nortex97 said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

The difference is that a Democrat administration, to my knowledge, hasn't been so afraid of the other side's media that they've resorted to banning major outlets in their entirety from the White House.

It's the difference between welcoming discourse and engaging in it vs. censorship.

If the Blue news outlets are not reporting things factually, the administration should simply present the facts rather than resorting to censorship.

---

There's no censorship of any kind involved in this story. CNN (which is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such) doesn't have a constitutional right to office space at the White House, any more than you or I do.

They are just as free to continue spewing their bile online today as last week. HTH.

Oh, and the Obama administration did kick Fox News out of rotations with the Treasury Dept, and surveilled/investigated James Rosen unconstitutionally which comes much closer to the 'censorship' threshold imho.

The treatment of me by the @BarackObama and @JoeBiden White Houses is the subject of misinformation on this and other platforms on nearly an hourly basis. I see it every day of my life. An earlier thread involving the X accounts posted below, regrettably, marks no exception.… pic.twitter.com/39Shrq2HnH

— James Rosen (@JamesRosenTV) June 26, 2025

Among many other abusive acts using the intelligence community resources, as many of us remember. Heck, under the Biden(*) administration the FCC was overtly politicized to target Fox News/censor conservatives. To say nothing of the 'Disinformation Governance Board' created to censor media coverage under the contemptible Nina Jancowicz who later fled to London to operate the censorship industrial complex from abroad.

Quote:

---

The decision to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board represents a significant victory for free speech advocates, who argued that the initiative posed a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into the realm of protected speech. While acknowledging the legitimate concerns about the spread of disinformation, particularly in the context of elections and national security, critics stressed the importance of safeguarding free expression and ensuring that government efforts to combat disinformation do not inadvertently stifle legitimate dissent. The controversy surrounding the Board highlights the delicate balance between protecting national security and upholding fundamental freedoms, a balance that remains a subject of ongoing debate in the digital age.

This incident also underscores the deep-seated distrust towards government involvement in regulating information online. The rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation poses significant challenges to democratic societies, but finding effective and ethically sound solutions requires careful consideration of potential consequences for free expression. The experience with the Disinformation Governance Board serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the importance of robust public discourse and meticulous planning when addressing complex issues like online disinformation. Moving forward, any government initiatives in this area must prioritize transparency, accountability, and respect for constitutional rights.

The DHS has indicated that it will explore alternative approaches to combatting disinformation, including focusing on enhancing media literacy and partnering with civil society organizations. The department also emphasized the need for greater collaboration with social media platforms to address the spread of harmful content. The challenge of combating disinformation without compromising free speech remains a complex one, requiring a nuanced approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of the problem. The lessons learned from the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board will hopefully inform future efforts and ensure that any government initiatives in this space are designed with careful consideration for the fundamental principles of free expression.

---

That is what government censorship looks/sounds like. Leftists/communists/Democrats cannot tolerate ever being criticized/mocked.

---

Sort of. Their ban lasted a couple of hours because all the other major media outlets formed a boycott of covering the Administration, and the ban was rescinded.
The "Biden revoked 400 passes" was because they changed the rules and applied them equally to all media wanting credentials. Perfectly legal.
Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right; it's still two wrongs.

13B said:

---

Coachlandryhat said:

---

Of course dissenting opinions will be silence. No use and trying to argue your point anymore. Just remove them. Why stop at this just cancel the federal license they need to broadcast. I remember when Republicans stood for freedom. This isnt freedom. These fake news organizations don't have to tell lies anymore he is doing it all on his own. He said the war is coming to a end weekly for the last 6 months he is the one not being truthful.

---

So much failure in one post. From misspellings, incorrect grammar and over the top hyperbole. And yet..4 people actually starred this. Unbelievable.

---

So you care about spellings and grammar from a random poster but not from the President of the United States? How did we get here....

the president purposefully misspells as code to Q and grammar errors are made because he wants intellectuals to criticize, showing their disdain for the common man.

Not surprised you don't understand the chess game he's playing.

richardag said:

---

doubledog said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

If you refuse to recognize basic objective reality you make discussions exceedingly pointless.

---

You're making the argument that because some groups calling themselves Marxist identify within the DSA umbrella that makes anyone that is part of DSA a Marxist. It's lazy thinking. The only person actually asserted by someone here as a Marxist has explicitly denied being one. Your original assertion remains unproven.

Good day sir.

---

Core Beliefs of Marxism

• Class Struggle: History is driven by a conflict between social classes.
• Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat: Capitalism pits the ruling class (the bourgeoisie, who own the factories and resources) against the working class (the proletariat, who sell their labor).
• Economic Exploitation: Marxists believe capitalism exploits workers by taking the value of their labor to generate private profit.
• Revolution and Change: The system will face a worker revolution, leading to a socialist society and eventually a classless, communist order

They may not state that they are a Marxist, but at their core MOST of the DSA members believe the same things.

