• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

AP banned from White House

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't buy "severely incapacitated". But I'm sure Our Lord God Trump is the epitome of youth and fitness. The gaffes of Biden's were exaggerated by right-wing media.
Just one, just one broadcast outlet doing what they did with regard to the breathless daily chronicles of every little thing about Biden would be a shocker.

Oh, and maybe they could ask why the employees who survive the purge must go to the office when someone else is “working” (to the extent that’s actually happening) from home. But that would require a real backbone the broadcasters seem to lack given their recent track record.
 

ICIJ reports on how cuts to foreign aid via USAID affects investigative journalism and first amendment issues when covering stories outside of the USA.

The United States allocated $268 million in 2025 to support independent media and the free flow of information. A USAID fact sheet from 2023 that was on its website before the site went dark on Feb. 1, showed the agency provided funding to more than 700 non-state news outlets and 6,000 journalists, the press freedom group Reporters Without Borders reported.

Autocrats who have long attempted to control the media have cheered the foreign assistance freeze. A spokesman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry described USAID as “a machine for interfering in internal affairs” and “a mechanism for changing regimes.” El Salvador’s president accused USAID of using its funds to “fuel dissent [and] finance protests.” And Iran’s state-run media praised aid cuts that it described as “cutting the budget of foreign-based opposition.”


Two other news organizations such as Reporters without Borders and International consortium of Investigative Journalists report on USAID cuts and how they affect investigative journalism outside of the United States. In this case it's how Ukraine is covered in this example. Also it's another case of the White House issuing cuts without examining long term consequences. Also it's the White House targeting media outlets that are not covered by the FCC as in the AP, Reuters and other publications dedicated to investigative journalism.

USAID: the main donor for Ukrainian media*

In Ukraine, where 9 out of 10* outlets rely on subsidies and USAID is the primary donor, several local media have already announced the suspension of their activities and are searching for alternative solutions. "At Slidstvo.Info, 80% of our budget is affected," says Anna Babinets, CEO and co-founder of this independent investigative media outlet based in Kyiv.

The risk of this suspension is that it could open the door to other sources of funding that may seek to alter the editorial line and independence of these media. "Some media might be shut down or bought by businessmen or oligarchs. I think Russian money will enter the market. And government propaganda will, of course, intensify," Babinets says. RSF has already witnessed the direct effects of such propaganda: a fabricated video, falsely branded with our organization’s logo, claimed we welcomed the suspension of USAID funding for Ukrainian media — a stance RSF has never endorsed. This is not the first instance of such disinformation.
 
You're looking at it from the wrong point of view. The point is that she's being banned because the president doesn't like the reporting being done. Same with the NBC reporter at the Pentagon. When he was banned from twitter, he sued. He claimed his free speech was denied. Now he's doing the exact same thing, and it's OK? When conservatives get banned, it's bad. When reporters get banned, no problem. Let them get their stories different ways. But what's happening here is the same thing.
No, you're point of view is wrong. The only reason we are stuck with Trump is because the media gave him the attention he so obviously craves - in the name of "objectivity." There is no such thing as bad publicity. Suing gets him even more attention. Don't report on him or the outrageous things he says. Don't give him air time. Report on what the mediaocracy now pretty much ignores - the affects of what he has done.
 
No, you're point of view is wrong. The only reason we are stuck with Trump is because the media gave him the attention he so obviously craves - in the name of "objectivity." There is no such thing as bad publicity. Suing gets him even more attention. Don't report on him or the outrageous things he says. Don't give him air time. Report on what the mediaocracy now pretty much ignores - the affects of what he has done.
The problem with a populist "Cult of Personality" candidate is that he knows how to play people. You have a valid point, but the media could not just ignore the Republican presidential candidate. If the GOP like McConnell had any backbone or integrity, the 2nd impeachment would have disqualified Trump from returning to office. We wouldn't be stuck yet again. You also forget about Social Media sites that are propaganda chambers. People believe only what they want.

Trump wants to silence any media that won't flatter and praise him. He craves attention, but only wants crowds like at his propaganda rallies. The media must still report on his actions and lies as President. Once he totally crashes the economy and public health, a few of his followers may finally turn on him. Pandemic anyone? Sequels are usually far worse than the original...
 
Last edited:
No, you're point of view is wrong. The only reason we are stuck with Trump is because the media gave him the attention he so obviously craves - in the name of "objectivity." There is no such thing as bad publicity. Suing gets him even more attention. Don't report on him or the outrageous things he says. Don't give him air time. Report on what the mediaocracy now pretty much ignores - the affects of what he has done.
I'm not sure how there things are at odds. There is legitimate and plentiful criticism of how the media handled the campaign coverage and the false equivalencies in the name of "balance." (That they weren't equivalent in any way shape or form is certainly a part of that criticism.) It is also true that the banning of the AP from official White House briefings and travel is petty, dictatorial BS from someone who will lash out at anyone who disobeys. Those don't cancel each other out. The media, including broadcast, can be both open to valid criticism and being on the receiving end of tyrannical nonsense at the same time.

