| | | | | Breaking with decades of precedent, Trump travels to DC without press | | Is this how it begins?
Dylan Byers emails: Donald Trump's transition team did not allow the press to cover his visit to the White House on Thursday, heightening the Washington press corps' fears about access to his administration. Hope Hicks, a Trump spokesperson, said after the visit that they "fully expect to operate a traditional pool and look forward to implementing our plans in the near future," adding, "we appreciate your patience as we navigate the transition process." But reporters remained extremely concerned, citing Trump's hostile treatment of the press throughout the presidential campaign... | | | Edward-Isaac Dovere, today's print pooler, also spoke to Dylan via Gchat: "This is unlike how things have worked for previous presidents-elect, and is not at all how the Obama White House handles press access ... They informed us last night that they would not provide flight access from New York to D.C. They did not respond at all this morning to questions about access, having referred it all to the White House and White House Correspondents' Association ... The WHCA has had trouble getting responses from the Trump campaign for weeks. Whatever their reasoning is, what happened today puts the transition in line with the campaign's treatment of the press..." | | | WHCA calls it "unacceptable" | | | The full statement from White House Correspondents Association president Jeff Mason: The WHCA is "deeply concerned by President-elect Donald Trump's decision to reject the practice of traveling with a 'protective pool' of reporters for his first visit to Washington since the election. In addition to breaking with decades of historical precedent and First Amendment principles, this decision could leave Americans blind about his whereabouts and well-being in the event of a national crisis... Not allowing a pool of journalists to travel with and cover the next president of the United States is unacceptable." CNN's Wolf Blitzer echoed this view -- "unacceptable" -- on Thursday evening. I'll be talking about it all on "New Day" Friday morning... | | | The President-elect's first false anti-media tweet | | After returning to NYC, Trump tweeted on Thursday night, "Just had a very open and successful presidential election. Now professional protesters, incited by the media, are protesting. Very unfair!"
There is no evidence that protests were "incited by the media." NYT's Maggie Haberman called his claim a "conspiracy" theory. Jim Acosta tweeted: "Worth pointing out the protest I covered in front of Trump Tower last night came out of nowhere. We reported as it grew around us." | | | Jelani Cobb: "This is a warning shot..." Lucas Shaw: "Trump campaign effectively blunted criticism/scandals by blaming an easy target (the media). Looks like that will continue..." Phil Mattingly: "The 'Will the 2019 State of the Union be the moment Trump pivots?' headlines will be the best headlines..." | | | New excerpts from Megyn Kelly's book | | Jethro Mullen writes: Megyn Kelly's new book reveals some of her previously unreported encounters with Trump during his incendiary presidential campaign. Kelly says Trump called Fox the day before the first GOP primary debate angrily complaining that he'd heard her first question would be "a very pointed question directed at him." The call unsettled Kelly because what Trump had heard was true...
Late Thursday, she tweeted that her book "does not suggest Trump had any debate Qs in advance, nor do I believe that he did." Still, this detail, and her coincidental illness on debate day, could be political dynamite. After reading Kelly's book, which comes out on November 15, NYT reviewer Jennifer Senior says "I must say I feel nervous for her." Trump "appeared to retaliate in creepy, personal ways," she writes... Read the full review here... | | | Trump "offered gifts clearly meant to shape coverage" | | The NYT review also says that, before the infamous debate, "Kelly and her husband declined an invitation to Mar-a-Lago," and Trump "tried, repeatedly and unsuccessfully, to persuade her to let him pick up the tab for the weekend she spent with two girlfriends at the Trump SoHo hotel."
Kelly writes: "This is actually one of the untold stories of the 2016 campaign. I was not the only journalist to whom Trump offered gifts clearly meant to shape coverage. Many reporters have told me that Trump worked hard to offer them something fabulous — from hotel rooms to rides on his 757." Well, let's tell that "untold story..." | | | In yesterday's newsletter, I included 52 questions about what happened on Tuesday and what might happen next. Hundreds of you responded to the call for more questions. Many of the reader/viewer emails were a variation of this: "Stand up for your profession!" Thank you for the feedback... Here are some of the specific Q's that were submitted: | | | Looking ahead to a Trump administration... | | -- An A-lister who asked for anonymity: "Do the people at CNN understand this is a national emergency?"
