IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Check your spelling of "news"; you might have misspelled it as "Everything".
The reporting will definitely be fake, yes.
Fake News Banned
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Snippets taken completely out of context and peppered with misleading/dishonest commentary is absolutely fake reporting. You can't fail to grasp this and wonder how it is you aren't exactly the brightest star in the nightime sky.
fuck off
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
When are you claiming that Trump somehow nationalized the media? Oh, that's right, you don't know what Hitler did because you don't know what you are talking about. I get it now. Carry on.
You just explained why CNN, MS NOW and Politico control leftists by only letting them have the fake news they want them to have, so they remain completely ignorant about everything the media orders them to discuss.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Blow me.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Too funny! Anyone can censor. You really aren't swiftest runner in the race.
bye jerkoff
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
Sure it is. All you need is a basic refresher in English reading comprehension.
All those that were banned were fake news. Hence, fake news banned. Let me know where you're having problems.
Perhaps English is not your first language. It could be anything.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
You really don't know anything about fascism, socialism or leftist media control.
Hitler nationalized the press. Leftists censor the media. Trump merely banned a few non-press from taking press seats. I don't know how you got that so wrong.
One cannot control any narrative by simply blocking a few dedicated professional liars from the oval office.
Explain this "media control".
If by "Democracy" you mean "tyranny", that's the way it should be.
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
FTFY
IBDaMann
Probably the worse human in the threads
All of this presumes that CNN, MS NOW and Politico somehow have a right to the White House.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Why should reporting on Trump be entirely negative? Reporting Biden or Obama wasn't entirely negative, not even close. With Biden, the MSM clearly ran cover for his inability to actually do the job.
Yes, the media covered for Biden
Chuck Todd is wrong; it wasn't just staffers and strategists covering for President Biden.
reason.com
The MSM even openly admits they ran cover for Autopen and when that blew up in their faces, they started looking for scapegoats to blame for their own bias.
Why did the media cover up Biden's cognitive decline? CNN reveals journalists feared 'blowback' from the White House
Según el medio que organizó el primer encuentro entre el presidente y Donald Trump en base a entrevistas con varios periodistas, el entorno del demócrata buscó aislarlo de la prensa desde que inició su mandato.
voz.us
They are all just private businesses.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The MSM is NOT an "open marketplace." It is a sort of elitist club with restricted entry. When the gatekeepers of information in media play favorites and refuse to report facts, people cannot fairly judge truth from falsehood.
Occupy Democrats is just proving that they support propagandizing the news and allowing massive bias to be the norm within the MSM.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
So? Now you are making excuses. If the grocery store lies to you about the freshness of a product would you care? If an auto dealer lies to you about the features of a vehicle you are looking at, would you care?
But, because you hate Trump and gobble up the bullshit the MSM purveys daily, you think it's just fine that they are lying to you because you agree with the lies.
What is the MSN? Name it.
They don't, do they?
The First Amendment does not guarantee any journalist a White House press pass.
The Supreme Court has never recognized a special constitutional right of access for the press to the White House or to government information beyond what the public generally has. Journalists have the same right as anyone else to publish what they lawfully obtain; they do not have a right to force the government to give them special entry.
Maybe a "friendy judge will think one up.
Oh, wait, they have.
All three organizations issued statements calling the action unconstitutional and an assault on First Amendment rights. CNN described it as “an illegal assault.” MS NOW said it “intends to take any and all steps necessary.” Politico said it would “vigorously defend our First Amendment rights.” First Amendment lawyers have called it “textbook viewpoint discrimination” and predicted it would not survive a court challenge, citing prior cases.
Related and prior legal actions
- AP lawsuit (2025, ongoing): The Associated Press sued after being barred from the Oval Office, Air Force One, and some events for refusing to adopt “Gulf of America” as its primary term. That case involves restricted access to specific spaces rather than full revocation of White House hard passes. A district court initially sided with the AP on viewpoint-discrimination grounds; an appeals court later paused parts of the order while litigation continues.
- Jim Acosta / CNN (2018): The White House revoked Acosta’s hard pass after a contentious press conference. CNN sued. A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order restoring the pass on due-process grounds (Fifth Amendment). The White House later fully restored it and CNN dropped the suit.
- Brian Karem (2019–2020): The White House suspended Karem’s pass for 30 days after an argument with Sebastian Gorka. A district judge issued an injunction; the D.C. Circuit affirmed that the revocation likely violated due process because there were no published standards giving fair notice of the sanction.
- Simon Ateba (2023): Ateba sued the Biden White House after a policy change deactivated hundreds of hard passes (including his). He alleged viewpoint discrimination. The case produced a district-court opinion; related issues reached higher courts.
- Karem v. Trump (D.C. Circuit, 2020) applied the same due-process rules to revocation of an existing hard pass.
- Courts have treated the White House press area as a nonpublic forum. The government may impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions (for example, requiring a congressional press-gallery credential). It may not exclude outlets because it dislikes their coverage.
Courts have long held (starting with Sherrill v. Knight, 1977) that White House press credentials implicate a liberty interest and cannot be denied or revoked without due process—published standards, notice, and an opportunity to be heard. Viewpoint-based denials are particularly vulnerable under the First Amendment. The current ban, which Trump tied explicitly to the content of the outlets’ reporting, is expected to produce filings soon, possibly seeking a temporary restraining order before pooling rotations or major events. No such filing had been reported by late Saturday.
Trump is not the only president who has clashed with, restricted, or tried to freeze out parts of the press.
Presidents of both parties have done it.
Clear examples before Trump:
- Obama (2009): The administration tried to exclude Fox News from a Treasury Department event that was part of the press pool. The other major networks refused to participate without Fox. The White House backed down. Obama also publicly criticized Fox as “destructive,” skipped Fox News Sunday for years, and called on Fox less often than other networks.
- Nixon: After Watergate reporting, the White House restricted Washington Post reporters’ access to parts of the complex outside the briefing room.
- Biden: In 2023 the White House changed hard-pass rules (requiring a congressional gallery or Supreme Court credential). Hundreds of passes were deactivated, including Simon Ateba’s. Ateba sued, alleging the change was aimed at him. Ateba lost.The courts upheld the Biden's White House hard-pass policy.
District court (Judge John D. Bates, D.D.C., No. 1:23-cv-02321)
- September 6, 2023: Denied Ateba’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found he had not shown irreparable harm because he could still enter with a day pass.
- December 7, 2023: Granted summary judgment to the government on the First Amendment claim and the APA claim. Denied Ateba’s cross-motion. Dismissed the remaining count without prejudice. The court held that even if Ateba had a First Amendment injury from losing preferred access, the May 2023 policy (requiring a congressional gallery or Supreme Court credential) was reasonable and viewpoint-neutrall
D.C. Circuit (No. 24-5004, Ateba v. Leavitt)
- Argued October 15, 2024.
- Affirmed April 8, 2025. The panel (Wilkins, Pan, Rogers) held the press area is a nonpublic forum and the hard-pass policy is both reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Reliance on outside gallery credentialing did not give “unbridled discretion.”
- Rehearing denied June 9, 2025. Mandate issued June 17, 2025.
Ateba filed a petition for certiorari (No. 25-338). As of the records used here, the Supreme Court had not granted review.
Bottom line: the Biden policy that deactivated his hard pass (and hundreds of others) was upheld.
Democracy dies in darkness my friend.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
MSM you 'tard. MSM = Main Stream Media.