Did the media help dig its own proverbial grave here? It's a fair question. Broadcast media certainly neglected the power of audio and video to present a full examination of the situation during the campaign. Print media certainly contributed to that as well. Did the AP? Can they be fully lumped in with the broadcasters and cable outlets, and print media, that made their own editorial choices about what aired/ran on their content? That may be a stretch. The AP has tended to be more straightforward in their reporting (like an excellent piece pointing out the complete lies of DOGE and the president about 150 year olds getting Social Security). Could/should they have done more? Probably. Were they as egregious as the likes of ABC, CBS, CNN et al? Probably not. Now they'r just being punished for properly referring to a body of water that is recognized worldwide as the Gulf of Mexico and not (yet) giving in to the absurdity of this "gulf of America" nonsense. And the president is so remarkably petty that he reports to this. It's designed to chill any honest reporting by any other media outlets, broadcast included.
 
No, you're point of view is wrong. The only reason we are stuck with Trump is because the media gave him the attention he so obviously craves

That's a completely different subject. Stick with the main issue, which is that a member of the press has been banned by a person who says the media can't ban him.
 
If only there were members of the broadcast (and cable/subscription) media that showed a fraction of the same willingness, thus far, to push back, expose the blatant lies, report on the chaos and potential catastrophic blunders, et al. It’s a splintered media landscape to be sure, but broadcasting still reaches a sizable audience whether during the broadcast or through their ancillary channels. At most, the broadcast media seems to gloss over and compress any coverage to a brief package that barely scratches the surface before jumping over to some other topic.
If there are media outlets doing what AP is doing then it's likely non-profit media outlets doing that like reporters without borders.



Reports without borders have a list of instances so far of Trump Administration interfering in Press Freedom and it's only 1 month in office. Some of our examples here showed allegations of the FCC politically interfering with the first amendment to settle political scores. Also some of the allegations were directed at the allies of Trump for false allegations against the media like Reuters.



 
You missed the point. Ignore Trump's rants about tariffs. Pay attention when there's another depression as a result.
 
The NAB now weighs in on news coverage:


When you have a convicted criminal in charge of the law, the laws no longer matter. The wolf is running the henhouse.
This is a political discussion now, since you have brought up the weaponizing of the judicial system. To a significant majority of Americans, all the charges against Trump are contrived and should never have been filed; note that they all were brought up in areas and states with enormous Democrat plurality.
 
This is a political discussion now, since you have brought up the weaponizing of the judicial system. To a significant majority of Americans, all the charges against Trump are contrived and should never have been filed; note that they all were brought up in areas and states with enormous Democrat plurality.

That may be. His actions now taken against the media are not legal. But it doesn't matter, since he now determines the law.

As Nixon famously said to David Frost: When the president does it, it's not illegal.
 
It's all part of the same story. This is how you do it:

Jeez, that "See It Now" thing again. A program hardly anybody watched but CBS' PR department (and lately George Clooney) have been making hay out it for years. Murrow and Friendly waited until public opinion had largely turned against McCarthy. Nobody in the Republican Party wanted to stand up to McCarthy (just like they don't want to stand up to Trump today). Finally, McCarthy went after the Army and that was more than Ike was willing to take. He had relationships with Paley and Murrow from the war and asked them to do something. But if anybody brought down McCarthy, it was Joseph Welch in the Army-McCarthy Hearings ("Have you no sense of decency, sir.").
 
This is a political discussion now, since you have brought up the weaponizing of the judicial system. To a significant majority of Americans, all the charges against Trump are contrived and should never have been filed; note that they all were brought up in areas and states with enormous Democrat plurality.
Extremely obtuse opinion. Trump could rape and kill a 7 year old child at this point with no consequences. He is above the law and can literally do anything.

This is still the United States not Trumpland. The media has the right and obligation to report facts. When the President tries to gaslight the public, that is unacceptable. Russia launched an unnecessary war against Ukraine. That is fact. It's really quite sick and frankly sad how many people will defend Trump no matter what...
 
Last edited:
Murrow didn't do much of anything. It took the show's director to figure out how to do what can be done and get people to watch it and pay attention to it.
There is way too much noise now for that to work today. Everyone gets news from Facebook really and that is so siloed that real news escapes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


Back
Top Bottom