Should Trump shut down the White House Press Room

[EnglishPete]

Before heading off on his foreign trip President Trump suggested he was thinking about shutting down the Daily Press Briefings at the White House, which often generate far more heat than light, and instead doing press conferences himself a couple of times a month (presumably not in that rather shabby looking room in the West Wing).

Whilst he has been away the daily press briefings have been paused, as is usual. I don't think the administration has suffered at all from them being paused. Newt Gingrich has suggested closing down the White House press room and instead doing online briefings direct to the American people. His reasoning is that many of these publications have become blatant partisan and dishonest propagandists hostile to the Trump administration and why would Trump want to grant them a stamp of legitimacy by inviting them in to the building.

On the latter point I think Gingrich is right. Of course Trump still needs to give attention to Network TV news that is still massively influential and he's been giving them attention with periodic interviews (like the one he did recently with Lester Holt). However as far as cable news and newspapers go fewer and fewer people watch/read them. If the behave like hostile partisan propaganda outlets why give them legitimacy by treating them and responding to them as anything more. I'm sure tens of millions of Trump voters wouldn't even be sure that the Washington Post and New York Times were still in print if the White House didn't keep arguing with them and responding to them like they were legitimate publications to be taken seriously.

Trump should close down the Press Room. He should keep the press office to issue press releases and organise occasional press conferences as well as publishing video reports directly online themselves. But the press room and daily press briefings serve no good purpose and should go.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Yes, but only if Trump would give a press conference once a week.

[EnglishPete]

Yes, but only if Trump would give a press conference once a week.

Yep. Stopping press conferences altogether would look like hiding away and wouldn't really be a good option. If Trump does press conferences himself perhaps 2-4 times a month (perhaps down in Mar a Lago rather than that shabby looking little room in the West Wing) that could be not only an improvement but a popular alternative for news audiences.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

He'd be hurting himself more than reporters, tbh

[EnglishPete]

He'd be hurting himself more than reporters, tbh

Its not about hurting reporters its about helping himself. Making the kind of changes suggested above would be an improvement and would help him. Whether it 'hurt' White House reporters is not the important point.

[Inmate Trump]

This would be blatant fascism.

The press reports the *truth* about what is going on in his administration...he doesn't like it, so he's going to just shut it down? And you guys are okay with that??

This country is quickly dying.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Should Pete and the other alt-right trolls accept this is a democracy an the press is suppose to hold Cheeto Mussolini accountable an not kiss his rear end like Fox, Brietbart, an Infowars?

[The_Doctor]

I would support this for very different reasons. Very, very different ones.

[Inmate Trump]

I would support this for very different reasons. Very, very different ones.

What reasons?

Seems pretty indefensible to me. It's the straightest path to full dictatorship.

[The_Doctor]

I would support this for very different reasons. Very, very different ones.

What reasons?

Seems pretty indefensible to me. It's the straightest path to full dictatorship.

Because the last time Trump opened his mouth and attempted to direct his own media strategy and was in unchallenged control of his own Twitter we got a special counsel.

I am entirely all for the president to let loose on his own without anyone restraining him. The idea of him ranting and making legally culpable statements once a week at Mar-a-Lago is definitely good by me.

[EnglishPete]

This would be blatant fascism.

The press reports the *truth* about what is going on in his administration...he doesn't like it, so he's going to just shut it down? And you guys are okay with that??

This country is quickly dying.

Do you understand the difference between shutting down the press ROOM and shutting down the press. There is absolutely no shortage of press outlets attacking the President and no sign that that's going to stop. As Gingrich pointed out there's nothing to stop them going to the Starbucks across the road and writing from there.

If Breitbart or Rebel Media or Infowars were excluded from Obama press conferences would you say that was an attack on freedom of the Press? The White House has to pay attention to important media outlets. That would be the Network TV news. All other news outlets, whether that's cable news outlets like CNN of Fox News, newspapers like Washington Post or Washington Times or blogs like Salon or Breitbart, are niche news. Why should the WhiteHouse give any special recognition to hostile niche news outlets like CNN or the Carlos Slim blog?

