If the sole goal of the press briefings becomes manipulation and propaganda, then at some point giving them airtime and headline space can be worse than abstaining from coverage altogether. This is why some cable news channels have stopped inviting Kellyanne Conway on the air, for example.
Right, which usually requires press people to show up to do the reporting.
I mean it may not be as much of a requirement now in the age of live TV and internet streaming, but if we're going to argue about norms then certainly the norm of sending reporters to actually report on stuff is kind of important.
It requires people to do reporting. It does not require them to show up at a press briefing - that doesn't happen in a lot of countries, or if it does, the press is a mouthpiece for the government to say whatever it wants to say whether true or false.
It's certainly helpful for the White House to distill information into an easy-to-digest press briefing. But the AP, Time, and other barred and protesting organizations are certainly capable of reporting on what actually happens rather than what they're told at a press briefing. Reuters described it aptly here:
> Become ever-more resourceful: If one door to information closes, open another one.
> Give up on hand-outs and worry less about official access. They were never all that valuable anyway. Our coverage of Iran has been outstanding, and we have virtually no official access. What we have are sources.
> Don’t take too dark a view of the reporting environment: It’s an opportunity for us to practice the skills we’ve learned in much tougher places around the world...
