Why Trump was 100 percent right to revoke the Washington Post’s press credentials

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why Trump was 100 percent right to revoke the Washington Post’s press credentials
Canada Free Press, 06/15/16, Dan Calabrese

You have heard in the past few days that Donald Trump has “banned” the Washington Post from covering his campaign. He has done no such thing. He can do no such thing. The Post can write about Trump’s campaign every day, and they have continued to do so. What Trump has done is revoked the press credentials of the Post’s reporters who want to attend his campaign events as working media. And had I been Trump after the events of the past few days, I would have done the exact same thing.

Here’s why:

In his comments following the Orlando terrorist attack, Trump suggested that President Obama either doesn’t understand the nature of the radical Islamist threat against the nation, or perhaps on some level has some sympathy for the position of the radical Islamists. That is hardly a novel theory. Many have advanced it. We have done so here.

The Post reported this with the following headline:  “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting.” That was a flat-out, bold-faced, 100 percent intentional lie. At no point did Trump suggest any such thing, and as soon as he became aware of the headline, Trump denounced the Post for making the claim.

Almost immediately, the Post changed the headline in its online edition to the mealy-mouthed “Donald Trump Seems to Connect President Obama to Orlando Shooting.” Even that is an utter fabrication. Trump’s statement was certainly harsh, even to the point where he called on Obama to resign for being either unwilling or unable to deal with the threat in a serious way. But suggesting that Obama had something to do with the shooting is not even in the same universe with what Trump said.

So does the punishment fit the crime? Absolutely. Contrary to what you’ve been hearing, Trump did not revoke the Post’s credentials because they’ve been critical of him. He revoked them because they’re just plain making stuff up about him. The media environment being what it is, a headline is written, it gets shared on social media thousands of times - and many people don’t even click to read the story. They simply saw on Facebook or Twitter that Trump said Obama was involved in the shooting. And hey! It wasn’t just from some nutty fringe web site. It was from the Washington Post!

People think that because the Washington Post is established and supposedly serious, they would certainly not make up complete nonsense and put it in a headline. That’s for satire sites like The Onion, or for hyper-partisan morons who will say anything. But if the Post would say it! It must be true!

No. It’s not true. No, the Post cannot be trusted. Yes, the Post would just make s*** up. And while Trump’s revocation of its press credentials will not stop the Post from reporting on his campaign, it will at least provide the opportunity to call the Post’s credibility into question.

We’ve already told you that the Post is in the tank for Hillary with respect to the e-mail investigation, even going so far as to actively help the Justice Department sabotage the FBI’s work. So now we see that in addition to covering up the truth about Hillary’s lawbreaking, the Post is also willing to make up total lies about Trump saying completely outrageous things about the president of the United States.
 What all this adds up to is that Trump has every reason not to trust the Washington Post. And when you don’t trust someone, you don’t work with them.

An unwise man once told me you don’t pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. That advice was unwise because it fails to understand that the man who owns the barrels of ink is actively at war with you. You can fight back, and you should. The Post will surely respond with even more partisan attacks on Trump, but at least it is now on the public record that the Post has earned its way off the press credential list.

Most of the media will pretend Trump only did this because they covered him unfavorably. That is not true. He did it because they flat-out lied about him, and everyone who forms an opinion about this should know that’s why it happened.


http://canadafreepress.com/article/why-trump-was-100-percent-right-to-revoke-the-washington-posts-press-creden

[sinkspur]

So Trump can rely on Trumpbart and Gateway Pundit and the nightly interviews he gets on FOXNEWS to get his message out.

The cable nets are not covering his rallies any longer, so he's basically having to say outrageous stuff to get on the news.

And, boy, is he good at that.

[Right_in_Virginia]

So Trump can rely on Trumpbart and Gateway Pundit and the nightly interviews he gets on FOXNEWS to get his message out.

The cable nets are not covering his rallies any longer, so he's basically having to say outrageous stuff to get on the news.

And, boy, is he good at that.

What took you so long?   

[Fantom]

Because Der Furer is not to be questioned.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Because Der Furer is not to be questioned.

Yeah, too clever by half.

But I am glad to see someone finally doing what we've begged them to do for years and years:  shine a light on the corrupt press in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Trump 

[oldmomster]

Yeah, too clever by half.

But I am glad to see someone finally doing what we've begged them to do for years and years:  shine a light on the corrupt press in this country.

....and someone with a big enough wallet and podium to do something about it.   Remember the Journolist scandal about Jeremiah Wright?  Media was complicit in covering up how radical he was. 

So here they are again, actually twisting what was said.  Its one of the reasons I always look for the transcript or watch the video - you just cant trust the print edition of the dem-RAT party.

[txradioguy]

Interesting that a newspaper article from a country that doesn't have free speech rights under a First Amendment like we do is used to bolster yet another juvenile act by Trump.