[EnglishPete]

Should Pete and the other alt-right trolls accept this is a democracy an the press is suppose to hold Cheeto Mussolini accountable an not kiss his rear end like Fox, Brietbart, an Infowars?

I'm sure all kinds of news outlets will continue to criticise the President in very vigorous terms but that doesn't mean he has to invite them into his house. Do you think Obama was obligated to let right wing blogs into the press room?

[EnglishPete]

I would support this for very different reasons. Very, very different ones.

What reasons?

Seems pretty indefensible to me. It's the straightest path to full dictatorship.

Because the last time Trump opened his mouth and attempted to direct his own media strategy and was in unchallenged control of his own Twitter we got a special counsel.

I am entirely all for the president to let loose on his own without anyone restraining him. The idea of him ranting and making legally culpable statements once a week at Mar-a-Lago is definitely good by me.

I think Mar a Lago press conferences would be fine for Trump, although once a week might be a bit often on reflection. Also he'd have more control forbasisuple of reasons. Firstly the scheduling. The Press Conferences could be scheduled on an ad hoc basis. Secondly invitations to journalists to take part could be issued on an ad hoc basis, so if he didn't want journos from hostile niche publications like the New York Times or the Washington Post taking part then he could just not invite them.

You are right however, there is an argument for just not doing press conferences at all. Trump could then, as Newt suggested, do a live stream Q&A with questions submitted by the public and the press secretary picking out and reading the best questions. If he did that combined with the issuing of press releases and occasional interviews with Network TV there might be no need for him to replace a closed down press room with press conferences from Mar A Lago at all. Towards the end of his campaign he went quite a long period without holding a press conference and still managed to get his message across.

[EnglishPete]

Yes, but only if Trump would give a press conference once a week.

On reflection the various complications of holding regular or semi regular press conferences at Mar a Lago would be a whole different minefield to organise and would take away many of the advantages of abolishing the press room. Might be better for the White House to just do away with regular press conferences altogether and just have the short four question press conferences they hold when a foreign head of state visits.

[Inmate Trump]

Why do you want press-free news conferences?

It's vital to have a free press questioning and analyzing our leaders.  And surely you must know that any precedent you guys set now, you MUST honor with any future administration.  So if there's ever a time when the press is critical of a Democratic president then you can't criticize if said president tries to shut them down. Which they likely wouldn't because most Democrats are not also authoritarians, but the point is that all these crazy and previously untought of actions that Trump and the GOP are doing set a precedent for all future administrations. YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE A DEMOCRAT FOR BEING A WOMANIZER, LIAR, CHEAT, ETC.  You can't criticize any politician for sexual assault in their personal lives, or for potential treason or espionage if it ever comes out that they've worked with a foreign power to rig an election.

Everything Trump is now doing you will have to warmly accept from a Democratic contender should one resemble him in any way. And that includes suppression of a free press.

And suppression is exactly what this is. He is trying to make his message be heard unopposed. Today it's the press briefings, tomorrow it'll be the nightly news. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who believes in anything that America has ever stood for proudly.

[Hindsight was 2020]

Why do you want press-free news conferences?

It's vital to have a free press questioning and analyzing our leaders.  And surely you must know that any precedent you guys set now, you MUST honor with any future administration.  So if there's ever a time when the press is critical of a Democratic president then you can't criticize if said president tries to shut them down. Which they likely wouldn't because most Democrats are not also authoritarians, but the point is that all these crazy and previously untought of actions that Trump and the GOP are doing set a precedent for all future administrations. YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE A DEMOCRAT FOR BEING A WOMANIZER, LIAR, CHEAT, ETC.  You can't criticize any politician for sexual assault in their personal lives, or for potential treason or espionage if it ever comes out that they've worked with a foreign power to rig an election.

Everything Trump is now doing you will have to warmly accept from a Democratic contender should one resemble him in any way. And that includes suppression of a free press.

And suppression is exactly what this is. He is trying to make his message be heard unopposed. Today it's the press briefings, tomorrow it'll be the nightly news. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who believes in anything that America has ever stood for proudly.

