Not suprised by this action since "Him (wannabe dictator)" doesn't like to be asked any questions by media other than rightwing rags [Fox, Breitbart, Alex Jones InfoWars and other racist propoganda crap media outlets]
IN CHINA, TRUMP CONTINUES WAR ON MEDIA BY BOWING TO DEMAND FOR NO QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS
Source: Newsweek
IN CHINA, TRUMP CONTINUES WAR ON MEDIA BY BOWING TO DEMAND FOR NO QUESTIONS FROM REPORTERS BY NICOLE GOODKIND ON 11/9/17 AT 11:08 AM
Freedom of the press is a tenet of American democracy, but on his trip to China, President Donald Trump did not appear to care.
The White House admitted Thursday that the president acquiesced to China’s request to silence journalists during a joint-press conference with President Xi Jinping. During state visits, the Chinese government typically asks The White House not to allow the press to ask questions, but U.S. presidents insist upon it to demonstrate their commitment to American freedoms.
Trump, the leader of the free world, is the first president since George H.W. Bush to roll over to the Chinese request and not take questions from reporters during his state visit to China.
“The Chinese try this every time. It’s a test of will and principle. Letting them dictate press access is an embarrassing capitulation,” said former Obama press secretary Jay Carney.
The communist regime of China is known for its oppression of the press. Journalists are suppressed, jailed, expelled, and tortured under Xi’s authoritarian rule. Freedom of expression in China is a privilege, not a right. Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama made a point of standing for American principles by shining a light on the free press while visiting China. By agreeing to not take questions, Trump leaned into the suppression.
“It was at the Chinese insistence there were no questions today,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said. She did not comment upon why Trump did not push back....
A 'faked' image imo but lots of symbolism meanings in image created with photoshop or some other expensive imaging product. An actual camera would have to be extremely zoomed in just to show all details if taking an actual photo of what is on the cover.
I thought you were going to write something about how he's trying to get AT&T to divest CNN before he will allow a merger.
He's the worst person in the country and the people who voted for him have shit for brains. They're still backing him no matter the fact that he fucks them over every day.
> I thought you were going to write something about how he's trying to get AT&T to > divest CNN before he will allow a merger. > > He's the worst person in the country and the people who voted for him have shit for > brains. They're still backing him no matter the fact that he fucks them over every > day.
I wish you could be more clear with your arguments instead of clinging to some halfassed right wing sense of humor that only you understand. I just want to understand you. Are you saying that it's a coincidence that the channel in question happens to be Trump's most hated one? Are you saying good for him, it's a good thing that a president should be able to take down a news organization that doesn't suck on his dick like Fox News? I'm just trying to understand your argument.
Yeah I know, mainstream media sucks and they all frame stories per their agenda, but the president shouldn't be able to have the power to take them out because they aren't as right wing as he is. It's their job to scrutinize people in government. If they do a piss poor job then I don't care if a channel goes away but the last way I want that to happen is from a mad man in the white house who wants to kill off anyone not on his side, and if you want that, that's really repulsive and unamerican. I say unamerican because our whole system was setup to stop things like that from happening.
You certainly picked the right state to live in, fits you well. I don't even mean that as a dis, I wish everyone could up and move to the state that thinks like they do, they would probably be happiest there.
> I wish you could be more clear with your arguments instead of clinging to some > halfassed right wing sense of humor that only you understand. I just want to > understand you. Are you saying that it's a coincidence that the channel in question > happens to be Trump's most hated one? Are you saying good for him, it's a good thing > that a president should be able to take down a news organization that doesn't suck on > his dick like Fox News? I'm just trying to understand your argument.
Edit: I forgot to respond to your question about what was 'good'... It meant that I think the MSM is essentially trash, and anything bad for them I'd find amusing.
If you're referring to where I said "Racist?" (quoting GregF) - that's just due to having heard that word thrown around SO FREAKING MUCH, that it practically loses its meaning. It's like it's just a buzz-word used by the far-left for things they can't make a case against, so they give it this ugly, meaningless (baseless) label, to the point that it has become laughable.
