CNN, MS NOW, Politico Suing Trump Admin Over White House Ban
The four major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News) have suspended covering presidential events.
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico have sued President Donald Trump’s administration after he banned them from the White House.
ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News have all suspended coverage of presidential events.
Lawsuit
“This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes,” the three news organizations said in a joint statement on Monday.
“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the news outlets said. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
Trump implemented the ban on Friday.
“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
The outlets list Trump, Assistant to the President for Communications Steven Cheung, Secret Service Director Sean Curran, and Chief of Staff Susie Wiles as the defendants.
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico accuse the administration of violating the Due Process Clause:
The ban deprives them of those interests without meeting the bare minimum requirements of due process: advance notice based on clear standards and an opportunity to be heard. The President provided no notice that he would immediately deny news organizations whose reporting he disliked access to the White House grounds. Nor did he provide clear standards for his decision. And the President did not provide CNN, MS NOW, or POLITICO, or any of their journalists, any opportunity to be heard before he announced the ban in a social media post and before the White House terminated reporters’ access and confiscated press credentials.
The outlets claim the decision “retaliates against protected newsgathering and speech in violation of the First Amendment.” From the lawsuit:
The President announced that the ban is a punishment for the content of past news coverage from CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO. And the President’s statements make clear he implemented the ban to coerce more favorable coverage of the administration from CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO, and to deter other journalists and news organizations from reporting that the President might view as unfavorable. The President has made no attempt to hide that his ban punishes protected speech, stating expressly that he decided to ban CNN, MS NOW, and POLITICO for their “cumulative” coverage over the past two years of him and his administration—coverage that in his view is “fake,” “sick,” “purposely negative,” “one-sided,” and “never good.”
They also say the ban violates the First Amendment because it bars them “from a nonpublic forum for unlawful reasons.”
CNN, MS NOW, Politico allege it also violates the First Amendment since the D.C. Circuit held that the White House Press Area is a nonpublic forum, which is government property “that the government has opened to speech for selected speakers.”
The news outlets argue they face irreparable harm since the ban severely impedes the reporters from covering the administration:
Every day, critically important news is breaking at the White House and in the press pool: President Trump is the commander in chief of a country at war; he is traveling to New York today to address the United Nations General Assembly tomorrow; he is meeting with China’s President Xi Jinping at the White House on Thursday; and he is steering national policy on the ever-advancing technology of artificial intelligence. And the ban inflicts an injury on all news media organizations—who now risk a similar fate if they engage in reporting the President deems insufficiently favorable. And the public at large suffers for however long the unconstitutional ban restricts access to current and complete information about their government. These irreparable harms should not be tolerated for a day longer. The Court should immediately enjoin enforcement of the ban.
The White House denied reporters from all three outlets access on Saturday.
CNN lost its duties “as the White House pool representative for television networks on Monday.”
Trump already responded earlier this morning:
The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Last year, Trump attempted to keep the Associated Press out of the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other spots when it refused to change the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its stylebook.
The AP sued the administration. The case is ongoing.
Suspending Coverage
ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News joined CNN in solidarity by not covering live presidential events.
That means the White House won’t have a TV pool provider on Monday. I’m guessing the move will last until the administration reinstates the outlets.
“The public has a vital interest in receiving accurate, independent information about its government,” the networks said in a joint statement. “No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting.”
— CBS News PR (@CBSNewsPress) September 21, 2026
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Before Milhouse denies it – the First Amendment does not cover access.
The man is in charge of his own house.
It is not “unfettered access” that is being challenged. No court has ever held that the access of reporters to the press room or the president is absolute.
What is being questioned is the reason for the ban.
Trump has said that he is banning the media outlets because he disagrees with what they say. He claims the media outlets “lie or report fiction.”
In other words, Trump is banning outlets because he doesn’t like what they say.
That is classic viewpoint discrimination which is contrary to the First Amendment.
In Sherrill v, Knight, the court wrote:
Appellants argue that because the public has no right of access to the White House, and because the right of access due the press generally is no greater than that due the general public, denial of a White House press pass is violative of the first amendment only if it is based upon the content of the journalist’s speech or otherwise discriminates against a class of protected speech. While we agree with appellants that arbitrary or content-based criteria for press pass issuance are prohibited under the first amendment, there exist additional first amendment considerations ignored by appellants’ argument.
In Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., the Court wrote:
Access to a nonpublic forum, however, can be restricted as long as the restrictions are “reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker’s view.”
In AETC v. Forbes, the Court wrote:
To be consistent with the First Amendment, the exclusion of a speaker from a nonpublic forum must not be based on the speaker’s viewpoint and must otherwise be reasonable in light of the purpose of the property.
And finally, in AP v Budowich, the Court wrote:
This means official authority to restrict expression in the Oval Office is at its zenith. But
still, there is a limit: Access restrictions must be reasonable and not viewpoint based. Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; see also Forbes, 523 U.S. at 682 (stressing that “the exclusion of a speaker from a nonpublic forum must not be based on the speaker’s viewpoint and must otherwise be reasonable in light of the purpose of the property”). So while the AP does not have a constitutional right to enter the Oval Office, it does have a right to not be excluded because of its viewpoint.
President Trump has said the bans are based on what the outlets have said.
He has no right under the First Amendment to ban the media because he doesn’t like or disputes what they say or write about him and his administration.
so a court makes up a law where none existed
No, several courts applied the First Amendment in an appropriate manner.
The First Amendment is in the Constitution. What these courts illegally ruled is not.
First Amendment does it even come into it, they can still be with many lies as they want. They just can’t claim to be in the right place to know the things they’re lying about.
Except he’s NOT “banning the media” he’s “denying access”. Which you explicitly admitted right at the beginning he can do.
If he removed broadcasting rights or shut down printing presses or banned websites because of viewpoints this lawsuit would have legs. He’s not.
The president (or any govt office) has no more constitutional duty to provide seats in a press room (or a airplane) to CNN, etc., than it does to provide such to (say) Joe Washovski of Duluth.
Press briefings are televised and viewable by all, there is no “right” to be present in the room or to have a face-to-face with either the press or his pressor.
I did not admit any such thing. There can be reasons that a person can be banned from the press room. One of the cited cases was that the person suing had a criminal history of violence. The Secret Service denied access because of that history, not because of anything he said. The Court specifically stated that he could be denied access for his history of violence, but not for what he said.
So while there may be other concerns for which a person can be banned or denied access, you cannot deny access because of a viewpoint with which the government disagrees.
But the president (or any govt office) has provided seats in a press room. Once the seats are there, the government cannot deny the access to those seats based on what a person has said or viewpoints they have expressed.
The courts are clear on this.
The government (any government including state or local) cannot ban people based on viewpoints with which the government disagrees.
Cool, now apply the same logic to ‘sanctuary’ States/Cities and access allowed for some LEO but not ICE.
Better yet, let’s stick with text of the Constitution and several recent 2A decisions by SCOTUS affirming that 2A are individual rights, govt may not make up new statutes to bar the individual right ‘keep and bear arms’. Go apply your outrage to blue jurisdictions which deny 2A rights to tens of millions then come back to us and we may have more sympathy for your opinion.
That was an illegal ruling by the court contrary to the First Amendment, which invented this condition out of thin air and is found nowhere in the Constitution (not even in the most wildly expansive emanations and penumbras imaginable). It is an effort to put the First Amendment entirely under the discretion of judges and give them the ability to compel speech they approve of.
This is a pretty stupid post 🤣 No one is being banned from reporting because CNN can continue to report on what’s going on at the White House.
What has been changed is that they now cannot report what’s going on at the White House from inside the White House.
They can literally do their reporting from where ever the hell they want as long as it is not from INSIDE the White House.
Not really rocket science but I suspect it’s the kind of rocket science quite beyond the limited comprehension of a Democrat installed judge who will appoint themselves as sole arbiter of who can and cannot report from WITHIN the White House.
CNN and others are being banned from an area set up for the media (granting the media access) because someone doesn’t like what they are saying.
That’s classic viewpoint discrimination.
The only stupidity here is that you seem to think the government can demand groups and companies to write and disseminate whatever the government says or face losing access to the very spots other outlets have access too.
