Still prefer “Wanda Whips Wall Street”.
He works for Fox. He has no problem stating for the record that he’s died twice from the vaccine and once from COVID and is here live to tell you about it.
Cognitive dissonance relies on cognition.
Probably be happy with a belly rub.
They really don’t
Obama experimented with 86ing Fox from the White House grounds, the other media companies foolishly stuck up for Fox, Obama backed down, and a few years later we have an insurrection and a clock ticking on the end of democracy
Oh, bullshit, the president has absolute constitutional authority over who’s invited onto the White House grounds and who’s not
Moreover, Jen Psaki doesn’t have to take questions from anyone, and she could take questions from the same person over and over again all day long if she felt like it
—and what, the Supreme Court would stick its nose in and micromanage these details if they weren’t “fair” to Fox?
I would like to think that the spectacular demonstration of ingratitude for that support when Trump decided to start condemning the rest of the media as public enemies would have taught them a lesson about that, but somehow it never quite seems to work that way.
It has always been Fox’s company line that the rest of the media are “liberal” traitors who hate America
and when they say liberal they mean communist
From a legal POV they don’t. From the POV of reaching a huge, mostly elderly (i.e. voting) audience that gets its news exclusively from Fox, they really do. Leaving out that audience of 10s of millions, which isn’t going to switch because of a White House decision, is self-defeating even taking into account its dim-witted nature. The question is more how to handle the bad actor you’re stuck letting in the room, and Psaki does this masterfully.
That was the real failing. The other outlets could have taken that opportunity to say exactly what Fox News is (i.e. not news). Instead they fretted about (admittedly likely) retaliation from a future Republican administration and went into their usual (Fox inspired) BS cant about fairness and balance.
In the category of things I wish people would figure out is that Republicans don’t retaliate or try to twist precedents or so on. If it’s within their power and interests to do something, they simply do it.
From my point of view, which is largely seeing BB’s selected clips Doocy represents the “conservative” point of view, but seems more or less polite enough to wait to be told why he is wrong (which he largely ignores).
So anyone who is conservative, or borderline conservative and actually watches WH press briefings might get to see the opposing point of view. I don’t think there are a lot of these people though.
However anyone who has one of these people in their sphere though, a unwanted coworker, a family member that has sadly lost touch with objective reality, and so on, well they get a well articulated counter argument they can later use (either in actual conversation, or just to repeat to themselves while trying not to throw the mashed potatoes).
Is it really the most useful purpose for White House press briefings? I’m not sure, but I’ll bet it ain’t the worst.
My example of Trump attempting to bar Acosta from briefings was not a hypothetical. I regret to inform you that the court in that case did not recognize your “the president has absolute constitutional authority over who’s invited onto the White House grounds and who’s not” legal theory.
Bullshit injunctions are another form of bullshit
Stephanie Grisham simply held no press conferences at all—could Acosta have sued her to force her to answer his questions?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.