Whitehouse demands reporters allows them to edit quotes

[Revmitchell]

Ignores the source of the OP that says

Reporters fume at White House 'quote approval' rules

sigh A source is not data. Your own definition which you provided said cherry picking involved ignoring data. The claim in the op is just that and it is unsubstantiated. I gave a specific factual reason why I reject the unsubstantiated claim made in the op about Trump. That is data. Thus far I am the only one to provide any data. Neither you nor the author of the op has.

your false claim of me is called being a false witness. It may have been out of ignorance .

 

[Gold Dragon]

sigh A source is not data. Your own definition which you provided said cherry picking involved ignoring data. The claim in the op is just that and it is unsubstantiated. I gave a specific factual reason why I reject the unsubstantiated claim made in the op about Trump. That is data. Thus far I am the only one to provide any data. Neither you nor the author of the op has.

your false claim of me is called being a false witness. It may have been out of ignorance .

What a joke.

What is data? Data is a piece of information. Claims are information and thus data. Data, information, claims they can all be either true or false.

The source made a claim about the Biden administration that you accept because you think it makes them look questionable (I think it makes them look shrewd as it would any source that uses this strategy regardless of their party).

But that same source making a claim that the Trump administration did the same thing is "just a claim and not data".

Cherry picking 101.

 

[Revmitchell]

What a joke.

What is data? Data is a piece of information. Claims are information and thus data. Data, information, claims they can all be either true or false.

The source made a claim about the Biden administration that you accept because you think it makes them look questionable (I think it makes them look shrewd as it would any source that uses this strategy regardless of their party).

But that same source making a claim that the Trump administration did the same thing is not data but a claim.

Cherry picking 101.

not sure why this needs to be explained but in any given source not all of the info needs to be excepted. I didn’t just reject it I gave solid reasons why. Now you want to ignore that I gave solid reasons why and psychoanalyze my rejection of what you like in a way that benefits your view of me. Problem is you can’t really know that about me and once again your being a false witness. I’m use to it from you but this time I’m going to call you out on it.

Further, you haven’t dealt with the facts I have provided about Trump and the way he regularly and openly dealt with the press which makes his suppression of quotes unlikely. You just continue your false claim of me ignoring data. Say a lie enough times and someone might start to believe it. Maybe even you.

 

[Use of Time]

not sure why this needs to be explained but in any given source not all of the info needs to be excepted. I didn’t just reject it I gave solid reasons why. Now you want to ignore that I gave solid reasons why and psychoanalyze my rejection of what you like in a way that benefits your view of me. Problem is you can’t really know that about me and once again your being a false witness. I’m use to it from you but this time I’m going to call you out on it.

Further, you haven’t dealt with the facts I have provided about Trump and the way he regularly and openly dealt with the press which makes his suppression of quotes unlikely. You just continue your false claim of me ignoring data. Say a lie enough times and someone might start to believe it. Maybe even you.

You are running out of room on the backpedaling. You can “sigh” all you want but you didn’t give “solid reasons” you gave your usual partisan and biased opinion.

It’s odd to die on this hill when the subject at hand isn’t even really a problem.

 

[Gold Dragon]

not sure why this needs to be explained but in any given source not all of the info needs to be excepted. I didn’t just reject it I gave solid reasons why. Now you want to ignore that I gave solid reasons why and psychoanalyze my rejection of what you like in a way that benefits your view of me. Problem is you can’t really know that about me and once again your being a false witness. I’m use to it from you but this time I’m going to call you out on it.

Further, you haven’t dealt with the facts I have provided about Trump and the way he regularly and openly dealt with the press which makes his suppression of quotes unlikely. You just continue your false claim of me ignoring data. Say a lie enough times and someone might start to believe it. Maybe even you.

You really want to keep embarassing yourself?

This article is from 2012

Quote approval furore forces US news media to rethink 'unacceptable' practice

Jay Rosen, professor of journalism at New York University, agreed that "this is not a new problem", but said it had got worse.

"There have always been sources that tried to win these terms, and lately more and more have succeeded. What was new and significant in the Times story was that quote approval is now the norm for a whole layer of campaign sources; most of the reporters working the beat had already come to terms with that, the Times suggested."

Rosen said that reporters told him that the process has been building for years under George Bush and now Barack Obama. It has been allowed to happen, he said, because of "what academics call the collective action problem".

"The press can behave as a crowd of independent minds, but it has problems acting as an united front on anything," he said.

Asked what it would take to reverse the trend of quote approval, Rosen said: "A press willing to say: 'Fine: we'll report the story around you. We will build it from the outside in.'

Here is the Trump administration actually doing "Background with Quote Approval" which is very wise of them. Yes it is Politico but also widely reported in other sources.

Trump's off-the-record on-the-record toggle vexes reporters

As the pool was leaving the photo spray, Trump and White House economic adviser Gary Cohn called Haberman back to tell her the communications shop would put “most” of the off-the-record conversation on the record. But Sanders later told her that “excerpts" will be released.

Not all reporters were pleased with that explanation.

"If the president speaks to reporters off the record, and then puts parts of it on the record, we're essentially giving him quote approval,” tweeted Gregory Korte, White House correspondent for USA Today. "I've never been a huge critic of quote approval. It's better than 'on background' and ensures accuracy. I'm uncomfortable with it from POTUS. Even if 99% is on-the-record, I'd want to hear a pretty good argument about why the 1% can't also be on the record.”

"If [White House] puts out excerpts, it means they've put it all on record. Up to those reporters attending to put entire report on record now," tweeted "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd.

A couple hours after Trump asked for the conversation to be put on-record, the White House released some excerpts. But they did not include two portions the pool had requested, which Haberman later provided separately to the email list. Haberman initially said in a pool report that Sanders was going "around the AF1 traveling pool," by not answering the requests and sending the transcript out via the supplemental pool. But in a follow up tweet, Haberman wrote that it was a miscommunication.

It is true that the Trump administration cared less about accurate messaging and therefore likely used quote approval less than the Biden administration does. If someone said something wrong, they just tried to pretend it didn't happen and distracted the the media with new outrageous incorrect statement or outright lie.

 

[Revmitchell]

You really want to keep embarassing yourself?

This article is from 2012

Quote approval furore forces US news media to rethink 'unacceptable' practice



Here is the Trump administration actually doing "Background with Quote Approval" which is very wise of them. Yes it is Politico but also widely reported in other sources.

Trump's off-the-record on-the-record toggle vexes reporters



It is true that the Trump administration cared less about accurate messaging and therefore likely used quote approval less than the Biden administration does. If someone said something wrong, they just tried to pretend it didn't happen and distracted the the media with new outrageous incorrect statement or outright lie.

umm the embarrassment is yours. I’ve shown you have ignored facts, you have falsely accused me and continue to stay on your false narrative. I can no longer take you seriously.

 

[Gold Dragon]

umm the embarrassment is yours. I’ve shown you have ignored facts, you have falsely accused me and continue to stay on your false narrative. I can no longer take you seriously.

Lol. Head, meet sand.

 

[Use of Time]

umm the embarrassment is yours. I’ve shown you have ignored facts, you have falsely accused me and continue to stay on your false narrative. I can no longer take you seriously.

You didn’t know what data means and you didn’t provide facts. You provided an opinion which is demonstrably false.