The First Amendment is clear that the government cannot regulate speech in this instance.
The fact that the rest of the ‘establishment’ network media VOLUNTARILY suspended their own WH coverage severely undercuts any arguments about the ‘need’ for WH access. Without demonstrating the ‘need’ for WH access there’s no harm and without any harm there’s no case to adjudicate.
When lapdog legacy media and their surrogates refuse to apply any ‘journalistic’ standards much less a common sense understanding of the importance of truth and accuracy in reporting and instead seek to invoke 1A as a broad shield/impenetrable barrier they’ve lost the plot. You and I have as much 1A ‘right’ to enter the WH and ask questions/report as the ‘media’.
If y’all wanna argue that the establishment media cabal should retain privileges and access unavailable to the broader public without establishing any underlying basis for such then compound the error by demanding the lapdog legacy media should be allowed to lie, invent stories/events out of thin air, make wild eyed claims without on the record sources and otherwise deliberately tell falsehoods to the public without any restriction of their WH access (which ain’t censorship as they remain free to keep telling lies just not access the WH) then go ahead and make your case to the public. I suspect the normies ain’t gonna buy it. In fact I’d suggest that this sort of obvious collusion gets us a step or two closer to ending Calvinball and instituting corrective measures that Pinochet would approve of.
If the media or people make a choice, that is not the same thing as the government telling the media or people what they must say, write and broadcast.
If the White House wants to shut down the Press Room, I suppose that might be legal, but as the area is designated for press access, the government cannot deny access to certain groups based on what they say.
That’s classic viewpoint discrimination.
Once the government sets up an area for a certain purpose, they cannot then say “we don’t allow people with different viewpoints to use that area.”
If you don’t think the First Amendment is worth fighting over, then there is no hope for free speech.
If the White House can ban people because the administration doesn’t like what is being said, then local and state governments can ban citizens from speaking at meetings because some elected official does not what a person is saying.
The Constitution prohibits censorship. None of these entities/individuals are being censored. They can and are free to make things up, tell lies, falsehoods and make out of context attempts to frame a report to.suit their ideological viewpoint.
Lack of access to WH grounds isn’t a Constitutional violation …UNLESS you’re making the case that EVERYONE lacking such privileged access has equally had their own Constitutional rights violated. You, me and everyone else is just as protected by the Constitution as any ‘journalist’.
When you get me and 350 million other Americans a WH pass then well talk about it. Until you go to bat for normies entering WH grounds with their own WH pass to ‘report’ equivalent to ‘journalists’ your argument lacks logical consistency.
You’re right but the courts won’t agree.
Meh that’s ok, let the CT try and serve the order at the WH gate and see if they are allowed into the WH grounds. Gee this whole separation of powers thing is fun once we remember that CTs must retain the respect of the public and the litigants to honor their decisions. When that respect is lost (or thrown away by the CTs themselves as of late) then we’re back to force doctrine of the biggest stick and the Executive Branch definitely has the advantage.
So you think that the Executive Branch ignoring the Courts would not be an impeachable offense?
Good luck with that.
So you think an Executive Branch emboldened enough to defy the Judicial Branch with force would hesitate to act similarly with the Legislative Branch?
Are off your meds? When force doctrine enters the discussion the Judiciary and Congress would be wise to be quiet b/c they lack the requisite force to compel the Executive Branch if the Executive Branch refuses to play nicely and/or meekly submit.
In the historical sense of the constitution, isn’t “press” referring to a device and not to a large body of people mostly composed of nincompoops? He hasn’t come for their laptops, and that even includes Toomey who has shown that he shouldn’t own one.
LOL:
ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News joined CNN in solidarity by not covering live presidential events.
I guess the communism union media will find out that does not work in the USA. This could be used against them. Who made them “The Press”
*sniff* *sniff* Collusion… Not that it’s any secret the almost the entirely of the “news” media is a wholly owned and controlled branch of the Democrat party.
s/the almost/that almost
In any event, the Leftists still have a considerable presence in the press pool; what are they complaining about?
Now if we could get PBS onboard, real journalists can replace the leftist trash.
