Dear @nytimes: I suppose it's too much to ask for you to get your heads out of your asses.

[agilebrit]

In a story today about Trump's press room, the nation's birdcage liner, oh, wait, I mean, "Newspaper of Record," the New York Times, said:

Mr. Trump’s unconventional, sometimes hostile, relationship with the news media and his penchant for communicating through unfiltered Twitter posts threaten to upend a decades-old Washington tradition that relies almost entirely on protocol. The result, reporters and editors say, could be a loss of transparency that would hinder the press’s role as a conduit for information to the people.

No, you idiots. The word you're looking for is not "transparency." Trump's unfiltered tweets are wholly transparent. The word you're looking for is "spin." Or perhaps "control." Trump's "unfiltered tweets" are actually exactly transparent, because there they are for everyone to see. You're just mad because you can't twist his words, though I'm sure you'll still try to tell us what he really meant.

The Times complains about not being allowed to come on the plane with Trump to meet President Obama. And about the infamous "dinner incident" where he went to have dinner with his family and *gasp* didn't invite them, leaving them "scrambling for information," the poor lambs. Of course he didn't invite the press to dinner. Who wants a bunch of yapping purse dogs along when you're trying to eat?

Answer me this, New York Times, and all you other press outlets crying about all of this: Why the hell should he cater to you people? You have been mocking, incredulous, hostile, fear-mongering name-callers since the day he announced he was running. Be happy he's giving you any access. I hope he sticks you in the back of the room and puts Infowars, Breitbart, and WorldNetDaily on the front row, and only takes questions from Milo Yiannopoulos, since I can't have Milo as actual Press Secretary.

KIDDING. (Mostly.)

I said it before and I'll say it again: Everything should be turned upside down on occasion. It lets in air and light.

But press advocates say these traditions, even in the age of Twitter, ensure fundamental tenets of democracy: historical record and access to information.

Twitter is right there for everyone to see. Anything you post on the internet is forever. You cannot get more "historical record" and "access to information" than that. You people see your power and prestige slipping away, even more than it already has been, and it scares you to death.

Some former press secretaries suggested that Mr. Trump’s administration should rethink the tradition of broadcasting press briefings on live television, which many say has led to posturing and performance.

And Ari Fleisher thinks they should take the press briefings off live television altogether. Oh. So that's a "protocol" and a "tradition" you're perfectly willing to jettison because it suits your agenda, meaning you really do want it to be less transparent. You are positively terrified that you won't be able to filter things your way, that the American people will be able to see for themselves the raw quotes, and make up their own minds.

Well. Good. We're tired of your fake news, and your spin, and your fatuous arrogance, and your oblivious disconnect. Those of us in flyover country haven't been buying what you've been selling for a long time now, and maybe this will be the final nail in your well-deserved coffin.

Seriously, do you people even listen to yourselves?

Comments

[selenite.livejournal.com]

I can see the direct connection. Trump can do national speeches straight to whitehouse.gov/video and the press gets no ad revenue at all. They're already in a death spiral. This will accelerate it.

Oh, man. Twitter's already looking for a buyer. Imagine if Trump bought it?

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

I would LOVE if Trump bought Twitter. Maybe then it would have actual free speech for everyone, not just leftists. #freenero

I didn't even think of the money angle, but you're absolutely right.

[fenchurche.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah... I've been pondering the same things, every time I read another complaint.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. "OMG! Protocol! Tradition! ...except for these ones that we want to toss b/c they might favor Trump!"

It's hilarious watching them flail around because they can't control this guy. He is not afraid of them, and they find that terrifying. And I say, It's about time a Republican grew a damn spine.

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

I'm me, and I approve of this message!

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

"...hinder the press's role as a conduit." Well, shit, I hope so. I'm super tired of their version of events and don't particularly need their kind of "conduit."

“The World of the 21st Century.”

[baron-waste.livejournal.com]

don't particularly need their kind of "conduit."

And that, of course, is the real foundation of their complaint - as you say, their role as gatekeepers of information is being superceded. They're being increasingly disregarded, becoming irrelevant, and they don't like it!

A friend of mine was describing how this was working for the world of SF/F fandom - the litigation-appointed commissars of Correct Thought, the “gatekeepers” whose nod you had to get to be published, have lost their monopoly on publishing and are seeing everyone else simply push past them now, leaving them squawking and demanding and ruling a dwindling flock of starlings.

“Information wants to be free,” as the old hacker saying goes.  So do people.

Re: “The World of the 21st Century.”

[werewolf-hacker.livejournal.com]

Well, LJ is being stupid (the last code push borked the site; way to go, guys) and I can only see comments when I'm either logged into Ben's journal (probably because it's a CSS style), or logged out completely, so that's awesome.

Anyway, yeah, it's interesting how the gatekeepers in SFF are trying to grip the genre tighter only to see it slipping through their fingers. Baen, I believe, was the first to really, really embrace the new e-reader tech, and they've done the Free Library for as long as I can remember.

It doesn't help that the New York publishing houses live in a sort of echo chamber of political correctness and seem to think that pushing check-box message fic onto us is the way to go, when in reality people who read for entertainment really do not like being preached at. And they wonder why they're bleeding readers.

[garnigal.livejournal.com]

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you (with the forewarning that I'm extremely left-wing and Canadian) what you personally expect to see / benefit from in Trump's presidency. I'm not asking to start a fight, just to get the other side of the story, since most of the people around me are also centrist or left-leaning and Canadian.

[agilebrit.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't really expect to benefit at all from a Trump presidency. For me and my family, it will probably be status quo. We did perfectly well under every previous administration (because we are sensible with our money and make enough to be quite comfortable), and I don't think that will change. He might lower taxes. That would be nice. I won't hold my breath. (In my ideal world, we scrap the current tax system entirely and start from scratch, but I'll never get my ideal world. :p)

For the country, however--that's a different story. I sincerely hope he keeps his promise to stop the hemorrhaging at our border. And while I'm not confident that he's actually read the Constitution, I'm fairly certain he doesn't despise it and view it as an obstacle the way Hillary seems to--especially the 2nd Amendment. I'm hoping that he will appoint judges that won't pull their opinions out of thin air based on what they think is "right" rather than what the law actually says, because that is not their job. That, too, would be nice. I would also really like it if he would stop the previous eight-year pattern of spitting on our friends and sucking up to our enemies.

I certainly don't think he's the second coming of Hitler-Satan who's going to round up all the Mexican Muslim gay transsexuals, load them into cattle cars, and lock them up in FEMA camps after forcing them into conversion therapy and groping their women, which... sort of seems to be some of the more hysterical narrative.

And let me also say that I'm not a fan of his and never have been. I think he's a bombastic narcissist, and that "populist" (which is what he is) is not the same as "conservative" (which is what I am). We have no idea what we're actually going to get when he starts governing. I was appalled when my party selected him as our nominee. I am, at best, hopeful that he won't mess it up too badly. I do not feel "good" about him winning--but I am vastly relieved that Hillary lost.

However, the giant middle finger he seems to be sticking up to the "mainstream" press has been a long time coming, and that amuses me greatly.