When I used to catch a "report" (haha) from Alex Jones (or any of his other colleagues), I don't ever recall him (or anyone else) talking about blacks or any other race, not even going as far as using some racial slur. So I can't even begin to fathom where the idea of them being racist comes from.
> > Yeah I know, mainstream media sucks and they all frame stories per their agenda, but > the president shouldn't be able to have the power to take them out because they > aren't as right wing as he is. It's their job to scrutinize people in government. If > they do a piss poor job then I don't care if a channel goes away but the last way I > want that to happen is from a mad man in the white house who wants to kill off anyone > not on his side, and if you want that, that's really repulsive and unamerican. I say > unamerican because our whole system was setup to stop things like that from > happening. >
Well, I haven't seen anything about Trump having anyone put to death or executed. I'm sure if there was anyone, the media that despises so much would jump at the chance to put such information out there. Heck, they (CNN and Buzzfeed, I think) even fell for that 'pissgate' joke. They put their hatred of Trump ahead of their journalistic integrity.
Now Hillary Clinton on the other hand... (the joke here is the rumors that she has people 'suicided' that go against her.)
> You certainly picked the right state to live in, fits you well. I don't even mean > that as a dis, I wish everyone could up and move to the state that thinks like they > do, they would probably be happiest there.
What's important is one's state of mind, regardless of their physical location. I didn't exactly "pick" this State, I was just born and raised here, and never seen any reason to move. At least, not yet anyway.
> > I wish you could be more clear with your arguments instead of clinging to some > > halfassed right wing sense of humor that only you understand. I just want to > > understand you. Are you saying that it's a coincidence that the channel in question > > happens to be Trump's most hated one? Are you saying good for him, it's a good > thing > > that a president should be able to take down a news organization that doesn't suck > on > > his dick like Fox News? I'm just trying to understand your argument. > > > Edit: I forgot to respond to your question about what was 'good'... It meant that I > think the MSM is essentially trash, and anything bad for them I'd find amusing.
Seeing as though he props up the worst offender (Fox) it's probably a good idea for you to think a little deeper.
> If you're referring to where I said "Racist?" (quoting GregF) - that's just due to > having heard that word thrown around SO FREAKING MUCH, that it practically loses its > meaning. It's like it's just a buzz-word used by the far-left for things they can't > make a case against, so they give it this ugly, meaningless (baseless) label, to the > point that it has become laughable.
It is overused/abused. I think that the situation is that the definition has widened. I'll give you an example. When we grew up racism meant (to me) that you had hate in your heart for some race. These days, at least in some cases you see a video, like the Philando Castile shooting, to me that didn't look like the cop hated black people. It looked like he was scared out of his mind, like he had never known a black person his whole life and thought he was in danger. Being scared of another race is not the same as hating them, but is now included in the racism umbrella.
> When I used to catch a "report" (haha) from Alex Jones (or any of his other > colleagues), I don't ever recall him (or anyone else) talking about blacks or any > other race, not even going as far as using some racial slur. So I can't even begin to > fathom where the idea of them being racist comes from.
Well you lay down with dogs and you get fleas. He was saying more like those right winger are generally racist as opposed to saying "Alex Jones specifically hates blacks".
> > Yeah I know, mainstream media sucks and they all frame stories per their agenda, > but > > the president shouldn't be able to have the power to take them out because they > > aren't as right wing as he is. It's their job to scrutinize people in government. > If > > they do a piss poor job then I don't care if a channel goes away but the last way I > > want that to happen is from a mad man in the white house who wants to kill off > anyone > > not on his side, and if you want that, that's really repulsive and unamerican. I > say > > unamerican because our whole system was setup to stop things like that from > > happening. > > > > Well, I haven't seen anything about Trump having anyone put to death or executed. I'm > sure if there was anyone, the media that despises so much would jump at the chance to > put such information out there. Heck, they (CNN and Buzzfeed, I think) even fell for > that 'pissgate' joke. They put their hatred of Trump ahead of their journalistic > integrity.
