Blitzer already butthurt

[TheSanityAnnex]

The MSM is in for an overdue rude awakening


'Unacceptable': Wolf Blitzer rebukes Trump for breach in press protocol

CNN's Wolf Blitzer, a former White House correspondent, issued a rebuke to Donald Trump's transition team on Thursday for its failure to notify reporters the President-elect was leaving Washington for New York.
"That's unacceptable," said Blitzer, speaking on "The Situation Room." "They have got to fix that."

"It is truly unacceptable," he added, citing his experience as CNN's White House correspondent. "The President-elect and the President. A pool of reporters should be with them on a trip like that."


After meeting with President Obama, Trump and his team departed for New York, apparently without informing members of the press.

Another breach in protocol occurred earlier in the day when Trump left his traveling press corps in New York. That one earned a rebuke from The White House Correspondents' Association.

"The White House Correspondents' Association is deeply concerned by President-elect Donald Trump's decision to reject the practice of traveling with a 'protective pool' of reporters for his first visit to Washington since the election," Jeff Mason, the president of the White House Correspondents' Association, told CNNMoney.
(http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/10/media/donald-trump-press-pool/index.html?sr=twmoney111116donald-trump-press-pool/0105AMVODtopLink&linkId=31028068)

Later in the day, Hope Hicks, a spokeswoman for Trump, sought to assuage reporters' fears, saying the team planned to adhere to tradition going forward.
"We fully expect to operate a traditional pool and look forward to implementing our plans in the near future," said Hicks in a statement. "We appreciate your patience as we navigate the transition process."



http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/wolf-blitzer-rebukes-trump-for-failure-to-notify-press-of-movements-cnntv/index.html


_vLUBkNMh5g

[GSH]

Fucking media STILL think they run the show. They quit reporting reality and started thinking that they create reality.

This election was as much about saying "fuck you" to the media as to the political establishments. The NY Times' profits were down 94% this last quarter. They would do better to just admit that they're writing fiction, like the National Enquirer. Then maybe they could at least stay in business.

Fuck Wolf Blitzer. Wolf... smdh.

[Splits]

So you're advocating for a government run in total secrecy.

Cool, I'm sure nothing bad could come out of that.

[GSH]

So you're advocating for a government run in total secrecy.

Cool, I'm sure nothing bad could come out of that.


No - I'm all for granting pardons to Snowden and Assange. I think we should do all our business in the light of day. The media in this country only wants to shine light into selected corners. Wolf Blitzer is no more a journalist than Megyn Kelly.


BTW - that's a pretty bizarre logic leap, from what I said to what you concluded. Just saying.

[Splits]

No - I'm all for granting pardons to Snowden and Assange. I think we should do all our business in the light of day. The media in this country only wants to shine light into selected corners. Wolf Blitzer is no more a journalist than Megyn Kelly.


BTW - that's a pretty bizarre logic leap, from what I said to what you concluded. Just saying.

Take Blitzer out of it, I'm talking about the issue he's complaining about. Do you know what a pool reporter is? Did you witness any of the vitriol aimed at "the media" by the President-elect? Did you know he was the first candidate in forever to not allow reporters on his campaign plane?

[Splits]

Yesterday, the White House Correspondents Association raised a flag on President-Elect Trump's refusal to allow a so-called 'protective pool' for his visit to DC. A protective pool is a small group, often just one reporter, who goes with the president virtually everywhere they go outside the White House. Go to a fundraiser, go to play golf, go out for dinner, there is at least one reporter assigned by the pool system to be there with the president.

Why? Anything can happen. Some incident of great historic moment can happen, there can be a threat on the president, anything. The idea is that you want at least one journalist there to report what happened. Needless to say, in the overwhelming number of cases that person just records the exact time the President arrived and departed, a few pieces of color and that's about it.


The pool reporter files that report to every news organization in the pool. TPM is part of the DC pool but not the traveling pool.


