Kelly Anderson

Chef + Ship Accountant Experience
Saving • Investing • Discipline
Oil Rig Life ⚓ | Offshore Tips
keyboard 🎹/Violin 🎻🙂
🇺🇸♥️

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@fuelmeupcc @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 That’s a fair concern. If smaller local outlets depend on the shared pool, cutting off that access can leave them with very little ability to cover the president directly. Whatever the dispute is, the public shouldn’t be the one losing access to information.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TwilightCougar1 @SunshineS58469 @itslinklauren Yeah, there’s a difference. If they break a rule or law, hold them accountable through the courts. But using government access to punish them because you don’t like their coverage is something different. That’s the line I’m talking about.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@Nockafu @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 I think that’s the real challenge. A system has to protect itself from bad institutions without giving whoever is in power the ability to silence them. More transparency, better media literacy, and strong checks and balances seem like a better safeguard than authoritarianism.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@BigV_1958 @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 X definitely changed how people get information, but I wouldn’t assume that means traditional media will just disappear. The bigger issue is making sure people have access to different sources and can judge the information for themselves.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@fuelmeupcc @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 That’s the part that concerns me too. Whatever side you’re on, less access and less coverage means less information for the public. The better answer is more transparency and accountability, not shutting each other out.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@7GOATrings @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 Exactly. A free press isn’t supposed to be made up of outlets that agree with the president. If he thinks their reporting is wrong, he can challenge it with facts and his own information. That’s how a healthy press-government relationship should work.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@my2024mustang @EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 I get the argument, but refusing coverage doesn’t really increase transparency. If the goal is accountability, the public is better served by having reporters there to question claims and challenge anything they believe is false.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@EricLDaugh @JustinCParker3 I think that’s a bit of a false choice. Choosing not to provide pool coverage is a protest against the access policy, not necessarily an attempt to hide Trump from the public. The bigger issue is whether press access is being used as leverage.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@JustinCParker3 @EricLDaugh They still have free speech, sure. But the issue is whether the government can use official access to pressure or punish outlets because of what they publish. That’s where press freedom becomes a real concern.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@EricLDaugh If the networks are doing this to stand up for press access, I can understand the reasoning. Press freedom shouldn’t depend on which outlets the administration likes or dislikes. Both sides should be held to the same standard.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@SunshineS58469 @itslinklauren @TwilightCougar1 I get that reporters can be aggressive, and bad behavior should be addressed. But press freedom exists so the press can challenge those in power. If someone breaks the rules, address that specific behavior not punish outlets for being critical.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@EricLDaugh @LiamEvergreen I get that distinction, but access and press freedom are still connected. The government can set reasonable access rules, but it shouldn’t use access as leverage to punish outlets for being critical. That’s where I think the line matters.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@LiamEvergreen @EricLDaugh I get the point, but press freedom has to apply even when the coverage is critical or unpopular. If a reporter uses bad sources or publishes something false, challenge that reporting directly. Using government access as leverage over unfavorable coverage is a different issue.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@EricLDaugh I understand the frustration with biased or misleading reporting, but calling the entire press a national security threat is a pretty broad claim. If specific outlets are spreading false information, deal with those cases directly and hold them accountable.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TimScottdx @EricLDaugh I get that. It’s not just bias, and misleading reporting is a real problem too. I’m just saying we should be clear about what the Smith-Mundt amendment actually changed instead of blaming it for everything.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TheresaAmmons7 @GuntherEagleman Yes, I’d object to it regardless of who did it. That’s actually my point the standard shouldn’t change depending on which party occupies the White House.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TimScottdx @EricLDaugh I get what you mean. Media bias and misleading reporting are definitely worth challenging. I just think it’s important to separate that from what the Smith-Mundt amendment actually changed, so we don’t blame one law for every problem with the media.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@SunshineS58469 @itslinklauren @TwilightCougar1 I get your point. If reporters are behaving that way, they should be held accountable. But the same standard has to apply regardless of which side is in power.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@SunshineS58469 @itslinklauren @TwilightCougar1 If those examples are accurate, they’re worth calling out too. But that cuts both ways press access shouldn’t become a political weapon just because the target changes. The standard should be consistent under every administration.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TimScottdx @EricLDaugh Yeah, I understand what you mean. You’re not saying it’s okay now you’re saying the standard should’ve been the same back then too. Selective outrage is exactly what makes these debates so frustrating.

[Kelly Anderson @KAnderson35259]

@TimScottdx @EricLDaugh I get the point about selective outrage, and consistency matters. But I’d separate the press-access issue from the Smith-Mundt Act that law is a different issue and the 2013 amendment was more specific than simply saying Obama “repealed” it.