Posted on 10/24/2019 6:32:59 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has had it with The New York Times and The Washington Post. The White House is preparing to instruct federal agencies not to renew their subscriptions to the newspapers.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham is describing the move as a cost-saving measure.
Grisham says “not renewing subscriptions across all federal agencies will be a significant cost saving for taxpayers - hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
Trump is often critical of the two newspapers and said in a Fox News interview on Monday that “we don’t want” the Times in the White House anymore, and “we’re going to probably terminate that and The Washington Post.”
The White House plan was first reported by The Wall Street Journal.
It’s unclear when the instructions will go to agencies.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
What about NPR??
I can see that as a legitimate business expense. Minor apparatchiks shuffling paper between desks, not so much.
Advertising circulars that come in the mail are free and made of the same kind of paper. You don’t have to contribute to WaPo or NYT profits to pack glasses.
I agree with the President. But to tell a lefty not to buy or read their favorite propaganda at work is like telling a fish it can no longer swim.
He can order this all he wants. They will still do it. Period. They are part of the swamp.
Funniest headline I’ve seen in weeks! Thanks for posting.
There will be minions of anti-American left wing globalists absolutely chewed upwith this.
And of course there will be multiple federal court cases.
But in the end, because gummint agencies are largely under the Executive Branch, and they are not private corporations or citizens at home, the SCOTUS would have to violate separation of powers to overturn this order. Either that or Congress has to overturn The Prez somehow.
This is awesome!
....Underlayment for mugs of coffee and glasses of red wine. But I am not sure I would use the Slimes or Compost for that purpose.
You just now notice that Capt.? They’ve been left for 40 some years
Great move and completely justified. Why pay taxpayer money for birdcage liners?
What goes around, comes around!
Under Obama, both agencies and the DoD (all branches), were not allowed to look at conservative publications at fed addresses. That was both hard copy and internet. At my unit, we had two E-7’s nearly busted down for this.
One for looking at Drudge Report one evening, and one for having critical IBD newspaper visible in his car window, but parked at our Army facility lot.
I would encourage the WH to cease taking questions from CNN, the Times and WaPo reporters. Bring in bloggers and talk radio hosts and take their questions instead.
The media are going to have a new form of very deserved PTSD before this is over.
(T)PTSD and Extra Hand (T)PTSD.
CNN is ATT
Breakup ATT. Telecom must not also own the message!
There is a big difference between “reading”, and financially supporting.
Exact opposite results.
NO. Don’t do it. You must read what your enemies are writing, even if the paper reads like Tass, Izvestia, Pravda and those from No. Korea, Red China, and Iran.
I had this same argument with the late Reed Irvine, the founder of Accuracy in Media (of which I was a co-founder), in 1969 when he said that he was not going to read the Wash. Post because it was so anti-American over the Vietnam war.
I told him it made no sense to criticize a paper you hadn’t read. I think I won the argument.
Remember the old adage: “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer”. The same applies to enemy newspapers and news organizations. YOU MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, WHICH WAY THEY ARE GOING, AND WHAT MISTAKES THEY ARE MAKING SO THAT YOU CAN COUNTERATTACK WITH THE TRUTH, FACTS, AND A THROAT-CUTTING ACCURACY.
When I was working at the embassy in Baghdad we had a sweet cable package in addition to AFN. I am sure it wasn’t cheap.
The NY Times Sunday edition is the best for all of that. Five pounds of paper, lines cat boxes real nice.
This is a huge decision! Thank you Mr. President!
JoMa
Scalia argued his view on “textualism” was the ultimate defense of the First Amendment. In March 2012, an Associated Press report said he told an audience at Wesleyan University that the Court’s early justices would be “astonished that the notion of the Constitution changes to mean whatever each successive generation would like it to mean. … In fact, it would be not much use to have a First Amendment, for example, if the freedom of speech included only what some future generation wanted it to include. That would guarantee nothing at all.”The conceit that the New York Times and The Washington Post are “reliable news sources” is an anachronism - as it already should have been in 1964 at the time of the Sullivan decision.That opinion didn’t prevent Scalia from harsh criticism of what is widely viewed as one of the essential court rulings protecting free speech and a free press — the 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.
At the Newseum in the Aspen Institute 2011 Washington Ideas Forum, Scalia said the landmark ruling meant “you can libel public figures without liability so long as you are relying on some statement from a reliable source, whether it’s true or not.
“Now the old libel law used to be (that) you’re responsible, you say something false that harms somebody’s reputation, we don’t care if it was told to you by nine bishops, you are liable,” Scalia said. “New York Times v. Sullivan just cast that aside because the Court thought in modern society, it’d be a good idea if the press could say a lot of stuff about public figures without having to worry. And that may be correct, that may be right, but if it was right it should have been adopted by the people. It should have been debated in the New York Legislature and the New York Legislature could have said, ‘Yes, we’re going to change our libel law.’”
But in Times v. Sullivan, Scalia said the Supreme Court, under Justice Earl Warren, “… simply decided, ‘Yes, it used to be that … George Washington could sue somebody that libeled him, but we don’t think that’s a good idea anymore.’”
JUSTICE SCALIA: THE 45 WORDS — AND ORIGINAL MEANING — OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
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.