2016 US ELECTION: Official Results Thread

[Simon_Jester]

The thing is, you don't necessarily need to have Trumpolini onside, you just need to keep talking about the stuff he says. Given that he has a Twitter feed, how much access to him do you really need?

[Gandalf]

Because everyone can see Twitter. I can see it and I'm on the fun side of the Pacific.

An "onside" Trump could grant an interview to your network, answering their less scary questions and probably making some good footage in the process. This footage can then be onsold as needed for revenue.

Would you rather watch someone report a tweet you can see yourself, or someone with an interview?

[Flagg]

If any administration's sheer craziness can break the "it's all about access" rule, THEN it would be the Trump administration.

If. Then.

Because ultimately, having 'access' to a train wreck is only so valuable, for so long.

Trump is ratings gold. A commercial news agency loyal only to shareholders would be crazy not to try and keep Trump onside.

That's why even when it was fucking undeniable that the Bush Gang lied us into a war to make his buddies rich and avenge the attempt made on "his daddy's" life the press court didn't flat out ask him why he wasn't dead by his own hand ala a certain Austrian. Hell, they actually had the balls to criticize Colbert for ridiculing cowboy fuckface at the correspondents dinner because to them, access takes precedence over everything.

[Wild Zontargs]

I hope the opposite: that everyone else asks real questions and gets blacklisted, too.

I'd love for the press corps to stand together and leave Trump to make all announcements for his regime through Twitter. Then for Twitter to terminate his account.

Except we live in a capitalist society. If being a piece of shit puffer to the president will get clicks or eyeballs, somebody will fill that niche.

Gab: Of course we'd be happy to have you, Mr President. All your biggest supporters are here, and we've reserved both DonaldTrump and realDonaldTrump for you already.

[LaCroix]

If any administration's sheer craziness can break the "it's all about access" rule, THEN it would be the Trump administration.

If. Then.

Because ultimately, having 'access' to a train wreck is only so valuable, for so long.

Trump is ratings gold. A commercial news agency loyal only to shareholders would be crazy not to try and keep Trump onside.

You mean those US news agencies that got called in to get scolded as a bunch of croocks and liars by the president elect? The ones where the CEOs and important people were insulted for hours? And immediately reported how crazy Trump is for doing that?

Or the ones from Europe? Who don't cater to the "no hard questions" and "only questions from the approved lists" policies as a matter of professional ethos?

[Flagg]

If any administration's sheer craziness can break the "it's all about access" rule, THEN it would be the Trump administration.

If. Then.

Because ultimately, having 'access' to a train wreck is only so valuable, for so long.

Trump is ratings gold. A commercial news agency loyal only to shareholders would be crazy not to try and keep Trump onside.

You mean those US news agencies that got called in to get scolded as a bunch of croocks and liars by the president elect? The ones where the CEOs and important people were insulted for hours? And immediately reported how crazy Trump is for doing that?

Or the ones from Europe? Who don't cater to the "no hard questions" and "only questions from the approved lists" policies as a matter of professional ethos?

The beltway insiders will take their paddling, thank El Douche, and ask for another swat because they will literally consume feces from the source before giving up access. And if the individual reporter gets shitcanned, there's always some yellow-bellied shit like Chuck Todd who will happily take the next Cleveland steemer.

[Dalton]

Man did this thread really go off the fucking rails. Locked.