I watched the video about AP and the the WH Press Secretary, and its as dramatic as it looks: AP chose to stick to their standards, and the WH chose to stick to the fact that they can be selective on who they invite to the press conferences and who travels with the president.
In the end, the loss will be on the AP and others who decide to go this path, and most importantly to their readers.
The only press allowed will be the one that acquiesces to the new administration and does not antagonize it. And this will be a major loss for press in general.
I wish AP would not be so stubborn o unconsequential issues such as the Gulf of America. No one really cares, its a political stunt and nothing more.
I did! That's how my eyeballs fell upon these words:
> The only press allowed will be the one that acquiesces to the new administration and does not antagonize it. And this will be a major loss for press in general.
> I wish AP would not be so stubborn o unconsequential issues such as the Gulf of America. No one really cares, its a political stunt and nothing more.
They were punished for not toeing the line. You think they should have toed the line so they can keep playing the game. Like I said, everyone knows backing down when they try to force you to carry a narrative is how you prevent erosion of free press. I guess you would rather they wait for them to declare the official policy is the earth is flat and defect after that? That probably isn't consequential enough either. I have to wonder where you draw the line.
It's not okay to deplatform the AP over this, period.
And how is that "erosion of the freedom of the press"? They can still write about anything they want, they're just not invited to the WH anymore. And I think this is a loss for their readers or clients, not for Trump - he has one less not so friendly outlet that needs dealing with.
AP could write something like "... in the Gulf of America (worldwide known as the Gulf of Mexico)..." and be done with it. I am not defending what the WH is doing, I just feel it is silly to be stuck up on something this small. In politics you need to play politics, logic and common sense don't have a place.
Using the style guide as a reason to exclude some press on other hand is not a political stunt at all.
It is mechanism to influence and control around the messaging of executive actions in the mainstream media[1]
Organizations not complying would be excluded under another pretext sooner or later.
AP is a non-profit and can take this stance, most other news media are for-profit and their first fiduciary responsibility is to their shareholders not their subscribers or employees, journalistic and ethical standards.
That means none of them can afford to be excluded from the most happening news stories and access to the more valuable (I.e. clicks) personality in the world of this decade .
[1] this is part of job of any PR department(public and private) and not a critique The government PR wing (press secretary, communications director etc) traditionally also needed to be transparent, accessible , unbiased and accountable.
It seems US government no longer sees this as a core function of press relations
My point is that AP and other agencies need to be able to adapt to the situation on the ground. Othwerise we will get what you mention: the WH can influence the media by having only press that reports what and how its told. This is the real danger.
I rather AP stick to its principles rather than loose integrity, AP has a core function in elections in calling races I would prefer that no one doubts their integrity and legitimacy
In the end, the loss will be on the AP and others who decide to go this path, and most importantly to their readers.
The only press allowed will be the one that acquiesces to the new administration and does not antagonize it. And this will be a major loss for press in general.
I wish AP would not be so stubborn o unconsequential issues such as the Gulf of America. No one really cares, its a political stunt and nothing more.