I dunno, I can't fact check it too well myself but it was reported that "some things" in the dossier was true so that left some people scratching their heads.
> Now Hillary Clinton on the other hand... (the joke here is the rumors that she has > people 'suicided' that go against her.)
She lost over a year ago, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing her up. If Donnie Tinahands would have lost we wouldn't still have talked about him even a week later but here you are going Kellyanne Conway. Time to move on.
> > You certainly picked the right state to live in, fits you well. I don't even mean > > that as a dis, I wish everyone could up and move to the state that thinks like they > > do, they would probably be happiest there. > > > What's important is one's state of mind, regardless of their physical location. I > didn't exactly "pick" this State, I was just born and raised here, and never seen any > reason to move. At least, not yet anyway.
That state of mind isn't compatible with all other states of mind, that's my point, anyway, later.
*excerpt of article (see link for entire article) *
A Fox News video crew and an official White House photographer were granted access to the meetings. Fox was the news organization that was tasked with providing pool video to other news outlets. But the rest of the pool reporters, including independent photographers from U.S. news organizations, were blocked from covering the event.
A similar situation unfolded Friday night, when planned coverage of an APEC dinner with Trump and other leaders was scrapped, leaving print reporters, photographers and other members of the pool without the ability to cover the event. -
No surprise is the sob-in-office's desire is to likely want to act like what the Turkish PM Erdoğan is doing in Turkey at this time with Turkish journalists there and have nearly all US journalists and various media thrown in US prison system.
> It is overused/abused. I think that the situation is that the definition has widened. > I'll give you an example. When we grew up racism meant (to me) that you had hate in > your heart for some race. These days, at least in some cases you see a video, like > the Philando Castile shooting, to me that didn't look like the cop hated black > people. It looked like he was scared out of his mind, like he had never known a black > person his whole life and thought he was in danger. Being scared of another race is > not the same as hating them, but is now included in the racism umbrella. > >
I think, in this situation, it was just a matter of the cop being new/unexperienced, and not knowing how to handle or take charge of a (falsely perceived) situation... Thinking he was in some kind of danger. Why would anyone announce they have a firearm if they intended to use it, especially when their wife and child is with them? He just happened to be black, so that makes for a convenient excuse to cry "racism". The same probably would've happened if Philando was white. I can see it as human against human... But that can always be boiled down to more descriptive labels. And the farther down you go, the more divisive you can make the situation.
> Well you lay down with dogs and you get fleas. He was saying more like those right > winger are generally racist as opposed to saying "Alex Jones specifically hates > blacks". > >
I was using Jones as an example. No. I don't believe any of the others are actually racist either. Unless you want to say that incidents involving blacks or hispanics (or any other race that isn't white) are/were being reported on, and therefor, that's when statistics come into play. So, I dunno. If that's the case, then I guess 'Statistics' are racist. Oh well. Like there aren't any crimes ever committed by whites, and they never get reported on.
> I dunno, I can't fact check it too well myself but it was reported that "some things" > in the dossier was true so that left some people scratching their heads. > >
No. I'm pretty certain that the whole thing was made up by some Reddit or 4chan user/troll. So it was 100% fake.
> > Now Hillary Clinton on the other hand... (the joke here is the rumors that she has > > people 'suicided' that go against her.) > > > She lost over a year ago, you're embarrassing yourself by bringing her up. If Donnie > Tinahands would have lost we wouldn't still have talked about him even a week later > but here you are going Kellyanne Conway. Time to move on. > >
I brought her up due to the fact that Donna Brazile had recently come out saying that the 2016 election had been rigged in Hillary's favor (against Bernie Sanders), not to mention that she also verified that questions were given in advance to the Hillary Campaign/DNC. And whatever else...... There was also the remark made by Brazile that she dedicated a book to Seth Rich, and that she feared for her life... Seth Rich was murdered, and it's hypothesized that Hillary, or who or whatever within the Government, was responsible for his death.
So, if by the stipulation of the Chinese (wanting limited US press access), Trump should've only allowed CNN to be with him? Or is there another, specific new org he should've picked?
