Well you have to look it objectively. No matter what your political strain is you'd want to surround yourself with elements of the press that are favorable to your public image. It has been this way for many presidents beforehand and in the case of Trump who is constantly demonized by the MSM, it is even more understandable.
Human nature no?
You've answered a slightly different question here, I was asking whether
you thought it is justified, rather than whether you thought
Trump thinks it is justified. But no, in my view it is not understandable in any shape or form, and never should be.
To put it this way:
I'd be totally fine with you saying this, that NBC, ABC, whoever are biased. I'd even be fine with you saying they're "fake news" (I'd think it'd be total nonsense, but I'd still be fine with you saying it). I am
not fine with Trump saying it, even if they're the exact same words, and regardless of how true or false they are. Because he's the president; he's the politician now. And politicians should not be allowed to
credibly pass judgement on the media they face - that is, they're allowed to literally say it, but we should not give them the time of day when they do.
I believe the sceptic's natural approach to the politician is to assume they are
capable of lying, deceiving, exploiting and abusing for their own personal gain. Not a unique assumption I'm sure, but it's important to why I'd say we should never,
ever give a politician license to judge a free press that exists to scrutinise them. Because if we do, we give them free rein to champion those who say nice things about them, attack those who don't, and in doing so undermine the scrutiny that should
always be in place against them.
To be clear, I'm not saying there's no debate to be had on the state of the press - quite the opposite - my point is that politicians deserve no place in that debate. And one of the effects of affording politicians that luxury has I think rubbed off on this thread somewhat. I don't think it's been directly said but I've noticed people allude to the idea that press coverage of Trump is biased if it's very negative about him. This is wrong; biased coverage would be that which is
disproportionately negative (or positive) about him. If the administration is made up of 90% chaos, then coverage depicting it as 100% chaos would (probably) be biased; likewise depictions of 60%, 40% or 20% chaos would also be biased.
I point this out because it'd worry me if people really did think that "balanced" coverage would be 50% negative + 50% positive stuff - which doesn't sound much more valid than giving equal time to the historian and the holocaust denier. And, on the off chance Trump's rule actually isn't all that rosy, would mean suppressing criticism - which I'd find hard to believe anyone here would support, but given the number of anti-establishment members who suddenly became great defenders of the establishment on Nov. 9th, god knows.
I was insistent on asking you if you thought it was approprite for the WH to treat the press based on who they liked/disliked because given your posts in O&CE about other politicians I think you know what I mean with my spiel on the sceptical position. So the argument I make (to you and anyone who's definitely pivoted) is to not abandon the sceptical position just because the person in charge now is someone you like. I firmly voted to leave the EU, but when anyone says "those Remainers should quit whining,
shut up and let the government get on with it!", it drives me completely mad.
-------------------------------
One last aside - the idea that people think the press being against the president is a
bad thing baffles me. That's their freaking job! The press should
never be on the side of the presidency - the takeaway from that imo is the idea this maybe wasn't always the case with presidents past is the bad thing, not the other way around.
I'm reminded of
this thread where, unsurprisingly, Famine makes the point better than I could.
... which isn't the job. Journalists should be asking difficult questions of politicians, whenever, wherever and whether they're ready for them or not.
I've actually no idea what this press conference was for, but then the entire concept of the press conference irritates me. The notion that those who hold politicians accountable must queue up, after being invited, to ask their questions and be selected by the politician in question - often having to submit their questions in advance - goes against the principle of actually holding politicians accountable. Politicians can simply avoid inviting people who ask difficult questions, avoid selecting them to ask or pre-prepare answers.
... no. In order to hold public servants accountable, the press should not be required to do anything other than their jobs.
Free press is the literal cornerstone of preventing tyranny of government. This is why free press - and free speech - is the very first Amendment to the US Constitution. It's the most important one - we have to be able to freely say who has done what and when in our name in order to have an informed electorate to hold the elected officials to account.
Whether or not you agree with accredited members of the press behaving "like a spoiled child", the fact is that it is precisely their job to do that. It's only by prying, harrying and even occasionally just getting your voice heard that the difficult questions are asked.
If the gentleman in question is merely behaving as he is because he's a bit of an arse, or he's not being impartial (as mentioned above), rather than because he's a journalist trying to get an answer to a difficult question, then Trump - or anyone else - can certainly make a complaint about his conduct to the various professional journalistic bodies. If he's just doing his job, we shouldn't be pursuing him at all. Telling the difference may be tricky.
I knew it. Ignore the topic at hand and resort to the usual ad hominem attacks to make your points.