BTW, it is not restricting the news agencies from reporting. (1st Amendment) The press conferences are available to the public. So Access to information is not restricted. They can always ask questions to the WH communication. It just will not be able to ask questions in front of the TV audience.
That would be incorrect.
It is difficult to say that they are not being denied access to the press conference when in fact that is what the ban does. It denies certain media access to the press room.
What is being restricted is access to the government because of the viewpoints of the media outlets.
That’s viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment.
Well:
Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the Free Press Clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have.
at 16 (Stewart, J., concurring); Saxbe v. Wash. Post, 417 U.S. 843 (1974); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817 (1974); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978). The trial access cases recognize a right of access of both public and press to trials. Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Ct., 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
Which is not what is happening here.
The press is being given access to whatever information the government is putting forth.
What the government cannot do is say “you get this information and access, but you don’t because we don’t like what you say.”
That is classic viewpoint discrimination and is a violation of the First Amendment.
No, that is exactly what is happening here. Nothing prevents the media from this information. All they are being denied is the chance to shriek irrationally at people whom they hate to make for dramatic TV clips – and there is NO Constitutional right to be able to do it to their faces.
The “information” is not the issue.
The government has set up an area where the press can gather, ask questions, etc.
Once that area is set up, the government cannot deny certain members of the press access to that area because the government doesn’t agree with what that particular member of the press is saying.
It is viewpoint discrimination (as cited in the cases above,)
It is very similar to having local city council meeting and allowing comments from the public but barring people from attending or speaking based on what they have said in the past.
The First Amendment protects retaliation from the government from protected speech.
No it isn’t. Instead it is the opinion of lawyers in a black robe who decided the 1A means what they says it means instead of the clear text of the 1A.
No one has a right to enter the WH press room or participate in Presidential events simply b/c they claim to be a ‘journalist’ or a ‘news reporter’. Everyone is a journalist/reporter equally under the 1A. The govt here isn’t censoring (preventing) the speech of anyone. Access denial isn’t = to censorship …unless you’re also gonna make the case that the rest of without WH press credentials are = censored.
That would be the First Amendment that says the freedom of the press may not be abridged?
The government punishing certain media outlets because of what those outlets say is against the clear meaning of the First Amendment.
I mean … its monday morning and a judge hasn’t already reversed this … i’m a little surprised.
Monday ain’t over yet 🤣
But the “government” hasn’t decided what the press can and cannot report. They’re still free to report and publish anything the wish. Certain members of the press simply no longer has access to the White House Press Secretary. The 1st Amendment doesn’t guarantee access, just that the press can print/publish without interference. That is all.
eot
But the government has allowed access to the media. If you want to argue that the “media” (as in all newspapers, television, radio, etc) is not guaranteed access, that’s fine. That is legal.
That is not what is happening here.
The media has access but certain outlets are being denied access because of what they said.
The access is there. The administration cannot deny the access based on viewpoint. Period. Full stop.
Other administrations going back to the founding fathers have tried the same thing and have all been told viewpoint discrimination is contrary to the First Amendment.
They aren’t being denied access to information, which they can get from others.
What they are being denied is access to report on that information from INSIDE the White House.
It’s like talking to a Milhouse.
Well, you tried.
Which is a violation of the First Amendment.
The government set up an area for access. Once that is done, they then cannot deprive people access to that area based on what the person or group says.
One of the hallmarks of the FIrst Amendment is that government is to be neutral in regard to speech.
This act by the administration is anything other than neutral. It penalizes groups for saying things the administration disagrees with.
Sadly, you seem to think that government retaliation for protected speech is right and correct. The First Amendment says otherwise.
And where does it state that the Executive must grant the press access, exactly. It doesn’t and never has. Period. The whole “viewpoint discrimination” thing is just judicial fantasy made up from the penumbras and emanations of the court and has no real validity in the plain reading of the 1st Amendment.
CNN, MSNow and the rest have not had their 1st Amendment right violated. They are still allowed to print/broadcast/publish anything they wish. They simply no longer have the access to the WH Press Secretary. A right never granted to the press by the Constitution. Period. Full Stop.
The Executive Branch must follow the laws of the land. I would hope we agree on that.
There is no law established by Congress that allows the Executive Branch to punish people for what they say (protected speech.)
