Story here.
It’s unusual for a candidate to ban a reporter, but Trump has done so repeatedly since he announced he was seeking the Republican nomination last June. Among the news organizations whose reporters have been blacklisted: Gawker, BuzzFeed, Foreign Policy, Politico, Fusion, Univision, Mother Jones, the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Des Moines Register, the Daily Beast and Huffington Post.
The bans, which have been erratically enforced and of seemingly arbitrary duration, typically mean a reporter from the affected news organization is barred from covering campaign events. Some banned reporters have entered his rallies on general-admission tickets. One of them — Ben Schreckinger of Politico — was escorted out of an event last week by campaign officials after he tried to report while in the crowd.
As shocking as this is, to me it’s just a continuation of heavy-handed treatment of the press. Obama has been overly controlling of the press, Hillary literally put up a rope.
And honestly, the journalism profession has not covered itself in glory on this stuff. Reactions to poor treatment of reporters have been uneven and often nonexistent.
I think a media blackout of Trump — for seven days or so — would be an appropriate response.
Christopher says
Frankly, I largely blame the media for his nomination. They always seemed to break into coverage of his rallies and he says the outrageous things that he does I think in part because he knows the media will give him the attention for it he craves.
JimC says
http://gawker.com/now-peter-thiels-lawyer-wants-to-silence-reporting-on-t-1781918385
I’m not equating Thiel with Trump just because he’s a delgate for him, but I also think Thiel’s crusade fits into this larger anti-media trend.
Have these guys considered becoming Russian oligarchs? No pesky press there.
Christopher says
News today is that Russia hacked the DNC oppo research files on Trump.
mike_cote says
Given the difficulty that print media is having these days, they should use this in their advertisement.
Screw the Douchebag!
stomv says
Why doesn’t the New Hampshire Union Leader et al. simply put a small bit of text on the front somewhere that says something like:
And then, you know, not report on Donald Trump.
ChiliPepr says
I think because the people want to see the news on Trump and it is their job to report on it.
Let’s say they did it… 95% of the news outlets blacked out Trump for 7 days, Trump and the 5% would be screaming about it and a lot of the voters would look at it as the media trying to sway the election to Sec Clinton. I would think this would almost guarantee a Trump win in November.
paulsimmons says
…is the low (and declining) confidence Americans have in newspapers. The confidence among Americans as a whole is at 20%; among Democrats in isolation, confidence in newspapers is 27%.
Per Gallup:
Like it or not, manufacturing a feud with the Washington Post makes political sense.
That said, Democrats should be grateful that Trump is his own worst enemy.
Mark L. Bail says
about Hillary’s choice not to do press conferences at which the media can take pot shots at her and set the agenda. The media has a lot to atone for: their treatment of the Clintons in the 1990s; going along with the Iraq war and passing along Pentagon propaganda; their general disinterest in the truth over “objectivity.” Trump and Clinton are just the beginning of a sea change of in the media’s influence.
kbusch says
Generally, we’d hope to have press conferences whereby reporters ask hard-hitting questions that elicit information we didn’t previously know. This requires preparation and intelligent follow-up.
As a substitute for that, we get socially awkward questions.
They’re hard-hitting only in the sense that, in polite society, they’d be a bit rude. They tend to make the person interviewed clam up and act defensive, so they elicit almost no information at all. Now surely, intelligent questions from reporters may also require a touch of, well, rudeness, i.e., going outside the bounds of what one might ask at a dinner party where never want to embarrass your guests. By itself, the touch of rudeness isn’t enough.
So instead of watching journalism in action, I often feel as if I’m watching some kind of reality television event. I feel this even when Republicans are being interviewed.
lodger says
of what you’re looking for is “Hard Talk” on BBC World News. The host walks that fine line between rudeness and resolute interrogatory. He can do this because of something which is also often missing in our media, respect for those with whom you may disagree.
TheBestDefense says
The interview today of David Frum on Hard Talk was a classic example of how to strike a proper balance. Of course it is easier to do with a class act like Frum who does not try to score cheap political points nor remain “on message” with every question.
It is not just a good example of interviewing. It is a worthy watch for people who want to understand the consternation of the last of the mainstream GOP members.
SomervilleTom says
This is just another WWF stunt. During the “Lou Albano period”, various characters black-listed various other characters pretty much weekly. Attacks and hostility towards Vince McMahon, the owner of the WWF and also ringside announcer, were commonplace.