This whole system is run by the White House Correspondents Association which, yes, is the same group that puts on the rather ridiculous but entertaining White House Correspondents Association Dinner. Now, the WHCA spends a lot of time obsessing about what I would call access formalities - often to the detriment of more substantive and significant journalistic issues. In an of itself this protective pool issue is a pretty marginal one, certainly while Trump is the president-elect. But it's not in and of itself. Trump has been notoriously, historically opaque through the campaign. He's the first candidate in decades never to release his tax returns. He spent much of the campaign not just vilifying the press but actually inciting supporters against his traveling press. Any effort to turn back the unofficial norms that allow news organizations to scrutinize and inform the public about the president should be greeted with serious and grave concern.


Things like clampdowns on FOIA, exclusion of meddlesome, non-friendly reporters from the White House briefing room and a host of other things would be much more ominous. But this happened on the new President-Elect's second day with the title. That's a bad sign.


Which gets me to the larger point about the mainstream media. Let me start by defining terms. We are talking about large news organizations which at least purport to be apolitical in their editorial outlook and are owned and controlled by large corporations. People have lots of different definitions of the "MSM". But I think this is the most valuable one for present purposes.


Two things to keep in mind: all of these organizations have business models which are based on appealing to people across the political spectrum. So for instance, CNN cannot afford in business terms to get too out of sync with Trump and his supporters. (This is one of the big points about the campaign. Trump harped continuously on CNN but it was in fact one of his most accommodating news organizations. It even hired a group of bespoke supporters as pundits for the duration of the campaign. He harped on them because he saw them correctly as the most vulnerable.) Second and just as important, every big media organization and especially every big diversified corporation that owns a media organization have lots and lots of business before the federal government all the time. Even for broadcast TV networks alone there are regulations about how many local stations they can own. Telecoms like Comcast, which owns NBC, have a long, long list of business before the government.


What it all comes down to is that the corporations that own these big branches of the news media are vulnerable to cajoling and punishment by an unscrupulous government with authoritarian tendencies. That is a big, big deal under present circumstances.


What's more, reporters require access. Some of this is simply what reporters and news organizations think they need as opposed to what they do need. But reporters do require some level of access to do their job. Yet they have no way to compel it. There is a very slippery slope to compromising yourself as you try to gain the kind of access - simply getting basic questions answered - you need to do your job.


Looking back on the previous campaign, consider that virtually all we knew about Hillary Clinton, her finances, the Clinton Foundation and everything else (aside from the stolen emails which added a great deal more) were the product of voluntary disclosure. Trump didn't disclose anything. It makes all the difference in the world. Reporters could grouse a bit. But he didn't care. All of her emails were released by a State Department run by a president of her own party which acted in compliance with established norms and court orders. All of that stuff can simply change.


There is of course tension between every administration and the press over access and transparency. But again, Trump isn't any soon-to-be-president. Just last night he was on twitter accusing the "media" of 'inciting' protests against him. This is not normal. Big news organizations will be under a great deal of pressure for all the reasons above to normalize Trump's behavior. Small, independent organizations will be better able to resist that urge in some ways. But they are also more legally vulnerable and most importantly in the nature of things they have smaller audiences.


And let me clear about a final point. I'm not saying the MSM is feckless or will be cowed. I know a lot of these people. A lot of them are worse than you can imagine; a lot are far braver, more principled and more honorable than you probably realize. My point is that they and more so the institutions they work for are highly vulnerable to pressure by someone who simply ignores the existing rules.

[TheSanityAnnex]

All of her emails were released by a State Department run by a president of her own party which acted in compliance with established norms and court orders.

:lol

[Clipper Nation]

Media smeared and lied about him all election, and now they're mad that he's not bending over backwards to accommodate those snakes? They STILL don't get it.

