Trump Bars Fake Media From News Briefing

Posted February 24th, 2017 by Iron Mike

Can you ~ begin ~ to imagine how the Times felt reporting this story – about themselves…?   Delicious!

White House staff blocked the NY Times, CNN, Politico, the LA Times, and several foreign outlets.  The AP and Time declined to attend “in solidarity”.

The Left will be pissing in their panties over this for days,…if not for weeks!

I rejoice!   This is LONG overdue,  and I do mean all the way back to the Reagan years….

Nobody should expect Trump – or ANY president – to keep inviting in news outlets which continue to tell only the half of the story which fits THEIR agenda!

Go Trump!   Finally a president with BALLS!

It seems the Grownup understands how to discipline children…

Individuals and cities across our land – and nations around the world,  – should start paying attention to Trump’s gentle warnings!

You’ll be hearing a lot about “Trump trampling on the First Amendment”;…

– but he has done NOTHING to stop them from publishing any story,  – or any lies – they want to.

The First Amendment does NOT guarantee specific reporters or outlets access to the White House, – or to your house….  

They can stand in the street,  watch his comings and goings, – and write their stories.

ACCESS is a Privilege, – a Courtesy!

7 Responses to “Trump Bars Fake Media From News Briefing”

  1. Panther 6

    WOW, they deserve a little of this and maybe they will wake up and stop all the fake news and truly be objective without being obnoxious. Well done by whoever in the WH made this call.

  2. Leonard Mead

    Delicious, exactly! The fake news getting BOOTED from White House press conferences. Kinda like keeping dogs out of your livingroom who repeatedly crap and pee on your oriental rugs.

    Next, watch him go for changing the libel laws for fake news “reporting” so injured parties can sue more easily to get their good names back after being smeared.

    THAT will have the liberal media looking for other lines of “fake” work.

    Len Mead, Unwashed Conservative

  3. SpecialSnowflake

    Access is a right—and in the case of Donald Trump, a necessity—for the press to do its job properly. The New York Times has not published anything about this administration that hasn’t been multiply-sourced and verified. If you want bias, look at the headlines from the likes of the outfits invited to attend Spicer’s gaggle (emphasis on ‘gag’). This corrupt administration is about oppression and suppression, and they think they can fool us all with their spin. Negative news is not fake news.


    OMG! You’re making up ‘rights’ out of thin air!

    PLEASE Flake – what document has determined that press access inside the White House is a “right”?

    Now before you open your ass any wider,…go read the First Amendment,…in particular the 1st WORD!

  4. Hawk1776

    Snowflake, access by the press is not a right. It’s not in the Constitution; it’s not in the Bill of Rights; it’s not a law. Why should Trump assist news organizations to undermine his administration? Maybe ten percent of “reporters” support Trump with fifteen percent on the fence and seventy five percent in opposition. “Reporters” is in quotes because they are really Democratic operatives rather than actual reporters. Frankly the reporting during the recent Presidential campaign has opened my eyes to how long we have been manipulated by the press. Certainly this goes back to the Vietnam War and probably even farther. Journalism is a dead profession that has morphed into little more than political propaganda. RIP NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS NBC and CNN.

  5. SpecialSnowflake

    The government shall not “abridge the freedom of the press”? That means equal access to the government and its officials. Otherwise, you get corruption. I didn’t think it was a good idea when Obama denied interview requests by Fox, and I don’t think it’s a good idea for Trump to shut out journalists from certain outfits. Just because something isn’t explicitly stated in the Constitution, word for word, doesn’t mean it’s not a right. The Constitution is a living document, because the founders of our nation were not all-seeing beings who could look into the future and know what we’d need.

    Hawk, news organizations are not trying to “undermine” Trump’s administration. They’re trying to report accurately. Their job is to observe and question policies and tactics. They did that with Obama and every other administration. Do you really think Jake Tapper, for instance, is biased? He refuses to vote anymore so he’s not tempted to root for either party. Can you point to a story that’s exclusively on Breitbart or InfoWars or American Family Radio that’s objective and unbiased?

    Go read it AGAIN Flake, – this time with your READING EYES, not your WISHING EYES….

    Try real hard to understand the Government you HAVE, – not the lollipop garden you WISH you had…

    And no, our Constitution is NOT a ‘living document’,….no matter how hard you might WISH it is.

  6. Catherine

    The Constitution is only considered a “living document” by those who (a) do NOT understand it (most likely have never read it), and (b) want to KILL it.

    Congress may pass no law prohibiting the partisan press from publishing whatever lies they wish to kill trees and waste soy ink or electrons on. NO ONE is under ANY obligation to HELP them to do so. That shoots the whole “access is a *right*!” argument and kills it dead.

    If snowflake is interested in RIGHTS, he/she/it/whatever/who-cares should start out by learning what a right IS and what a right is NOT. Start at the link below; the site purposely uses words that can only be misunderstood by a professor of English, or a lawyer.

  7. Hawk1776

    >The Constitution is a living document

    No, it’s not. This is a point of contention between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives believe, correctly in my opinion, that the Constitution governs all of the laws of this country. If enough people feel something is missing then the solution is a Constitutional amendment. Liberals feel that judges can override the Constitution when it is obvious the Constitution didn’t address a particular issue. This is analogous to cutting a piece of wood. One always uses the first piece to measure the remaining pieces. One doesn’t use the second piece to measure the third, the third to measure the fourth, etc. because each subsequent measurement gets farther away from the original. Liberals like the idea of a “living document” when the Supreme Court is liberal. Not many of them have considered the consequences of what would happen if the court was conservative.

    >news organization ….are trying to report accurately

    Snowflake, I don’t even think you believe this. The current group of reporters is very, very liberal. They are still in shock that Clinton lost the Presidency. They are still in shock that they are losing control of the message. They do not provide objective reporting. Don’t just read what they write; read what they tweet.