-- Megan Thomas asks: "Are major news outlets still the fourth estate? We may see ourselves that way, but did half of America vote us out of that role by electing Trump?"
-- Pam Craig wants to know: "Has anyone asked Trump yet if he will ban certain news outlets from White House press briefings or news conferences?"
-- Lisa France asks: "What is the recourse for the media if President Trump decides he does not have to cooperate?"
-- Mediaite's Josh Feldman tweets this Q: "At what point during the Trump presidency will his devoted supporters realize the con and get even MORE angry at the media?"
-- Lisa Stewart asks: "Are you afraid for your safety?"
-- How about a new form of embedded journalism, right here at home? Karoline Steavenson emails: "Why not get embedded with a teacher, or trash collector, or home care worker, or underemployed degree holder like me and report on U.S. instead?"
-- Some international correspondents and columnists have been incorporated into the coverage this week, but wouldn't viewers and readers benefit from a lot more of this global perspective?
-- Craig Stein: "Can we stop with the campaign surrogates and their spin?"
-- Conversely: Doesn't Trump's victory reaffirm CNN's decision to hire pro-Trump commentators -- the people who channeled the rural roar?
-- Jane Morgendorffer wants to know: "How can I trust cable news if political punditry is a contest of who can B.S. the journalist the best?"
-- Marya Morris asks: "Is it morally OK for the media to give openly racist and bigoted people a public platform? What is the threshold for hate speech and has Trump already met it? "
-- Jeff Johnson asks: In the future how should journalists "cover a campaign that is almost entirely focused on false information or conspiracies?"
-- Tom Kludt emails: "Trump and Fox were not always simpatico during the campaign, and some Fox hosts have been quite critical of him. Will that continue under his presidency, or will those voices become more muted?"
-- Nikki Finke tweets that she's on a media fast: "Who else post-election has zero interest in CNN and MSNBC or online/print articles or just any analysis about it until Monday?"
-- Cynthia Metcalf asks: "Who is served by use of polls? Do they only benefit media prophets and profits?"
-- Vicki Felmlee: "Polling will never be the same and by this I mean, it's dead. What will replace it? Does it need to be replaced?"
-- Who's writing the first Trump-and-the-media book? | | -- An exec asks: Isn't all this "self-flagellation another liberal elitist thing?"
-- How many Clinton supporters opted not to vote because they sensed, from the error-ridden polls, that she would win without their vote?
-- Natalia Witkowsky wants to know: "Everyone is discussing how far the polls were off. Did the pollsters factor in that this is first presidential election since the Voting Rights Act was tossed?"
-- Wendy Stenzel has the same question I have: "What news sources did Trump voters depend on for their election-related information?"
-- Mary Trank emails: "Was the Clinton campaign right about 'false equivalence' in reporting? Was that a/the fatal flaw in coverage?"
-- Richard Robbins: "Was coverage of the email 'scandal' proportional to the severity (or lack thereof) of the transgression?"
-- Rob Lewis asks: "Do you ever stop to consider the fact that most of your audience are not news junkies, and this may lead to them getting the wrong impression ('Hillary is criminally guilty of, well, something') from your reporting?"
-- Tom Toss wonders: Were there enough stories, especially on TV, about policy differences and the implications of Trump's proposals? Would more policy-oriented coverage really have mattered?
-- Kym Cummins wonders: "Was it Trump's plan to act irrational and mean to get all the media attention — and you all fell right into place?"
-- Jeff Uhlich: "You asked, does Facebook have some soul-searching to do. What about Twitter?"
-- Ann Farrah: "Happy with yourselves?"