Trump could've also picked FOX News just to make a dig at leftists, knowing they'd soil their panties, yet again ("Oh that awful man!")
Then again, news orgs like CNN aren't known to ever give any favorable coverage for Trump. They can always twist something. Heck, they even made it look like Trump feeding Koi fish just tossed in the feed like he didn't give a fuck. When actually, the Japanese President(?) had also tossed in his box of food. But you couldn't see that due to the extreme close-up of Trump.
Let's straighten out things so there are no mistakes or misleads.
>So, if by the stipulation of the Chinese (wanting limited US press access),
My first post of the thread was while "you-know-who" was standing before the media while on the ground inside China as a guest. This was not where the APEC summit took place...the APEC summit was in Vietnam.
As mentioned in first post, previous WH spokespersons (Carney, Ari Fleischer etc.) have stated that China's rules with regards to media is to not allow reporters to ask questions. Past US administrations (Clinton, W. Bush, Obama) have insisted that reporters (media) be allowed to ask questions even when Chinese leader is present standing next to US President. Chinese government officials would then back off respecting US First Amendment of the US Constitution and allow reporters to ask questions.
The "illegitimate President" (US Georgia Senator Jon Lewis correctly described) didn't want to answer media questions since he hates US media (except Fox and Breitbart) and gave the excuse of "...have to obey China's laws". That is a cop-out. The sob doesn't want to talk because he knows he will try and say something and look like a dumbshit for what he really is.
The first post is all inside the boundaries of China.
I decided that since the theme is similar to what happened in China, I decided to add what took place in Vietnam...APEC summit and add that within this thread. I shouldn't have, but gambled since the topic/theme was similar even though I mentioned what took place was in two separate countries.
[On to Vietnam and APEC]
> Trump should've only allowed CNN to be with him? Or is there another, specific new org >he should've picked?
The APEC summit in Vietnam is a World/Asia region issue that involved numerous countries (not just US and 'name-country-being-visited'). It should be open to ALL USA media...not specific preferred media [including propoganda media]. No excuse. The host country Vietnam and APEC summit organizers should have mandated "open to all media access".
>Then again, news orgs like CNN aren't known to ever give any favorable coverage for >Trump. They can always twist something.
No. When current CNN director Jeff Zucker took over a year or two ago, CNN gave non-stop preferential coverage to whatever the sob-in-office was doing while on 2016 primary elections, campaign events etc took place. He and GOP were always given access to CNN tvtime compared to most Democratic candidates.
>Heck, they even made it look like Trump feeding Koi fish just tossed in the feed like he >didn't give a fuck. When actually, the Japanese President(Shinzo Abe) had also tossed in >his box of food.
Although Japan PM Abe did shake the feed box a bit to allow more food to go in pond instead of using a scoop, Abe probably didn't pour the entire content into the pond unlike you know who. I saw the photos and complete video so not to be fooled for a "gotcha" moment.
>But you couldn't see that due to the extreme close-up of Trump.
Besides feeding the Koi fish in the pond....did you see the so-called US leaders pants and how he had them on. He had them on backwards [wearing them backwards] as others had pointed out. Supposedly to make so-called US leader's waistline slim. Not fooling anyone and even Abe's wife was smiling [trying not to laugh directly at you-know-who]. Wearing pants backwards in a vanity-like vain attempt to fool people that he isn't fat when his waist is fat along with his fat head. Absolute jackass.
>But no. CNN isn't propaganda.
CNN chief/director Jeff Zucker is trying to move it closer to Fox propaganda style or ie: Fox-lite Now if Ted Turner still owned CNN and the cable channels he used to own before selling to Time-Warner, one can then be upset with CNN. I prefer news reporting to tell it as it is and Fox and Breitbart are way off from that. I have to watch BBC or CBC news these days to get the real news since US tv media is owned by corporations not willing to inform US citizens like it used to be done.
Index 
Threaded 
TRUMP CONTINUES WAR ON MEDIA
Reply
[Re: 
