Wonder why WH correspondents do not stand up to trump when he calls them abusive names?

[senseandsensibility]

Well, I've got the answer for you, straight from the horse's mouth. Jeff Mason, WH correspondent for Reuters, was on MSNOW on Saturday. Alex Witt (good for her) called him on that and asked why reporters do not stand up for themselves or each other.

His answer was that the reporters do not want to make the story about themselves. As far as standing up for each other, he did not address the implication that they should do so in real time. He assured Witt that they send supportive e-mails to each other when one of the group is attacked.

I don't know about you, but I find this to be weaker than weak sauce. The free press has the obligation to be adversarial and not compliant stenographers. In addition, helping each other feel better with private messages may make them feel better but does nothing to put a check on future abusive behavior by this administration

Lastly, I will never understand why one of these "journalists" is unable to merely say "I don't appreciate being insulted when I ask an appropriate question, Mr. President." Even that dignified response, which most people would applaud, seems to be beyond them.

[GusBob]

1. The stories are about them when it happens are they not?

We are reading them ,So the cats out of the bag
My feeling its click-baitable (if that’s a word), making their bosses happy

[senseandsensibility]

4. Good point.

Excellent, in fact. It encapsulates why his response was nonsense.

[UpInArms]

2. Quiet, Piggy

I guess that’s now an appropriate answer

[skylucy]

3. Totally agree with you.

[Scubamatt]

5. The media is worthless

in trying to hold the orange monster accountable. They have and continue to enable him by normalizing his behaviors. They will only find any journalistic backbone when a Democrat is elected and "dares" to wear a tan suit, or perhaps stumbles over a word or two - you know, something that is a real threat to democracy! (sarcasm)

[Torchlight]

6. I'd think that sort of press-room dialog would play directly into the admin's hands.

I think he'd see it as an opportunity to go all in and target the reporter face to face, and do so (purposefully) at the expense of any additional questions during the press conference.

[senseandsensibility]

7. What if the targeted journalist responded as

I suggested in the last paragraph of my OP?

[Torchlight]

9. My opinion is it would make little difference

And the little difference it would make would be perceived by trump as weakness and a free pass to go all in on whoever it is at the moment.

[msongs]

8. they get paid just the same, name calling or not. nt

[senseandsensibility]

16. Cushy job if you can get it,

right? But it is not real journalism.

[MustLoveBeagles]

10. Their Republican bosses wouldn't like it

[Boomerproud]

12. We have a winner.

They send supportive emails to each other...oh how sweet.

[Efilroft Sul]

11. Access journalism is all about maintaining access, not doing your job.

[MustLoveBeagles]

13. Another winner

[Efilroft Sul]

15. Grazie!

[gulliver]

14. It wouldn't surprise me if the reporter who was called "Piggy" actually liked it.

It wasn't about her weight, first of all. Google Catherine Lucey. I think Trump was just trying to evade the Epstein-related question by implying the reporter was hogging the press availability time.

In the current media personality market, being singled out by Trump, even to be snapped at, adds cred and clout, imo. Trump routinely snaps at Kaitlan Collins, for example, and it does nothing but improve her viewership.

Trump might even keep up the "Piggy" stuff with Lucey or riff on it, either to play it for humor or to throw Lucey a bone in the next availability. Or to distract from whatever he needs to distract from.

[UTUSN]

17. Access access access