New York Times, CNN, others barred from press briefing

[abaris]

They masturbate to that word

You actually have to judge them by their trigger words. Intellectualism, elitism. It's obviously bad to be intellectual, since you seize to be a sheep when you start to educate yourself.

And the newest one. A new german word for todays American mainstream. Lügenpresse. Straight out of Goebbels book. To the word and to the meaning.

[Amarok]

Intellectualism - Translation you succeed in something other then business and being a herd master to the capitalist machine. And when you talk you don't sound like you failed grade 3 English . And you actually hold things like science above the opinion of Joe from the hardware store or a bunch of books from the bronze age. Oh and you except crazy things like Evolution and Climate Change.

Elitism- summed up you like Poupon mustard

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

I never said it was wise or even desirable to target certain news outlets for exclusion' although I understand the sentiment and share the contempt of many for the MSM. IMO they have abandoned the public interest who they claim to serve in favor of establishment and elite opinion. I am merely saying that it is not an "attack" on the first amendment. No one's liberty has been infringed upon. This is not a slippery slope to fascism. To say otherwise is both hyperbolic and in error.

I disagree. An informed electorate is vital to a functioning democracy. I don't see how reducing available information aids informing the public.

The first step towards authoritarian government is muzzling the voices which would object. If Trump's ideas and policy objectives are so obviously beneficial, how could further scrutiny harm them?

This is the action of a man afraid of what is written about him and seeking to allay those fears.

[Amarok]

Trump knows there is little benefit to his policies and so do most of his followers .This is about snubbing the evil  liberals who they have deluded themselves are oppressing them. And they would rather form an echo chamber then acknowledge that maybe the so called elitists are right .

[Neo-Scholastic]

An informed electorate is vital to a functioning democracy. I don't see how reducing available information aids informing the public.

I agree with you. At the same time, I don't see how anyone can say that the public is starved for information. if anything there is too much. If the NYT and CNN ceased to exist, I doubt they would be missed.

The first step towards authoritarian government is muzzling the voices which would object.

Personally, I think there is a difference between snubbing certain journalists and censoring them. They are still free to print and say whatever they want.

This is the action of a man afraid of what is written about him and seeking to allay those fears.

You could be right. It is also true that some journalists have publicly vowed to oppose the Trump administration. Perhaps his fear is that they will twist and distort his words and deeds. (Something they have already done.) Why should he give them ammunition to do so?

Anyway, that's pretty much all I have to say on the topic.

[CapnAwesome]

Traditionally we've had three checks on executive authority. The congress, the courts and the media. Congress has abdicated their ability to check the president decades ago. Trump is trying to shut down the media and go around the courts. We are not a nation of kings.

[Thumpalumpacus]

An informed electorate is vital to a functioning democracy. I don't see how reducing available information aids informing the public.

I agree with you. At the same time, I don't see how anyone can say that the public is starved for information. if anything there is too much. If the NYT and CNN ceased to exist, I doubt they would be missed.

The problem arises when they cease to exist as the result of a governmental power starving them of information, which is the currency of exchange for the media. When that sort of thing happens, the government is empowered to punish its critics for no other reason than their criticism. That is obnoxious and something I'd never support. The marketplace is and should be the only judge of the viability of those two or any other news outlet.

The first step towards authoritarian government is muzzling the voices which would object.

Personally, I think there is a difference between snubbing certain journalists and censoring them. They are still free to print and say whatever they want.

Of course they are. But playing favorites with the intent to harm their business seems to me to be ethically suspect, if not actually abusive. And I stand by my comment that this is an attempt to muzzle critics, because without access to these closed-door meetings, they are locked out of the information loop.

If he can't stand the heat, he should GTFO of the kitchen.

[account_inactive]

I must admit this is starting to worry me.

[abaris]

And I stand by my comment that this is an attempt to muzzle critics, because without access to these closed-door meetings, they are locked out of the information loop.

Excluding Breitbart, I think the media that's still allowed to attend will share. Out of principle. One of the first things I personally learned in journalism is that press conferences are useless anyway. If someone asks a question, the whole room heards the reply. You never get an exclusive there.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're probably right. But as the attendance roll gets pared, such will be more difficult, especially if the Administration decides to punish those outlets which are sharing the info.