Donald Trump has as much substance as Hulk Hogan. The absurdity is that he is the presumptive GOP nominee. Even more absurd is that so many Americans take him seriously.
America literally cannot distinguish fact from fiction.
SomervilleTom says
There’s even a word for it — Kayfabe:
JimC says
All the points raised above are valid, but there’s a bottom line consideration here, which is that a democracy requires a functioning press.
By the way it’s been 193 days since HRC held a press conference — 27 weeks and four days.
I think both presumptive nominees are kicking the press when they’re down. For sure, the press will kick back … but the press is supposed to be hostile to power.
SomervilleTom says
In my view, the comment by kbusch upthread addresses this question rather well.
Are there substantive issues regarding Ms. Clinton that you feel have not addressed during the 193 day period you mention? Is there anything in her manner or statements that suggests anything comparable to Mr. Trump’s contempt for the press?
Perhaps you might enumerate some issues that you think a press conference would shed more light on — it seems to me that everything that might be gleaned from yet another press conference has already been published several dozen times.
It seems to me that this comment is another attempt to incorrectly assert that “there’s not a dimes worth of difference between them”.
JimC says
That is not what I said at all (and you know it).
I refuse to dismiss a presidential candidate’s failure to hold press conferences.I don’t know what issues would emerge, and I don’t know what would be asked, and you don’t either, but that’s part of the point. She travels in a bubble. Trump doesn’t, he has press conferences all the itme, and he’s benefiting from it.
Every potential president has an obligation to deal with the press. Sorry she doesn’t get a pass on this.
SomervilleTom says
I agree with kbusch and mark-bail, you disagree. Fair enough.
When you write that Ms. Clinton “travels in a bubble”, I think you egregiously mis-state the reality of campaigning in 2016. I think there are people videotaping every event hoping for a “special” moment. I think every word she utters publicly, and many that she utters privately, are already being reported.
There is a vast array of things that fill the space between a “press conference” and a “bubble”, and you seem to ignore all of them.
I think we’re seeing plenty of coverage of Hillary Clinton. I’d like to see more substance and less manipulation in that coverage. I agree with kbusch, above, that a “press conference” would contribute little if anything.
Mark L. Bail says
Can you point out one example of a new outlet that is doing a bang up job? The New York Times that reported Hillary’s imminent arrest? Tiger Beat on the Potomac, which plays host to Jennifer Rubin and other misinformers? They’ve brought this on themselves. Press conferences? They need earn them. As KBusch suggests, we’d get all kinds of crap questions from the press corps.
The media isn’t in the bag for either candidate, but they have their own, very specific agenda that distorts reality. I don’t read the Times or the Globe. I look at local stories in my local paper, which our very overworked, part-time local reporters often get factually incorrect. I am so much better informed since the the mainstream media lost its hegemony. I don’t mean they have no value, rather that they have less value than they think or want to believe.
HR's Kevin says
and yet, not many people seem to care.
It is possible that it simply isn’t a big issue. There is no shortage of reporting on everything Clinton says and does for all of that.
jconway says
She is more than capable of dominating her critics as the Benghazi hearings showed, she should just hold a few press conferences and invite all media as a contrast to Trump. It would also get her in the news more and help even out the coverage.
It’s a lot harder for the press to cover her when she doesn’t do any press appearances. But sure, I agree with Tom, Mark, and K that the press has always been unfair to the Clintons. So what? She can dish it back to them and get some headlines. And on principle I agree with JimC that presidents have an unwritten obligation to be available to the media, even hostile media.
Mark L. Bail says
her giving a press conference, then she should give one. No doubt the campaign always considers this. Isn’t there a press group that follows her around like in every other campaign? When she’s president, I’m sure she’ll give them.
This is a right-wing, non-issue embraced by Bernie supporters. It’s the sort crap the press feeds on.
JimC says
This is the standard now?
This is depressing. Democrats no longer believe in the fair press? We have to grade their questions on a curve?
SomervilleTom says
Sorry, but this comment is a crock. You’ve joined four completely disconnected memes:
1. This is the standard
2. This is depressing
3. Democrats no longer believe in the fair press
4. We have to grade their questions on a curve
Let me take them in order.
1. This has ALWAYS been the standard, ALWAYS. Every competent candidate has ALWAYS applied the standard of “will it benefit me” to EVERY interaction with the press.
