LMFAO try and stop us. Also it's not calling to repeal anything so...
Because inviting reporters into your literal home is a privilege for a press, not a right. Reporters don't have a right to interview you on your property, you have to grant them permission to do that. Is it a freedom of speech issue when celebrities tell paparazzi to fuck off?
I agree with all of that, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not doing anything to harm the first amendment here. He's just being an egomaniac, but he's not breaking any rules. If these news outlets want to be invited back, they can concentrate on reporting the news and not just producing biased hit pieces. It's amazing how all these other news outlets report on what he's doing but don't spin it with a negative agenda and he has no problem with those outlets. It's almost like he's not trying to hide what he's doing, but he's trying to prevent giving ammo to those who would gladly shoot him with it...
Again, I agree, but it's not a 1st amedment issue and we can't pretend it is. I also wouldn't call it censorship. It's more of a business issue at that point, choosing who gets first say on a piece of info. It's not like the other review sites and/or news outlets don't get the info eventually...
Honestly I can't care about that. It's not about a viewpoint, it's about bias. News is to report, not to spin. I don't really give a shit if a news outlet is having trouble spinning stories, I can't really feel sorry for them...
I think it's readily apparent he has a very stiff "spine" (in the figurative sense that you used the phrase). He basically says and does whatever he wants without giving a darn who gets mad. Come to think of it, aren't the press people who say this really saying he needs to stop doing / saying what he wants and take his lumps without crying about it? Seems more like they're saying he needs to get rid of his "spine".
He lives there. There is no difference. If you lived in an apartment complex you can still tell reporters to fuck off if they decide they want access to your living room, or even the shared laundry room. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, you didn't actually think I was suggesting each president is handed the deed to the white house during inauguration did you?
I actually have no interest in people's viewpoints when absorbing news. Viewpoints are for discussion like in this forum, not for the news. I really don't care about what random bitch #1 thinks about a situation he/she has nothing to do with...
It is impossible to prove because people can just deny it, but common sense says it's true. Most of the big media outlets that are obviously biased and they cater to viewers who are obviously biased. It's all pure drivel...
Of course I would, how would that change anything? Fox is hot garbage, they don't deserve the privilege that only quality journalists should receive IMO...
My stance is also that government censorship of the news media is very, very bad. But I don't see this as censorship. We're talking about access here. The government is not telling them what they can and can't write about, they are just not providing information. There is nothing wrong with that IMO.
Nothing to worry about when the own president says it?
I wouldn't even go that far. I see it as not allowing the opposition party to use the WH press room to fling wild and often false / misleading accusations in the form of questions. Acosta is a perfect example. Every time I see him get called he preaches for 20-30 seconds before asking questions like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
I would agree with that, albeit most likely for completely different reasons.