Why are you acting like the right is not completely fine with being utter hypocrites when it comes to this stuff? We saw them shamelessly go from 2003-2008 "if you critize the president you hate this country to less then a year later "OBAMA PUTS MUSTARD ON HIS CHEEESEBURGER"

[EnglishPete]

Why do you want press-free news conferences?

It's vital to have a free press questioning and analyzing our leaders.  And surely you must know that any precedent you guys set now, you MUST honor with any future administration.  So if there's ever a time when the press is critical of a Democratic president then you can't criticize if said president tries to shut them down. Which they likely wouldn't because most Democrats are not also authoritarians, but the point is that all these crazy and previously untought of actions that Trump and the GOP are doing set a precedent for all future administrations. YOU CANNOT CRITICIZE A DEMOCRAT FOR BEING A WOMANIZER, LIAR, CHEAT, ETC.  You can't criticize any politician for sexual assault in their personal lives, or for potential treason or espionage if it ever comes out that they've worked with a foreign power to rig an election.

Everything Trump is now doing you will have to warmly accept from a Democratic contender should one resemble him in any way. And that includes suppression of a free press.

And suppression is exactly what this is. He is trying to make his message be heard unopposed. Today it's the press briefings, tomorrow it'll be the nightly news. This cannot be acceptable to anyone who believes in anything that America has ever stood for proudly.

Oh FFS. No one is talking about supressing the free press. People will still be free to analyse and criticise the President and indeed with the huge number of social media accounts, blogs and websites they have more opportunities than ever to do so (please note that "the press" just means any form of publishing, not just a few established news outlets).

The model of the "press conference" was put together when the only way of getting information out to the public was through paid journalists working for a relatively small number of newspapers and later broadcasting companies and that was the easiest way to communicate with them.

Now that the White House themselves (via their websites and social media channels) and most of the general public (through social media accounts) are just as much part of the press as the traditional journalists there is no need for the White House to keep this old model. To do so legitimises a number of hostile propaganda outlets as having a 'special' superior status to other bloggers that the White House has no reason to grant them.

As for the idea that stopping press conferences is a suppression of freedom of the press I would point out that I come a country where no head of state has ever given a press conference and I can tell you for a fact that that does not mean that the press is not free to criticise the Royal family because they absolutely are free to do so.

[ApatheticAustrian]

ah, royal proclamations, i see.

[EnglishPete]

ah, royal proclamations, i see.

You do understand the difference between a royal proclamation and a royal press release.

I would put the point the other way around and ask why, in these days when the majority of the population are part of the press, why you think that President Trump should grant special superior privileges to a very small and wealthy part of the press?

Lets give one small example. My account here on this forum is just as much part of 'the press' as the New York Times. A vastly smaller, poorer and less read part of the press but just as much part of the press as the NYT or CNN or whatever. If I am denied special access to ask questions at the West Wing is that a restriction on freedom of the press?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Should Dave shut down EnglishPete?

[EnglishPete]

Should Dave shut down EnglishPete?

Who is Dave?

Edit: ah right you mean the forum owner. Well that's up to him, his forum, his rules.

[EnglishPete]

Yes. More insane Trump press conferences, please!

I don't know if you'd actually get more Trump press conferences if the other White House press conferences were closed down and I'm coming round to the view that you shouldn't get more.

[ApatheticAustrian]

why you think that President Trump should grant special superior privileges to a very small and wealthy part of the press?

some people are more informed about topics, spend most of their living days informing themselves on them and are better built to ask the questions which are important for the general public, than amateurs, who have other jobs and responsibilities.

but that's just the boring truth.

[EnglishPete]

why you think that President Trump should grant special superior privileges to a very small and wealthy part of the press?

some people are more informed about topics, spend most of their living days informing themselves on them and are better built to ask the questions which are important for the general public, than amateurs, who have other jobs and responsibilities.

but that's just the boring truth.

And some people are hack propagandist shills pretending to be disinterested journalists. Why should they be granted special privileges?

[ProudModerate2]

trump should shut-down his phone and close his twitter account.
THAT is his biggest PR problem !