The plain meaning of the First Amendment is that government cannot favor one viewpoint over another.
Period. Full stop.
The plain meaning of the 1st Amendment is that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of the press. No where does it bind the Executive to the same requirements.
Congress shall make no law . . ” Congress is specifically picked out in the 1st Amendment. Congress. Not Congress and the Executive. Only Congress.
And all the rest are the twisted penumbras and emanations and interpretations by the SCOTUS that don’t have any basis in the Constitution or reality for that matter.
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press.
Period. Full Stop.
Can’t find anything in the 1st Amendment about “viewpoints”. Oh, that’s right. That’s just one of the twisted penumbras or emanations (like the right to abortions) produced by the SCOTUS when in fact the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to the Executive as it specifically picks out Congress (Congress shall make no law . . . ) but not the Executive.
Unfortunately, we’ve allowed the SCOTUS to pervert the plain meaning of the Constitution and the rights it grants by allowing them to create “rights” out of thin air and smoke that just don’t exist in the Constitution.
Period. Full Stop.
Agreed. But you seem to be mistaking SCOTUS decisions to be the “law of the land” when in reality they are not. They are court decisions that can be reversed at any time without Congressional consent See Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022) as a good example of what I’m talking about. Court decisions ≠ laws.
The plain meaning of the 1st Amendment is that Congress may make no laws abridging the freedom of the press. It doesn’t not place the Executive under the same requirements.
Period. Full Stop.
With the way courts have been opining over that last 50 years they will rule that credentialed journalists have a first amendment right to be in the White House but not ordinary citizens since they are not credentialed journalists — and this will be used as precedence for government to punish speech if a citizen criticizes government since a citizen is not a credentialed journalist. Law Schools — what will ever do without them?
You don’t think that is happening now?
Remember the case out of Fairfax County, VA where a father was arrested for saying things in a school board meeting that the board members disagreed with?
You don’t think there are City Councils and Commissions who (illegally) have in their bylaws that speech that may “disparage” a person can result in the removal of the speaker?
Administrations throughout the history of this country – starting with George Washington – have tried to punish the media and citizens for speech. It was wrong back in Washington’s day, and it is wrong now.
Open it up to independents:
Definition Approximate U.S. count
Independently owned newspapers ~2,500
Independent/local digital publishers 700–1,200+
Independent/nonprofit newsrooms 400–500+
Likely genuinely independent local news outlets across print/digital/ethnic/broadcast ~3,000–4,000+
Outlets not owned by only the seven companies you named Likely well over 7,000
If the judge immediately re-instates the reporters’ access, they will likely be given the silent treatment. They will not be called on, effectively rendering them invisible in the briefing room. While they would be physically present, they would be entirely unable to engage or question administration officials.
By combining new restrictions on the press with the simple act of ignoring them during briefings, the administration can render a court-ordered press pass practically useless for actual reporting.
If they were to get back into the White House Press room but then ignored, they would first just start shouting questions endlessly. Continuing to ignore them they would then go back to court and sue to be recognized.
In that case they would answer reporters questions with hyper-brief, dismissive answers and the reporters would still be out of luck.
1. “The President’s position on that has been made completely clear, next question.”
2. “We aren’t going to waste time answering biased premises from fake news outlets.”
Trump can ban anybody for being ‘disruptive’.
Douse them with pepper spray and taste them as they are taken into custody for creating a disturbance on Federal property. Hold them at an undisclosed location for their ‘safety’. Lets see how special and different the lapdog legacy media wants to be treated or if they suddenly demand to be treated like every other Citizen.
“Douse them with pepper spray and taste them”
I prefer BBQ sauce on a nontoxic protein.
Yeah, though handing them over to Hannibal Lector is something I I’d be open to hearing more about. Wouldn’t wanna be close minded.
Does this mean everyone who calls himself/herself a journalists can sue, too? Perhaps LI can join the fun and crank out a lawsuit demanding access. Your claim would be as good as theirs!
This is starting to remind me of how the WNBA loudly boasted that “transwomen” are women and can play in their league – until some practical jokers called them on it and the league flip-flopped and said they were mysteriously not eligible for the WNBA draft.