2. If this depresses you, then you are easily depressed.
3. Total rubbish. Whether or not a candidate arranges a press conference has nothing to with a free or “fair” press. The press has FAR MORE access to candidates today than they ever have historically.
4. This seems intended to attack teachers more than anything else. Nobody is talking about “grading questions”.
I think the last paragraph of mark_bail’s comment is exactly correct.
JimC says
There is the rub. The last paragraph is our exact disagreement.
This is NOT a right-wing issue. Some HRC supporters see any criticism of her as an attack. (By the way I never supported Bernie; now that she’s the nominee, I’m with her — in fact I voted for her in the primary.)
I don’t know what to call this, but it’s really unsettling to see partisanship cloud judgment. For as long as I can remember, Republicans have attacked the press and claimed reporters are out to get them. It pains me to see Democrats do the same thing.
Again, a functioning press is vital for democracy. Someone who aspires to lead the democracy ought to respect that. Press conferences are essential — their pooled nature, the opportunity for surprise, etc.
You’re right that candidates act in their own self-interest, but they’re supposed to put other interests first. No one’s perfect and we can acknowledge certain realities — but why do you all defend her for this? She literally tries to corral the press (I’m not singling her out — they all do it, to a greater or lesser extent). It’s one thing to recognize the machinery, it’s another to defend and justify it. I won’t play.
SomervilleTom says
Exchanges like this have a way of getting out of hand on the web, especially during this phase of a campaign.
I’m so weary of bullshit “press conferences” that do absolutely nothing that I am jaded about requests for more of them. I agree with you about the role of a functioning press. I just think that sponsoring more feeding frenzies of “journalists” who can’t or won’t look past the most recent press release is not going to help that.
Our fourth estate is in shambles, and that IS a threat to our democracy. I just don’t agree that press conferences scheduled by Ms. Clinton would do anything but worsen the situation.
JimC says
n/t
centralmassdad says
The era of Sam Donaldson asking “tough” questions has been over for a very long time. I’m not sure that the format was ever particularly enlightening: the call on the reporter whose question is known; question posed produces excerpt of stump speech, follow-up question produces stump speech variant, and repeat.
Mostly, the reporters who are allowed in are the ones who would report “Trump thinks global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese; Ms. Clinton disputes this.” What a waste of time.
Mark L. Bail says
If the press can make her pay, they’ll make her pay. Meanwhile, she has rallies. She gets interviewed on Sunday television.
As a candidate, she has some responsibility to voters. She has none to the press. If they can’t hold her accountable, then they don’t have the authority they think they have.
Did you sleep through the 1990s? The GOP kept playing the liberal bias card, and the press tripped over its feet trying to prove they were objective. White Water? Travelgate? Non-issues made into issues by an “objective” press.
The New York Times is the best newspaper we have. Naturally, they are unbiased:
Fucking embarrassing and unexcusable. Totally fucking inexcusable. The poor press. Hillary won’t talk to us.
johntmay says
Oh please, stop! Were you able to write this with a straight face? Or, did you miss the entire primary coverage of Hillary Clinton this go-round? Rachel Maddow’s swooning interviews, Andrea Mitchell’s daily pep talks, and the media’s blackout of the Sanders campaign do come to mind…..but playing the martyr had always been a Clinton tradition.
centralmassdad says
Everythinng you post is pure BS.
If the media were honest, they would have called the primary over after Super Tuesday, after which point the simple arithmetic was clear to anyone. Instead, there were three months of “momentum!” stories, fawning over Sen. Sanders based on narrow wins along the way. For all of that time, there was “he’s still in it!” stories without ever noting that in order for him to actually be in it, he would need to win California by 60-90 points.
In sports terms, this was a game in which the media reported on the “comeback” of team that scored once or twice late, even though that team was down by 10 touchdowns.
johntmay says
Not going to stop until the Democrats stop selling out to Wall Street and stop ignoring the plight of the poor and the evaporating middle class. A f–k you as well. Have a fine day.
Mark L. Bail says
I read a book on it. And I slept through the 1990s, rocked into a gentle slumber by movement conservatism.
Somewhere in the multiverse, Bernie Sanders is winning, and Hillary Clinton is wearing a fur coat made of Dalmatian fur.
johntmay says
depending on your choice of data as the state with the highest wealth disparity; lots of poor, a few rich, and a shrinking middle class. Our state government is dominated by Democrats and has been so for decades. Explain that one to me and how the Democratic message should resonate with the independent middle class family.
