New York Times, CNN, others barred from press briefing

[Amarok]

I fucking well expect to hear real conservatives speak up against this latest outrage.

It's about time they got there shit together to oppose this tumor that has high jacked there politics

[Aroura]

Although the president has the legal right to give access to whomever he likes, or no have press conferences at all if he wishes, it's pretty clear that this was done out of simple spite. And, as Mathilda pointed, it's dumb as all get out. If he really feels bullied, he should ignore them. The more he swings, the more ammo he gives them. But he does not possess enough self control to ignore even a guy with 42 twitter followers, if he feels insulted, let alone a big news organization.

45 is making his own bed, here, and then throwing a tantrum when the MSM makes him sleep in it. Well, he's president now, time to put on big boy pants and deal with reality, and reality is a free and sometime antagonistic press. Showing favoritism, or barring those he's upset with, just shows everyone how utterly petty and childish he is. He's the effing president, he needs to act like it.

Maybe he'll make a new reality TV show in order to deal with news releases. He can come on, have guests, and say whatever he likes to his audience, and they'll eat it up. It's about all he's capable of doing. Then the people who are actually in charge, Pence and Bannon, can get the real work done while the orange toddler is off playing with his new toys.

[vorlon13]

I'd like to see the noted outlets sanctioned by the other side. Their succumbing to group think and sycophantism kept them from sounding the alarm about a clear and present danger of a Trump election victory.

Wouldn't have taken much to rankle a better response to his candidacy, we've certainly seen enough zeal now that just 25% more of it then and we'd be cussing and discussing Hillary's first 100 days instead.

I'm not sure the poohbahs running those media purveyors are going to come to the correct responses and corrective measures with the WRONG side rebuking them.


Grrrrrr.

[abaris]

Although the president has the legal right to give access to whomever he likes, or no have press conferences at all if he wishes, it's pretty clear that this was done out of simple spite.

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.

[Jenny A]

Although the president has the legal right to give access to whomever he likes, or no have press conferences at all if he wishes, it's pretty clear that this was done out of simple spite.

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 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. To do that to a large well known media outlet is unprecedented here. It is an attempt to both duck questions and deligitimise the outlets. As such, it is unprecedented. Fortunately, it will probably blow up in his face as those outlets can still comment and the more he attempts to deligitimise those outlets the more their readership grows. He tried this before during his campaign and relented for that very reason.

[abaris]

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.

[Aroura]

Although the president has the legal right to give access to whomever he likes, or no have press conferences at all if he wishes, it's pretty clear that this was done out of simple spite.

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.

[Anomalocaris]

The pillars of our system are not just laws or regulations, but also accepted and adhered to norms.   The republicans have really been systematically and relentless attacking long observed norms since 1994.   It is absolutely no surprise, indeed it would have been surprising were it not so, that our system have come to a point where a demoguague rose to power who recognizes no norms. It is also no surprise that the Republican Party on the whole so readily embraced such a demoguague.

[NuclearEnergy]

I've been looking all over for those Conservatives who said they love the Constitution so much..nowhere to be found.

Imagine if the roles were flipped. For instance what if this was Obama or Hillary? They be calling for their heads.

[Minimalist]

The term you are grasping for is "hypocritical motherfuckers."  You know when a conservatard is lying because his lips are moving.