---

Agreed
DSA Platform

• Class Struggle: Empower workers to come together and fight the boss. For the working class to govern, we need a new political system.
• Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat:DSA has written this program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy. To achieve this future, our class must organize. fully abolishing the police and prison system which protects the rich and jails the poor.
• Economic Exploitation:Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.
• Revolution and Change: DSA has written this program for ending capitalist oligarchy and creating a real democracy. Some of these demands may be won under our current system, but we know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up. We push these demands to their furthest extent today, so we can fight for their fullest realization in a socialist future. Join us.

Note: if it sounds like a duck …,,,…

---

Yeah, that's Marxism. Sorry DSA defenders.

Geminiv said:

---

13B said:

---

Coachlandryhat said:

---

Of course dissenting opinions will be silence. No use and trying to argue your point anymore. Just remove them. Why stop at this just cancel the federal license they need to broadcast. I remember when Republicans stood for freedom. This isnt freedom. These fake news organizations don't have to tell lies anymore he is doing it all on his own. He said the war is coming to a end weekly for the last 6 months he is the one not being truthful.

---

So much failure in one post. From misspellings, incorrect grammar and over the top hyperbole. And yet..4 people actually starred this. Unbelievable.

---

So you care about spellings and grammar from a random poster but not from the President of the United States? How did we get here....

---

Ironically we got here because of fake news and lies of the media.

nortex97 said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

The difference is that a Democrat administration, to my knowledge, hasn't been so afraid of the other side's media that they've resorted to banning major outlets in their entirety from the White House.

It's the difference between welcoming discourse and engaging in it vs. censorship.

If the Blue news outlets are not reporting things factually, the administration should simply present the facts rather than resorting to censorship.

---

There's no censorship of any kind involved in this story. CNN (which is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such) doesn't have a constitutional right to office space at the White House, any more than you or I do.

They are just as free to continue spewing their bile online today as last week. HTH.

Oh, and the Obama administration did kick Fox News out of rotations with the Treasury Dept, and surveilled/investigated James Rosen unconstitutionally which comes much closer to the 'censorship' threshold imho.

The treatment of me by the @BarackObama and @JoeBiden White Houses is the subject of misinformation on this and other platforms on nearly an hourly basis. I see it every day of my life. An earlier thread involving the X accounts posted below, regrettably, marks no exception.… pic.twitter.com/39Shrq2HnH

— James Rosen (@JamesRosenTV) June 26, 2025

Among many other abusive acts using the intelligence community resources, as many of us remember. Heck, under the Biden(*) administration the FCC was overtly politicized to target Fox News/censor conservatives. To say nothing of the 'Disinformation Governance Board' created to censor media coverage under the contemptible Nina Jancowicz who later fled to London to operate the censorship industrial complex from abroad.

Quote:

---

The decision to shut down the Disinformation Governance Board represents a significant victory for free speech advocates, who argued that the initiative posed a dangerous precedent for government intrusion into the realm of protected speech. While acknowledging the legitimate concerns about the spread of disinformation, particularly in the context of elections and national security, critics stressed the importance of safeguarding free expression and ensuring that government efforts to combat disinformation do not inadvertently stifle legitimate dissent. The controversy surrounding the Board highlights the delicate balance between protecting national security and upholding fundamental freedoms, a balance that remains a subject of ongoing debate in the digital age.

This incident also underscores the deep-seated distrust towards government involvement in regulating information online. The rapid spread of misinformation and disinformation poses significant challenges to democratic societies, but finding effective and ethically sound solutions requires careful consideration of potential consequences for free expression. The experience with the Disinformation Governance Board serves as a cautionary tale, illustrating the importance of robust public discourse and meticulous planning when addressing complex issues like online disinformation. Moving forward, any government initiatives in this area must prioritize transparency, accountability, and respect for constitutional rights.

The DHS has indicated that it will explore alternative approaches to combatting disinformation, including focusing on enhancing media literacy and partnering with civil society organizations. The department also emphasized the need for greater collaboration with social media platforms to address the spread of harmful content. The challenge of combating disinformation without compromising free speech remains a complex one, requiring a nuanced approach that acknowledges the multifaceted nature of the problem. The lessons learned from the short-lived Disinformation Governance Board will hopefully inform future efforts and ensure that any government initiatives in this space are designed with careful consideration for the fundamental principles of free expression.

---

That is what government censorship looks/sounds like. Leftists/communists/Democrats cannot tolerate ever being criticized/mocked.

---

Thank you for the facts, with the receipts.
The hyperbolic BS comparing what President Trump proposes with the truth is astounding.

0bama and Biden were thin skinned clowns, too.

