doesn't even sound like I'm talking about America, right? something is very, very wrong.

> FCC is in the middle of legalizing regional monopolies, DEA is busy banning Kratom in the middle of the worst opiate crisis in decades, and the White House is barring media outlets from press briefings.

Actually everything except the press ban sounds pretty much like the American I can remember since my teenage years. What do you think happened during the crack epidemic? The rules to prevent these large media monopolies have been eroding since the 90s.

Honestly, it's like the Trump administration is trying to undo any social and economic progress since the 80s.

When did the US become so complacent to shit policy? We've tried war on drugs before, IT DOES NOT WORK. We created 'bad hombres' down there.

The crack epidemic was another racially and politically motivated solution.

The fact we still use a law, to this day, that was created to cause destruction to hippie/black communities and break down protests against the war is absurd.

And anyone, in 2017, that still considers drug use a law enforcement issue is out of touch with reality and science.

So fuck the Republican party right now.

I find them useful and interesting despite their flaws.

I guess I can see that if you find "how does the press secretary avoid saying anything of substance today?" interesting.

People see the press ask questions and be ignored or be given responses that have nothing to do with what was asked and some of them take note. Not allowing the press because you disagree with them is a step away from only allowing government approved press. Welcome to the way things are/were in Nazi Germany, North Korea, Venezuela, Soviet Russia, and other great places to share company with.

Freedom of the press being curtailed to such an extent has /always/ signaled worse things to come in literally every historic precedent, ever.

Coming from a republic in which the president is irrelevant and governance is entirely parliamentary in practice, I think it's highly refreshing to see a press secretary publically shooting the sh*t with journalists in this fashion.

The alternative means of getting questions from the public to leaders is to have self-interested politicians grandstanding, asking questions of politicians who are experts in not answering them. It's pointless.

They're not perfect, but these press briefings are far less stage-managed and more honest than any other public forum in which questions are asked, imo.

"Asked about X, press secretary didn't provide more details." is still interesting information. Well... during more normal times anyways.

I do agree it could be more transparent and useful than a reality show however.

Indeed. Refusals to answer, evasions, and lies are also valuable information.

Yep, the best investigative stories involve catching people in their own lies. Reminds me of that comical quote by Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, "I love rumors! Facts can be so misleading, where rumors, true or false, are often revealing."

> Indeed. Refusals to answer, evasions, and lies are also valuable information.

And people who ask those questions too frequently will be weeded out just like NYT, CNN, and Politico.

The goal is to only get the questions the President wants asked to be asked.

There won't be many "didn't provide more details" type questions if people want to retain access.

I view press briefings (in almost all contexts) as a platform for the speaker to get their message out. That the press gets to ask questions just helps advise the speaker on where there is uncertainty/ambiguity in their statements.

Under a "normal" administration, they are a pretty good way to get the official story, but journalism still requires investigation.

This article was an interesting view on the Putin's annual press conferences. Similar flow to what you described.

https://medium.com/@alexey__kovalev/message-to-american-medi...

I've always been jealous of the prime minister's question time. Members of Parliament ask tough questions and demand follow-up, plus it's the prime minister answering instead of a press secretary. I'm sure the prime minister is less enthusiastic about it than I am, but since he is subject to votes of no confidence, he doesn't have much of a choice.

The president will never do something similar in front of Congress, but wouldn't it be great?

> It's not like the press secretary is going to answer a question that he/she doesn't want to answer anyway.

Even when the press secretary refuses to answer a question, it is good because it draws attention to the topic at hand and this helps drive public awareness for important issues. Denial of comments is often as revealing as plain answers. Actually it is pretty good when they refuse to comment on something because you can make this a part of a larger article on a subject and then quote their refusal to comment. This helps make pressure on a sensitive topic way after the press event is done and then in the end some answers might be provided if sufficient attention is focused.

The Press Secretary is the "Official" voice of the White House, and thus is accountable for WH's actions. Now, if nobody knows what was officially said, the WH can deny it and there will be no record of it.

I understand that the current press secretary/briefings are pretty much useless. But they are officially recorded as being useless, which is very important for accountability. Seems like another stunt for the current administration to play fast and loose with facts.

The press meetings are televised...there will be video record of what was said.

What matters more is what was not said on account of questions not asked. Even an evasion or an alternative fact carries information in its being offered in response.

Thanks for bringing this up! I would rather expect an anonymous set of questions go up on into a ballot and picked up randomly for the Press Secretary to answer. A follow-up could be decided extempore based on who asked the question.

I feel like the modern Press Briefing in the USA is a form of the completely useless Canadian "Question Period."

As a former Speaker commented, "there's a reason it's called Question Period and not Answer Period".

Yes, but this isn't about improving on press briefings, it's about making them even worse.

I agree- they are useless. We should have a Monthly state of the union where the President is directly answerable to Public via Periscope/Facebook/Twitter. There are no distribution costs on the Internet so Press will eventually be disintermediated.

(Responding to my own comment) I guess Churchill would say, "Democracy, the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." That doesn't mean we can't improve. Press briefings just seem broken.

Menkin is better on democracy.

That's a reasonable question, but also a distraction from the topic of equal access.

I agree. I'd like to see more and more frequent policy debates between the parties even when the election might be years away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com