[GSH]

Take Blitzer out of it, I'm talking about the issue he's complaining about. Do you know what a pool reporter is? Did you witness any of the vitriol aimed at "the media" by the President-elect? Did you know he was the first candidate in forever to not allow reporters on his campaign plane?


First of all, he has that right. The pool is a custom, not a law. And if you don't understand that virtually all of the media events we see are staged, there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Tell you what. In the 2012 debate, Obama claimed that the high gas prices we were suffering with were "a sign of a good economy". No shit, that was his answer. So when gas prices dropped to half of what they had been, and he kept saying that the economy was doing great... don't you think one of those zillions of "journalists" would question it? Or when they changed the unemployment calculation by dropping out people who supposedly just aren't "in the work force" anymore... shouldn't one of them have at least asked how things would look under the old calculations, just for a valid comparison? Surely even you can't think those are unreasonable questions.

Don't lecture me about the press. They're fucking pimps and whores. I don't care if you're talking FOX or CNN. There is no "journalism", just manipulation and storytelling.

[Splits]

First of all, he has that right. The pool is a custom, not a law. And if you don't understand that virtually all of the media events we see are staged, there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Tell you what. In the 2012 debate, Obama claimed that the high gas prices we were suffering with were "a sign of a good economy". No shit, that was his answer. So when gas prices dropped to half of what they had been, and he kept saying that the economy was doing great... don't you think one of those zillions of "journalists" would question it? Or when they changed the unemployment calculation by dropping out people who supposedly just aren't "in the work force" anymore... shouldn't one of them have at least asked how things would look under the old calculations, just for a valid comparison? Surely even you can't think those are unreasonable questions.

Don't lecture me about the press. They're fucking pimps and whores. I don't care if you're talking FOX or CNN. There is no "journalism", just manipulation and storytelling.

So you are OK with a government run in complete secrecy. Cool.

As to the rest of your fact-free ramblings, you're right there's no point in discussing it further.

[GSH]

Media smeared and lied about him all election, and now they're mad that he's not bending over backwards to accommodate those snakes? They STILL don't get it.


Nobody doubts that the coverage was one-sided. Some people are just mad that it wasn't one-sided enough. Of course Trump has no reason to seek them out. I expect his administration to take a lot more things directly to the people, and use alternative media a lot more. They would be stupid not to.

That fat whore Candy Crowley just fucked up the 2012 debate by interjecting a blatant lie. She got called on it afterward, but the damage was already done. They aren't there to report, they are there to further a narrative. We used to laugh at the Russians for believing Pravda. But we've got people all over this country just as willing to believe bullshit. Lots of them right here.

[GSH]

So you are OK with a government run in complete secrecy. Cool.

As to the rest of your fact-free ramblings, you're right there's no point in discussing it further.



:lol What?

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying. I'm cool with a government run in complete secrecy. And those facts I listed aren't really facts... they're secrets. Shhhh.

[rmt]

Isn't Trump flying on his own private plane? Why should he foot the bill of these reporters' flights? Pay for your own flight and keep up if you want to trail him.

[FkLA]

First of all, he has that right. The pool is a custom, not a law. And if you don't understand that virtually all of the media events we see are staged, there's no point in discussing anything with you.

Tell you what. In the 2012 debate, Obama claimed that the high gas prices we were suffering with were "a sign of a good economy". No shit, that was his answer. So when gas prices dropped to half of what they had been, and he kept saying that the economy was doing great... don't you think one of those zillions of "journalists" would question it? Or when they changed the unemployment calculation by dropping out people who supposedly just aren't "in the work force" anymore... shouldn't one of them have at least asked how things would look under the old calculations, just for a valid comparison? Surely even you can't think those are unreasonable questions.

Don't lecture me about the press. They're fucking pimps and whores. I don't care if you're talking FOX or CNN. There is no "journalism", just manipulation and storytelling.

Been like 5 years since I took economics, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's always worked. After a prolonged period of unemployment you aren't part of the work force anymore. They didn't randomly decide to do it just to skew the numbers. :lol

Anyways, Wolf is a biased faggot. His coverage and eventual meltdown on election day was hilarious to watch.