What's next...an Op/Ed from Der Spiegel or Le Mond to defend Trump's cave on the 2nd Amendment?

 

[RedHead]

No, the Post cannot be trusted. Yes, the Post would just make s*** up.

And if true that would make them different from Trump how?

[DCPatriot]

And if true that would make them different from Trump how?

So, IOW....to you, there's absolutely no difference between the Washington Post printing lies and one individual 'lying'?   

[jmyrlefuller]

So, IOW....to you, there's absolutely no difference between the Washington Post printing lies and one individual 'lying'?   

So, IOW....to you, there is?

[Oceander]

Yeah, too clever by half.

But I am glad to see someone finally doing what we've begged them to do for years and years:  shine a light on the corrupt press in this country.

Thank you, Mr. Trump 

How is petulantly denying press credentials to a Washington Post reporter shining a light on anything but Trump's thin-skinned ego?

Refusing press credentials doesn't provide even a scintilla of evidence that the rejected journalist, much less the publication he writes for, is corrupt or is lying, or is even being slipshod and negligent.  All it is evidence of is the petulance of the person who refused the credentials. 

[oldmomster]

Would Obama be president if not for the Journolists?  Media outlets conspired to cover up stories that might harm his campaign.  Perhaps if this had been revealed BEFORE the elections, we would have different outcomes - and we wouldn't be washing the blood off the walls in America.

'depths of unethical behavior these leading journalists were prepared to go to for the sake of helping their favored candidate. They even discussed launching groundless accusations of racism against conservative journalists, for the sake of stopping the story'

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/roddreher/2010/07/the-outrageous-journolist-scandal.html

[Oceander]

Would Obama be president if not for the Journolists?  Media outlets conspired to cover up stories that might harm his campaign.  Perhaps if this had been revealed BEFORE the elections, we would have different outcomes - and we wouldn't be washing the blood off the walls in America.

'depths of unethical behavior these leading journalists were prepared to go to for the sake of helping their favored candidate. They even discussed launching groundless accusations of racism against conservative journalists, for the sake of stopping the story'

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/roddreher/2010/07/the-outrageous-journolist-scandal.html

I'm pretty sure Obama would have still been elected in 2008, given that (a) he would still be the First Black President, and (b) he was still running against McCain, who did a poor job of running. 

[libertybele]

I see this as a desperate attempt by Trump who now seems to realize that the media is now going to start to slowly crush him. 

[oldmomster]

I'm pretty sure Obama would have still been elected in 2008, given that (a) he would still be the First Black President, and (b) he was still running against McCain, who did a poor job of running.

Possibly, BUT......Wrights sermons were positively EVIL.  The media NEVER investigated obama and glossed over every single question about his history.  Remember listening to the two 'icons' in the news media asking 'just WHO is obama, what do we know about him' AFTER the election.  He was never held to the same standards as Repubs.   

Yes, McCain was a horrible candidate - the only saving grace was the opportunity to vote for Palin.

Look at the Romney campaign - they were interviewing his High School classmates - did they do the same for obama?  Yet any discussion of throwing the media liars out and they scream censorship.   They are just an arm of dem'RAT party and they need to be called out.  I'm glad Trump is doing it - just my .02 cents!

[Oceander]

Possibly, BUT......Wrights sermons were positively EVIL.  The media NEVER investigated obama and glossed over every single question about his history.  Remember listening to the two 'icons' in the news media asking 'just WHO is obama, what do we know about him' AFTER the election.  He was never held to the same standards as Repubs.   

Yes, McCain was a horrible candidate - the only saving grace was the opportunity to vote for Palin.

Look at the Romney campaign - they were interviewing his High School classmates - did they do the same for obama?  Yet any discussion of throwing the media liars out and they scream censorship.   They are just an arm of dem'RAT party and they need to be called out.  I'm glad Trump is doing it - just my .02 cents!

The discussion on Obama could be interesting. 

Trump isn't calling them out on anything.  How does denying press credentials to one journalist from one publication call anyone or anything out?   What is it evidence of?

[oldmomster]

The discussion on Obama could be interesting. 

Trump isn't calling them out on anything.  How does denying press credentials to one journalist from one publication call anyone or anything out?   What is it evidence of?

When ONE journalist lies, gets caught, and has credentials pulled its evidence of....LYING.  This rag that claims to be unbiased just took a hit.  Perhaps the next headline will be more truthful.  We really should demand MORE truth from the media......all of them.

[RedHead]

So, IOW....to you, there's absolutely no difference between the Washington Post printing lies and one individual 'lying'?   

No, the statement was that the Post can't be trusted and that they constantly make things up.  If Trump has shown us anything it's that he can't be trusted and constantly makes things up.  So if that's grounds for banning from a campaign then Trump should be long gone.