I just saw a video of Jake Tapper talking about reporters working together and possibly protesting the White House briefings and how not going doesn't necessarily solve the problem. He suggests that going to the briefings to ask tough questions is more important for the press to do than protesting by not going. I probably wouldn't have thought of it in these terms before hearing his interview, but I won't hold it against the other news organizations (as long as they are going and holding the white house accountable for this decision).
Well, on the other hand, some (relatively) honest reporters should be there to record the latest alt-truths spun by this administration. I don't want to hear "Nah, that's totally not what Trump meant yesterday, despite he literally said that, and if you've been listening to Breitbart you would understand it. Oh and there's no other source!"
That's very noble of the AP, but I would imagine that though those organizations must feel as though they must attend their press briefings out of duty to their readership. I think as long as they're willing to treat their trade with the dutifulness it deserves, those organizations do not deserve shame for this.
The narrative from the New York Times and CNN claims that they did know. However, I was unable to find a statement from either Time Magazine or the Associated Press.
The issue is slightly confused by the fact that the New York Times newspaper was barred from entry, (which refers to itself as "The Times" in this article) while Time Magazine (of Time Inc/Time Warner, no relation to the New York Times) chose not to attend. CNN adds [1] that the Los Angeles Times was also barred from attendance.
It would've had to be a game-time decision by an individual reporter- I would give those organizations a little time to figure out what they want to do in response. This just happened.
I could imagine a scenario where the NYT et al were kept from the door, and the others had already entered. I'm not defending, I'm just trying to be reasonable.
Also this event occurred before Obama was President...
Not only are the practical aspects of the two situations different, but on top of that comparing the official actions of a sitting President versus those of a non-incumbent candidate make it even more falsely equivalent.
> The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign
That seems like a much more limited kicking-out than what our current administration is doing, and the constraints of an airplane seem much more limiting than those of the white house's press room.
To be clear, you are comparing being banned from official White House press briefings to being refused a seat on Air Force one for four days for campaign coverage.
Do you not see a problem with cutting people who just so happen to work for newspapers that endorsed his opponent? On the balance, would cutting those people improve or degrade the quality of media coverage of Obama, compared to cutting reporters who are already on his side?