[DMC]

So you're advocating for a government run in total secrecy.

Cool, I'm sure nothing bad could come out of that.

Ever heard the term "bifurcation"? That's what you just did.

[SnakeBoy]

So you're advocating for a government run in total secrecy.

Cool, I'm sure nothing bad could come out of that.

There won't be total secrecy....Sean Hannity will be there reporting his every move in a fair and balanced way.

[Splits]

There won't be total secrecy....Sean Hannity will be there reporting his every move in a fair and balanced way.

I thought Hannity had the WH spokesman gig locked up?

[Chillen]

Look at all the nut jobs in the streets in major citys protesting right now, and they wonder why Trump doesn't let them (the media) know where he is going next. I would assume it's for his own security.

[DMC]

They aren't protesting. They are all either tagging along for the hell of it or resume stuffing for their twitter/facebook so they can pretend to be activists.

Btw, only liberals can be activists. Voting for the president wasn't activism. Activism requires pot and blue hair and a black face mask, and you have to be a skinny white kid afraid to be seen by your drivers ed teacher.

[GSH]

Been like 5 years since I took economics, but I'm pretty sure that's how it's always worked. After a prolonged period of unemployment you aren't part of the work force anymore. They didn't randomly decide to do it just to skew the numbers. :lol

Anyways, Wolf is a biased faggot. His coverage and eventual meltdown on election day was hilarious to watch.


Actually, they did change the way they calculated the unemployment numbers. You'll note that there was an extreme uptick in the denominator, and a corresponding downward spike in the unemployment percentage. (It's a math thing.) If you look at how the whole thing is calculated, it's not based on counting anything - it's all an estimate. They changed their methodology, which resulted in a lot of new people being considered out of the workforce. If the methodology had been kept the same, the unemployment number would have been much higher.

It's just a number - unless you use it to compare to the past. And if you calculate it differently, you can't make a valid comparison... agreed? They happened to change the calculation in a way that was very beneficial to the narrative they were trying to sell. Maybe it's just coincidence. You could even argue that this way is better. But it's still comparing apples to oranges. It makes things look like unemployment got lower, when it didn't.

[Warlord23]

Actually, they did change the way they calculated the unemployment numbers. You'll note that there was an extreme uptick in the denominator, and a corresponding downward spike in the unemployment percentage. (It's a math thing.) If you look at how the whole thing is calculated, it's not based on counting anything - it's all an estimate. They changed their methodology, which resulted in a lot of new people being considered out of the workforce. If the methodology had been kept the same, the unemployment number would have been much higher.

It's just a number - unless you use it to compare to the past. And if you calculate it differently, you can't make a valid comparison... agreed? They happened to change the calculation in a way that was very beneficial to the narrative they were trying to sell. Maybe it's just coincidence. You could even argue that this way is better. But it's still comparing apples to oranges. It makes things look like unemployment got lower, when it didn't.

Serious question, did you hear this on talk radio or Fox? Care to share a credible source?

The BLS publishes a number of measures, each based on broader definitions of unemployment, which haven't changed during the last 8 years.
U3: The most popular measure which people use
U4: U3 + those who have stopped looking for work
U5: U4 + those who would like to work, but have not looked recently
U6: U5 + Part-time workers who are underemployed

The last time the BLS revised the survey was 2010, when it actually tried to record longer periods of unemployment (up to 5 years instead if 2 years). This didn't change the unemployment rate itself, but it increased the average length of unemployment - not exactly flattering for the government.
http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2010/12/28/132411278/bls-changes-survey-to-record-longer-periods-of-unemployment

[Splits]

Dude, Warlord, it's a math thing.

[Jacob1983]

When I read this, I thought about the video of Blitzer dancing and drinking with Pelosi at the DNC LOL. Salty!