Serious question: why do any reporters not working for Fox dignify Sarah's scowling

[Atticus]

"daily press briefing" by attending? She never answers substantive questions but repeatedly insists she's "already answered that numerous times". She is a rude, hypocitical liar.

Serious journalists should either walk out en masse or tag team her with the same question until she either answers or flees. And,if "Individual - 1" responds by cancelling the daily farce, what have we lost?

[triron]

1. They don't have spines.

[Hortensis]

2. Broken record. This has been discussed ad nauseum,

issues and principles discussed, including the role of the fourth estate in democracies, and methods the press are using to deal with these remarkable circumstances also discussed.

[Atticus]

7. So, don't participate. Some of us boring time-wasters may think it has gotten

worse and merits discussion.

[Hortensis]

8. It's a point. But why repeatedly badmouth the free press's

dutiful reporting of POTUS's daily news conferences here when it's a such wildly popular topic elsewhere?

[Atticus]

10. Was not aware I had bad-mouthed anyone besides Sarah. These events are not

"press conferences" so much as a daily insult to the serious journalists trying to do their jobs and the American public which is repeatedly denied information to which it is entitled.

Further, I think "dutiful reporting" consists of more than being stenographers and that is often all they are allowed to be---not for want of trying---by this morally and intellectually moribund White House.

[Hortensis]

11. Disingenuous. I refer you to your own OP.

You are aware, I hope, that fascistic movements in many nations are trying to destroy support for the free press? The huge effort currently raging in ours is just one.

Of course those plotting authoritarian takeovers don't want you to connect a duty to report these presidential news conferences with an inviolable right and need of the people to be informed. They want you to believe the press is only venal and corrupt and should be stopped from reporting what you don't want the citizenry to see.

[Atticus]

12. My, my! And to think I scrapped a response that referred to your position

as arrogant and condescending!

[LanternWaste]

15. I'm surprised you didn't refer us to White House council.

After telling us this question has been addressed and answered numerous times.

Missed it by that much, eh?




Righteous indignation soon to follow.

Same bat time. Same bat place.

[at140]

3. They place ratings ahead of principles?

After all media is a business, and they will follow where the money is.

[dameatball]

5. Reporters are employees and have assignments. Maybe the "superstars" among them can cover what they

want to, but most cover what they are told to cover by their editors or networks.
Personally, I would love to see them all just walk out, but I doubt that will happen. They do need to be more assertive IMHO.

[HAB911]

6. Afraid for their jobs

If the give her shit, they'll be banned, it's a fine line for them

Some are starting to needle however

[procon]

9. She's the quintessential villain, the Queen of Hearts from alice in wonderland.

She hates the press corps. Even though they are there to ask questions on behalf of all us citizens, she is condescending, rude and confrontational, providing little information and even that must be suspect.

[tblue37]

13. Being the WH reporter in the briefing room is good for your career--and if you walk out, some

other eager up-and-comer will be right there to step into the place you have willingly abdicated.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Quislings in their boardrooms.