-- And finally, let me repeat my first questions from yesterday: What do readers and viewers need right now? What should change about journalism in the weeks and months to come? What must NOT change? | | | Steve Bannon, chief of staff? | | | Yes, it's possible. Steve Bannon said he would return to Breitbart after the election. But the NYT reported on Thursday that he is being considered for the WH chief of staff job. Dana Bash confirmed that Trump is "strongly considering" naming Bannon to the post. But others are trying to talk Trump out of it. Maybe it'll be Reince Priebus instead... | | | Lesley Stahl, who last interviewed Trump in July, will sit down with him on Friday to tape a "60 Minutes" interview. CBS says it will be Trump's "first extensive post-election interview," airing this Sunday, also featuring his family members... | | | An early look at Sunday's "Reliable Sources" | | | Among the guests on Sunday: Mollie Hemingway... famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams... 538's Nate Silver... and Dan Rather... | | | I filed this story about how pre-election polls underestimated support for Trump -- spurring a crisis of confidence in polling and media circles. "The polls clearly got it wrong this time," the American Association for Public Opinion Research says. Why? Simply put, the experts don't know yet. "As final results continue to be tabulated it would be inappropriate for us to participate in conjecture." Its "post-hoc analysis" will take six months... | | | Zucker's message to the troops | | | Quoting from CNN prez Jeff Zucker's memo to CNN staffers on Thursday, saluting them for months of hard work: "Much will be said about the role the media played in this historic election cycle. Books will be written, experts will opine and hands will be wrung. I am a strong believer in learning from experience, and there will be ample time at CNN to think about what we learned about our reporting and our audiences, and use that information to continually make our journalism better. With that said, I can tell you one thing for certain, already. I have never been more proud to lead an organization than I am today. You each gave everything you had to make our coverage unparalleled. And it showed. Every single day. Thank you for being the best in the business. And congratulations on a job tremendously well done." TVNewser has the full memo... | | | Did "fake news" influence the election? Zuckerberg thinks that's a "pretty crazy idea" | | | Selena Larson reports from the Techonomy conference: Mark Zuckerberg is "emphatic that his company is not responsible for influencing people's votes. Fake news stories went viral about both candidates -- although there were far more lies about Hillary Clinton -- and the platform seemed to do to little to filter out inaccurate content." But Zuck says "I think the idea that fake news on Facebook -- of which it's a small amount of content -- influenced the election in any way is a pretty crazy idea." Read more... | | | Poynter asked me about media missteps -- here's what I said: "This was a rural roar, and journalists on the coasts had a hard time hearing it. Tuesday is a reminder that national news outlets are not covering race, class and inequality well enough. But we can't decry elite media failures in a vacuum. The campaigns themselves mismeasured this wave. Many Trump aides did not expect to win on Tuesday night. The markets and other institutions didn't see this coming, either. Journalists take cues from these sources, and all of these sources contributed to a mass delusion." | | | Brian Lowry emails: Whatever you think of his politics, Aaron Sorkin is one hell of a writer. And his letter to his daughter — published by Vanity Fair — makes one point better than I've seen almost anywhere else as a rallying cry for those concerned, but not necessarily at risk, about a Trump administration: "Our family is fairly insulated from the effects of a Trump presidency, so we fight for the families that aren't." | | James Poniewozik tweets: "The opposition of 99% of showbiz could not stop a reality-TV host's election. Pop culture is the least and most powerful force in America..." | | | Frank's look at late night | | | Frank Pallotta has this recap of Wednesday's late night TV reactions to Trump. Samantha Bee's line: "What we did was the democratic equivalent of installing an above ground pool. Even if we're lucky and it doesn't seep into our foundations the neighbors will never look at us the same way again..." | | | What do you like about this newsletter? What do you dislike? Send your feedback to reliablesources@cnn.com. We appreciate every email... And we'll be back tomorrow with another special edition... | | | Get Reliable Sources, a comprehensive summary of the most important media news, delivered to your inbox every afternoon. | | | | | |
Post a Comment