Mark L. Bail says
the statistics on wealth disparity. I’ve been discussing the millionaire tax on another thread, which is part of the Democratic message.
Why don’t you explain “how the Democratic message should resonate with the independent middle class family”? You’re the expert, and all you managed to do here is alienate people who agree with you.
johntmay says
Like who?
The millionaire tax is a good start but it’s handing out better life jacket on the Titanic.
“Why don’t you explain “how the Democratic message should resonate with the independent middle class family”? ”
Stop all this nonsense that “job skills” and “education” are the keys to this problem. The keys are tax policy, labor policy, and trade policy. The keys are tearing down the system that Wall Street and their ilk built. But the WMD’s will never, ever agree to that.
stomv says
and the vast majority of tax policy, much of labor policy, and all of trade policy is federal. So while your brief answer is a little helpful, it’s less helpful when viewed through the lens you provided, the one where “our state government is dominated by Democrats and has been so for decades.”
What would you have our state legislators and governor do?
HR's Kevin says
is that generally having lots of high-paid professional jobs in your state does not raise the market rates of low paying jobs. It really shouldn’t be a surprise that MA has a larger disparity compared to states with fewer high-paying jobs for doctors, software engineers, scientists, etc.
I don’t think the focus should be on the disparity itself but on the quality of life for those at the bottom and the middle. We should raise wages and quality of life for poor and middle-class people regardless of how much money the people at the top make.
One approach would be to index the minimum wage to local cost of living including cost of housing, heating/cooling, food, transportation and healthcare. This would not only ensure those making the minimum a livable wage for the community in which they live, but would provide an incentive for those same communities to work to keep cost of living down by providing more affordable housing and better transportation.
Christopher says
Everyone of his comments on this thread and I believe at least one other on another current thread have been downrated by you for no apparent reason.
As to the question at hand, yes, the Clintons have always been juicy targets for the press. WaPo and NYT practically invented the Whitewater “scandal” and so many of the headaches suffered by Bill’s administration stem from that. MSNBC especially was very generous in their coverage of Sanders, both in terms of amount and type.
johntmay says
Really? That’s rather comical. The reason is that he and others are WMD’s
The Clinton are adored by the press.
Media Coverage of the Primaries Was Awful, Harvard Study Confirms
Not that the WMD’s here will ever read it, much less agree. ….
Christopher says
You downrated comments comparing Trump to the WWF and about whether there should be press conferences. One was simply providing a definition. I think you need to use your words to explain your objection, because even when I try to read them from the perspective of a Sanders supporter I don’t see the objection. Sanders himself has set his sights on Trump; methinks it’s time for you to do likewise.
johntmay says
Like SomervilleTom who wrote “II don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.” Really? So we do not care where the money comes from? We all know that the source of the money is the controller of the agenda. If we think otherwise, we’re just naive.
Yes, my sights are on Trump. And if Hillary keeps it up, keeps presenting herself as a WMD, the populists, the independents, and disgruntled Democrats will vote for Trump.
Release the transcripts. Cut ties with Wall Street and it’s ties to the marionette stings of your administration.
Christopher says
I’ve been known to get rather annoyed with someone on one thread, but the same day uprate another comment by that person on another thread with which I happen to agree.
Bob Neer says
Christopher is right.
BMG is an excellent place to fulminate, but our rules requires that discussions remain about policy and do not degenerate into specific personal attacks or feuds etc. as is allowed at other blogs. Another way of describing the standard is: spirited conversation at a dinner table. Please bear this is mind.
kbusch says
Psychosis refers to an abnormal condition of the mind described as involving a “loss of contact with reality”. People with psychosis are described as psychotic. People experiencing psychosis may exhibit some personality changes and thought disorder. Depending on its severity, this may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out daily life activities.
From Wikipedia
Mark L. Bail says
n/t
centralmassdad says
Is actually the rock radio or Dan from Waltham guy. Similarly disposed to have one and only one point, similar inability to understand context, similar immunity to reality, and similar willingness to lie outright if it supports the “cause”
Bob Neer says
Some similarities but many other differences. MHO.
kbusch says
The link johntmay provided, which I encourage others to visit, indicates how much the press has been hostile to Mrs. Clinton and not how much she has been “adored” as johntmay asserts. Posting a link that one claims backs up ones point that, in fact, proves the opposite is just plain intellectually dishonest.
This is a severe and almost disqualifying kind of maneuver.
kbusch says
troll status.