What the Communist media and #Resistance judges want is only Communist Party-approved journalists to have access – period. These same “news” organizations have never hesitated to call for censoring those whom they disagree with and seek to have them jailed and/or assassinated.
I expect a Judge to side with the media. The issue is that the Admin and the White House is under the President’s control per the Constitution and is separate from Congress and the Judiciary. Trump can ignore any Judge’s view on who is in the White House. The media may not like it and decide that some may stop coming, but it really does not matter as they are not giving us the truth always.
As other judges in the past have done with other administrations.
So you think there is no judicial oversight on anything in the Executive Branch?
You really think that a president – any sitting president and not just Trump – could deny people First Amendment rights with impunity?
That would be grounds for impeachment and rightfully so,
For those who are arguing for this, they need to remember that Trump or any Republican / conservative won’t be in the White House forever. If you approve of this, a Democrat President could ban conservative outlets from the press room. If that were to happen, commenters here would scream and rightfully so,
No president has the legal authority to ban someone based on their viewpoint.
Except that Trump is not “denying people their 1st Amendment rights”. He is simply denying access to certain media outlets. Access. A right that is most certainly not guaranteed anywhere in the First Amendment. Their 1st Amendment right to publish/print/broadcast anything they wish has not been abridged. So any 1st Amendment arguments are moot. Period. Full Stop.
The First Amendment requires government to be neutral in regards to speech.
What Trump is doing is denying access to an designated area for the press simply because he disagrees with what certain outlets say.
That is not neutrality in speech or the press at all.
Period. Full stop.
Nope it doesn’t. The SCOTUS has decided the government must be “neutral in regards to speech”. The 1st Amendment doesn’t speak to the neutrality of speech in any manner. It just states that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That is all.
Period. Full Stop
Trump can ban anybody for being ‘disruptive’. The banned parties would be free to watch from outside video monitor, and publish whatever. No right has been violated.
And when was any outlet “disruptive” in the press room?
Besides, Trump is not saying that the banned media was “disruptive,” but rather because he didn’t like what they were saying.
Not covering presidential events is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot. Someone will cover them. The white house itself can stream them rendering the media pouting moot.
I like the idea of forcing anti-media lawfare. Make them spend money, Put them on the defense as to their antics and collusion.
CNN headline “Trump falls down at rally in Pa.”
They should be made to prove they’re not full of schiff everyday before being allowed to even pretend they’re reporting news and not being the scumbags they really are.
You’re still going to lie. Why do you think you’re entitled to a seat in the WH other outlet never get. You never said a word about Obama attacking Fox and AP so cram your hypocrisy.
“ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News joined CNN in solidarity by not covering live presidential events. That means the White House won’t have a TV pool provider on Monday. I’m guessing the move will last until the administration reinstates the outlets.”
Um, this is cutthroat America. I’m sure “alternative media” is hammering down the door to the White House to be awarded the opportunity to replace those union commies. This may go down as the MSM’s stupidest move yet.
Well if the news stations do not wish to cover and they are preventing someone else to cover. Are they not the ones suppressing speech?
They are playing games with our freedom of the press. Such an announcement should kick them out of their little tents and they lose their seats. FAFO. I think they just lost their case with the boycott.
They are all news maggots. They could be the down fall of the country some day. No news is good news most of the time. They speak from both orifices of their body.
They don’t hate Trump, or even that they’re disinvited. They hate that they can’t set the agenda with this administration. Plus a hit to their business model.
“…That concludes today’s update on operation We Don’t Need Your Permission. Questions? Yes, you.”
“When did the president stop beating Melania for ditching him in private cause of his unseemly affair with that young, comely assistant?”
“Well, last night we went 47 for 47 on intended targets. Unlike that last “Journalist” who’s streak of smears landing holds at 0:all they’ve tried.”
“Next, yes, you…”
They don’t get that they just made “fake news” the headline as long as the kerfuffle lasts. Who’s holding the laser-pointer now, catnip?
If ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News are refusing to report on White House news then clearly the ban on the Clinton News Network, Marxist State NOW, and Politico is no big deal because the MSM aren’t interested in reporting on the White House.