Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Source

A very big reason I put this here in "Serious Debate" is because I'm really curious to know if this situation basically involves issues regarding "freedom of the press" or if Trump is 100% justified to cancel the credentials of a non-tabloid news source.

Justified? I thought blacklisting noncompliant news organisations was mandatory for American politicians.

I admit I was not aware of that.

It does involve issues with freedom of the press, but politicians still do it. Hillary Clinton regularly blocks reporters from specific publications and has used noise machines to block out her fundraising speeches during this election.

{ I admit I was not aware of that. }

Because it's usually a personal problem between an editor/reporter and a politician, and nobody really cares that the one reporter from X publication isn't in the giant media huddle which will be covering whatever event anyway. You only hear about it when somebody tries to block the press completely, unless that somebody is Hillary Clinton with a noise machine of course.

They'd have a lot more gravitas and legitimacy behind them if they didn't continually report incorrect things continually, and push forward a particular spin or agenda of their own.

This is the same Washington Post with 47 Pulitzers and a reputation for breaking Watergate.

How the mighty have fallen.

Isn't this coming from the guy who daily switches political opinions, calling groups of people rapists and then claiming to love them.

I bet that like most media places Washington Post is dishonest and phony, but that doesn't really mean much if you yourself are too.

You realize you are talking about every news company every right?