Donald Trump BANS Washington Post From Campaign Events!

[flowers]

Donald J. Trump
41 mins ·

Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.

https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/

[thatcher]

Sorry, flowers.  I didn't see your this until after posting mine.  Will remove it if you like.

[jmyrlefuller]

Well, that oughtta stop'em! /sarc

It's not like his rallies are so hard to find on TV and the Internet...

[geronl]

He should ban all media! No more TV! 

[geronl]

phony and dishonest

Trump is the expert in those.

[flowers]

Sorry, flowers.  I didn't see your this until after posting mine.  Will remove it if you like.

   @thatcher no worries.  Maybe @mystery-ak can merge them?

[mlizzy]

Trump is the expert in those.

The phony tan ban man?

[LadyLiberty]

Interesting.  Even Nixon didn't ban the Washington Post from The White House during water gate.   It won't stop them from reporting, though.

[sinkspur]

[ABX]

Interesting.  Even Nixon didn't ban the Washington Post from The White House during water gate.   It won't stop them from reporting, though.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[sinkspur]

More Trump:

[musiclady]

Interesting.  Even Nixon didn't ban the Washington Post from The White House during water gate.   It won't stop them from reporting, though.

Richard Nixon was far more honorable a man than Donald Trump is.

I guess narcissism trumps paranoia when it comes to censorship. 

[sinkspur]

If it comes down to a battle between a rich guy and REALLY rich guy, I'll bet on the REALLY rich guy.

[WAC]

Well the journalists and news agencies will be begin positioning themselves to be favored or not for White-House Briefings and special considerations from who they might see will be the next Pres. I suspect the Washington Post just got an unfavorable notice so we'll see some sort of apology down the road.

[WAC]

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I figure the closer Trump rubs shoulders with the Washington people etc. the more he's certainly getting an education about the waters he's going to be swimming in. ..and the state of affairs in this country and the world won't be as he thinks they are any more than what see them as.

First thing in Washington any Pres. experiences........SHOCK!

[ABX]

I figure the closer Trump rubs shoulders with the Washington people etc. the more he's certainly getting an education about the waters he's going to be swimming in. ..and the state of affairs in this country and the world won't be as he thinks they are any more than what see them as.

First thing in Washington any Pres. experiences........SHOCK!

Except he has been the other side of the cronyism coin for a long time. At that, some of his supporters even praise him for it saying he knows how the game is played (and he had to play it in his business is the excuse). He isn't new to this. He isn't getting an education- he is giving one, in high dollar cronyism and quid pro quo.

[geronl]

Well the journalists and news agencies will be begin positioning themselves to be favored or not for White-House Briefings and special considerations from who they might see will be the next Pres. I suspect the Washington Post just got an unfavorable notice so we'll see some sort of apology down the road.

All they did was quote his own words from a Fox News interview.

[sinkspur]

Well the journalists and news agencies will be begin positioning themselves to be favored or not for White-House Briefings and special considerations from who they might see will be the next Pres. I suspect the Washington Post just got an unfavorable notice so we'll see some sort of apology down the road.

Nah.  Trump will reinstate the WaPos credentials soon.   Newspapers don't apologize to crudities.

[RedHead]

Here's the article that has Trump's shorts in a twist.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/13/donald-trump-suggests-president-obama-was-involved-with-orlando-shooting/

I don't see where it's lying or dishonest.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

My understanding is that they changed the first headline after an hour or so -- the original one was as quoted in Trump's statement.  As much as I think banning the Post is dumb, I agree the headline is/was very bogus.  Because if you read it as written, it sounds like Trump believes Obama was involved in the execution of attack, not just negligently let it happen.

[Mesaclone]

My understanding is that they changed the first headline after an hour or so -- the original one was as quoted in Trump's statement.  As much as I think banning the Post is dumb, I agree the headline is/was very bogus.  Because if you read it as written, it sounds like Trump believes Obama was involved in the execution of attack, not just negligently let it happen.

You nail the gist of the situation. I also would not have gone for a full ban, though he has the right to determine who does and does not come to his private campaign events...a right he will not have as president in a genuinely public forum. That said, the media is innately anti-Republican and much of it operates in a deliberately biased fashion. The fact that he punches back a bit when there is an egregiously false story/headline is understandable, and may help limit the overt bias that the media tends towards. So I think you are correct, Bill, that this is tactically not his best move...but I can see how strategically he is trying to bring a little pain when the media acts as a wing of the Clinton campaign. This may, over time, help enforce a little bit of...if not impartiality...less overt partisanship from some reporting agencies.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm actually withholding judgement on this.  The fact that the WP pulled the original headline within an hour suggest to me 1) there is a real anti-Trump bias problem there, and 2) someone blew the whistle and the WP yanked it fast.  The yanking of the headline is a tacit admission that they screwed up.

So if his campaign lifts the ban after a week or so, and that causes the WP to pay a little more attention so crappy headlines don't come out in the first place...I wouldn't really have a problem with that.  I mean, as much as I think he's a gigantic douchenozzle, there is a giant feeding frenzy by the press trying to spin things, even when he's more or less right.  They absolutely hate him.  So...maybe this isn't such a bad move.

What kind of bugs me about this whole thing is that I think Trump's response was a hell of a lot better than Hillary's, and particularly Obama's, and yet the press is giving them a completely free pass.  I don't think all of us should be aiding/abetting that just because we don't like Trump.

[sinkspur]

You nail the gist of the situation. I also would not have gone for a full ban, though he has the right to determine who does and does not come to his private campaign events...a right he will not have as president in a genuinely public forum. That said, the media is innately anti-Republican and much of it operates in a deliberately biased fashion. The fact that he punches back a bit when there is an egregiously false story/headline is understandable, and may help limit the overt bias that the media tends towards. So I think you are correct, Bill, that this is tactically not his best move...but I can see how strategically he is trying to bring a little pain when the media acts as a wing of the Clinton campaign. This may, over time, help enforce a little bit of...if not impartiality...less overt partisanship from some reporting agencies.

Trump's already got a few leakers in his campaign, and they'll sqwak like parrots to the Post now. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Trump's already got a few leakers in his campaign, and they'll sqwak like parrots to the Post now.

Oh, I don't think it's really an issue of that will affect the coverage much.  It'll make them a little bit slow, and it's a bit embarrassing.  Not really a big deal other than as symbolism.

[r9etb]