Posted on 02/25/2025 4:55:08 AM PST by V_TWIN
The Associated Press’ war with the Trump White House suffered its first loss when a judge declined to restore its Oval Office and Air Force One access. This legal scuffle is in no way over, but for now, the AP and their fake news reporters are barred from certain events at the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Agreed—I would like to see all fifty one media entities that sided with AP to be banned from the WH—including Fox and Newsmax.
They all got too big for their britches—time to teach them some humility.
They’re the fourth branch of government, don’t you know, you flyover country peon?
What is the legal definition of “skating on thin ice”.
Who actually controls AP?
Not their journalists.
Seems like they always spew CIA MI6 talking points.
What will likely come of this is an appeal all the way to SCOTUS .
The question will be whether the 1st amendment for journalists allows the alteration or omission of nugatory facts, obfuscation of context,or the bare promotion of propagandaic ideology over reporting the truth.
IN times previous we did not have the ability to track such lies, fabrication of facts, but now with the internet, we can track the lies in real time as they are made.And so they can be interdicted by a by a Temporary retraining court order fairly quickly.
Secondly SCOTUS needs to change the laws on defamation for elected officials, reducing the public figure exemption of liability, much as they do in the UK.
Also there i s a question of whether inclusion in a press corps of the White House can be closed to those who continuously lie about the issues they report, or closed to those who fail or refuse to abide by the etiquette protocols of the White House press corps.
I do not believe the 1st amendment for journalists should be open ended. They should not be allowed to yell “fire” in our theater of reporting, when there in fact is no fire.
And when they do that, they need t9o be held accountable.JUst like NBC is being held to account for editing/substituting in the Kamala HArris interview.
“AP is a a not-for-profit news cooperative owned by its American newspaper and broadcast members. AP, which is headquartered in New York, operates in more than 280 locations worldwide, including every statehouse in the U.S. Two-thirds of its staffers are journalists.”
A not-for-profit because 10 bucks says they have been receiving USAID money
McFadden is a good judge. I bought my first car from his grandfather.
The AP can stand on the Pennnsylvania Avenue sidewalk and report what ever it wants. That is free speech.
The AP, however, can’t enter the White House. That is a presidential order
The First Amendment states the government is not allowed to censor the press. But it does not say anything about granting the press free access. President Trump is not shutting down AP. He is just not allowing them access to the White House press room. If the First Amendment stated that everyone must grant free access of the media; hell, we could have shut down the Mafia and every criminal organization long ago. Right?
The First Amendment prohibits the censoring of the press, but the way I see it, no one is shutting AP down. Am I too niave? This thought I have - has it been argued before?
Good point. Wasn’t the AP being used by terrorists in Israel, too?
Maybe Trump knows more than he’s telling. Better use of the Gulf of America re-name than most I’ve heard.
Yup—and if it is not USAID money it is some other government agency sneaking funds to non-profits that in turn fund them.
We are paying for propagandists to agitate against us.
Actually, the First Amendment makes no mention of censorship, at all, I believe.
It states that Congress (the Federal Government) will make no laws abridging the freedom of the press.
I would argue that there are plenty of ways to limit the freedom of the press - a lot more than blatant censorship. USAID money jumps out as one of these.
The American people have been treated to a demonstration of what un-free, government-run press looks like and it should be revolting to all but the TikTokers.
They using US AID money to fight this battle?
I know that neither station is perfect, but banning FNC and Newsmax eliminates 5-6 million viewers...not smart.
Go get a coffee or cofeefee or a shot of rum and calm down, cg.
” He is just not allowing them access to the White House press room.”
They have access to the press room. But they are barred from the Oval Office and AF 1, which they used to have access.
Five of six million viewers is nothing compared to podcasters.
It is a new media age—we no longer have to kiss the rings of the dinosaurs.
You are NOT naive, but you are suffering from a severe case of COMMON SENSE, just watch the view today and common sense will go away.
Good news. The Associated Propaganda takes it in the neck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.