>>If he wants them short/succinct/precise (be it that he has troubles following long-winded diatribates and/or wants the to limit the amount of unwanted interpretation of the question on the following days on dimensions he did not adress), but this is a slippery slope to banning topics, which is less ok in my book (unless specifically asked for with reasons given).

FWIW, I know a lot of people who won't tolerate rambling in time-constrained events. A lot of entrepreneurs and self-made people fall into that category. Often they don't like meetings in the first place, believing them to be venues for the self-important to posture and speechify, rarely ending with a "decision" to do anything except meet again. It comes across as impatient, but may be familiar to many here.

Meanwhile, at any political press conference it's easy enough to ban a topic by responding simply "Thank you. A formal statement follows shortly from xyz. Next - how about a question from you at the back?"

>>For me the balancing flip side of that is that the press SHOULD have a field day with "You look at what's happening in Germany, you look at what's happening last night in Sweden. " the same as with "alternative facts" or "Bowling Green massacre".

The "you look what's happening" was at a rally for the faithful, not a press conference, so unless you think his meaning was vague- it's improper to go nitpicking through as if it were a dissertation. Similarly re the Bowling Green "massacre" - she has stated repeatedly that she was referring to the Bowling Green *terrorists* who were real. She says "I mispoke one word" - and yet, some are determined to go on and on and transplant their own smear over what she was trying to say, which I think was clear enough. Imagine if Obama or you or I had to live our lives afraid to misspeak because detractors will conflate single words or concepts, ignoring your actual message to smear you forever as a buffoon or liar. Sounds like a dystopian disaster scenario to me.