New York Times, CNN, others barred from press briefing

[Jenny A]

I don't know what the press laws are in Austria, but he hasn't and can't prohibit  commenting.  What he has done is denied access to himself and his spokespersons at press conferences.

Which would be illigal here. Government agencies are accountable to the press and in extension the public. Denying access is out of the question.

You said the right to comment. He can't prohibit that. He can limit access to himself and his spokesmen. That's telling about his aims, but hardly a flea bite when it comes negative coverage. After all access to him is only access to what he is willing to to say or answer. His real problem with the press is that they have a nasty habit of researching what he says and does. That he cannot stop. By prohibiting members of the press from press conferences he boosts thier credibility. It has become a badge of honor.

[Anomalocaris]

Which would be illigal here. Government agencies are accountable to the press and in extension the public. Denying access is out of the question.

You said the right to comment. He can't prohibit that.  He can limit access to himself and his spokesmen.   That's telling about his aims, but hardly a flea bite when it comes  negative coverage.  After all access to him is only access to what he is willing to to say or answer.  His real problem with the press is that they have a nasty habit of researching what he says and does.  That he cannot stop. By prohibiting members of the press from press conferences he boosts thier credibility.  It has become a badge of honor.

This all assume a certain caliber of electorate.

[Jenny A]

You said the right to comment. He can't prohibit that.  He can limit access to himself and his spokesmen.   That's telling about his aims, but hardly a flea bite when it comes  negative coverage.  After all access to him is only access to what he is willing to to say or answer.  His real problem with the press is that they have a nasty habit of researching what he says and does.  That he cannot stop. By prohibiting members of the press from press conferences he boosts thier credibility.  It has become a badge of honor.

This all assume a certain caliber of electorate.

No it doesn't. Stupid people will vote stupid. After all Trump was elected. It is, however a fact that the subscriptions of media outlets go up not down when Trump criticizes them.

[Amarok]

I'm not even sure he's got the legal right. Where I live, government agencies and the government aren't allowed to refuse commenting to the press or to make a selection of whom they're talking to. They're accountable to the public and refusing to talk to the media is actually breaking the law.

Might be that American legislation is different.

I looked it up.  He cannot revoke press passes or anything like that, but he is not required to hold press conferences, nor allow everyone into those he does hold.  He could hold one on ones with Breitbart only, and it would be totally legal.

I think that makes one of our "pillars" quite a bit weaker than I'd realized.  However, in today's media soaked world, it will still be pretty difficult for him to shut them up.

It may be legal but It shows Trumps contempt for criticism and the general weakness of his regime

[Neo-Scholastic]

It has nothing to do with government by the people. Who elected the NYT or CNN? Why do they have special access denied to ordinary citizens? Maybe at one time the NYT earned the right to sit in the front row. Now they don't...and for good reason.

You know who gets to decide who attends a press conference?

Hint: It's not the government...

Ummmm, the people holding a conference decide who gets invited. The press are the guests, not the hosts.

[Kosh]

You know who gets to decide who attends a press conference?

Hint: It's not the government...

Ummmm, the people holding a conference decide who gets invited. The press are the guests, not the hosts.

Except these are people that were elected by the citizens of this country.  They are our "representatives" and are therefore answerable to us.  Your argument is ignorant and clueless.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's true that the President can invite whomever he pleases to one of these functions.

What the Shitgibbon isn't considering is what this says about him and his attitude towards the people. It's merely one more piece that will be thrown back at him, and bite him in the ass, I think. Just as Montgomery's First Rule of War is "Don't march on Moscow," the first rule of American politics is "don't alienate the press."

[Aroura]

They aren't coming over to his home for afternoon tea, ffs. He's an elected official answering questions for the American People. Sure, he can give us, and the news outlets that inform us, the middle finger.

Let's see how well that works for him.

[Amarok]

You know who gets to decide who attends a press conference?

Hint: It's not the government...

Ummmm, the people holding a conference decide who gets invited. The press are the guests, not the hosts.

The press exists to hold our leaders accountable and call them out when they lie . Not be invited to kiss there ass. Any President who wavers from this is a coward . And no there not guests. There the inquisition there to hold a leaders feet to the fire. And there no host there the accused there to answer the peoples concerns .

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Ummmm, the people holding a conference decide who gets invited. The press are the guests, not the hosts.

The press exists to hold our leaders accountable and call them out when they lie . Not be invited to kiss there ass. Any President who wavers from this is a coward . And no there not guests. There the inquisition there to hold a leaders feet to the fire. And there no host there the  accused there to answer the peoples concerns .

^Exactly this. What Trump and his ilk don't seem to grasp is that the relationship between the press and the government is meant to be an adversarial one. To dismiss any reportage that displeases you or casts you in a bad light as 'fake news' is to move the relationship from 'adversarial' to 'inimical'.

When the press get something wrong, common practice is to print what is known as a retraction. ['This newspaper recently reported that Counselor Deltoid P. Hamsterpuncher was filmed having unprotected sex with a lawn tractor. Further investigation revealed that the Counselor was, in fact, wearing a condom during the assignation. We regret the error.']. And when the government feels the press to be in error, the proper course of action is to explain why this is so. The current 'liar liar, pants on fire' tactic of the Trumpites is both troubling and dangerous.

Boru