Those are fair points to bring up that add nuance to my comment, where I was probably too broad in sounding like Democrats never engaged in anything similar. The Obama administration did have documented conflicts with Fox News, including the 2009 Treasury dispute, and the James Rosen investigation involved DOJ obtaining a secret warrant for a Fox News reporter's communications while investigating a classified-information leak. However, Rosen was never charged, and DOJ subsequently revised its media-leak policies to impose greater protections around investigations involving journalists. I think the Rosen investigation was a bad move, and the subsequent policy changes were intended to put stronger safeguards in place. If there was another comparable case after those changes, I'm happy to be corrected, but I haven't found one. Still, I'd separate those facts from the argument that CNN has a constitutional right to White House office space, because that's not what I was arguing.

The relevant question is whether restricting a news organization's access because of its reporting raises a press-freedom or First Amendment issue. It can, and saying "they don't have a constitutional right to an office" doesn't resolve that question.

Donald Trump is now specifically barring multiple news organizations from White House access, and he cited their coverage as the reason, describing it as "FAKE NEWS." Whatever the ultimate constitutional determination turns out to be, excluding multiple entire news orgs on that basis is broader than simply criticizing an outlet or excluding an individual reporter.

Obama and Biden certainly criticized Fox News and, as the Rosen example demonstrates, the Obama administration engaged in conduct toward a Fox News journalist that raised serious press-freedom concerns. But Fox News continued to have access to the White House during those administrations. I think that distinction is important, but I can acknowledge that the Democratic administrations also had conflicts with the press

On Biden's FCC censoring Fox, I know the current FCC chair has made accusations, but I don't see anything other than the current FCC chair claiming these things. Were there any legal action from Fox about censorship or denying licenses?

The Disinformation Governance Board is another example where I think the actual facts are more interesting than the rhetoric around them. Yes, there were/are legitimate concerns about whether a federal government entity tasked with combating misinformation could have implications for free speech. But the board was described as an internal coordination and best-practices body, not as an agency with authority to censor journalists or determine what Americans could publish. DHS's inspector general confirmed that the board was created and then paused shortly afterward. I don't see any evidence of it operating as a censorship apparatus. And I'd definitely leave Nina Jankowicz's alleged "flight to London to operate the censorship industrial complex" out of a factual discussion. She did go to work for the UK-based Centre for Information Resilience. That's not the same thing as fleeing the United States to continue a U.S. government censorship operation.

I think one of the biggest issues in our country is the erosion of trust in our institutions. The news is definitely one of those institutions, and it has done plenty to contribute to the public's distrust of it. But I don't think restricting journalists' access to the executive branch because of their coverage is likely to do much to restore public trust in either the media or the government. If anything, it creates another question about whether government officials are willing to tolerate scrutiny from outlets they dislike.

Describing it as "fake news" is actually correct, in that it is not news, but propaganda to prop up one side while tearing down the other.

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

That's not the issue.

So what is the issue?

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

I agree that they don't have a right to an office in the White House. I don't think that they do. I do think that excluding several news outlets entirely erodes public trust in the executive branch.

I also think it raises a question on those outlets' First Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee access to facilities or government officials. But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

EFR said:

---

So you also agree it is not "zero". I appreciate it.

---

My Lord, do you listen to yourself? Want a win? Sure, I'll agree it's not "zero". Heck, I'll even grant you 1,000 a month, though I'm not confident it's that high.

Now, let's compare that to 10,000 A DAY under the administration you voted for, and then tell me what is more damaging to the country? 10,000,000+ illegals added in 4 years, or the fact that a president used the term "zero" when that's not 100% accurate?

Your argument is weapons grade insanity.

What are you dems upset about? They can carry on their usual lying and misinformation, just can't go in that room. I'm sure you're watching it now.

Ok, I don't think an exact parallel to kicking CNN out of 1600 Penn Ave. exists, fine. But the broader use of censorship tools is exactly what the swamp embraced under Obama, and then Xiden/autopen(*) (often using the Covid-Fauci pandemic as pretext.). This is much broader than just 'office space' ostensibly impacting coverage, and reaches globally. It was in no way limited to 'just' censorship of Hunter's laptop, or Russiagate narrative engineering. Catherine Herridge is among the many who are well aware of the CIA snooping on their devices, and suppression of Chinese interference in our elections/media.

See: National Endowment for Democracy, as a starting point. It's real, still fully funded, and metastasizing even today.

If it seems insane Republicans won Presidency, House & Senate yet still fund the #1 org at the heart of the Censorship Industrial Complex, here's a history lesson. NED was designed — by its CIA architect, no less — to be "invulnerable to alternation of party control and policy" pic.twitter.com/OVJJfI6dEp

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 28, 2026

I literally knew nothing about Rep. Castro's activities in the Censorship Industrial Complex when I started this thread. All I knew was that Castro is on NED's board, so therefore he had to be involved, and boy was I not surprised at all by what I found... https://t.co/Pk9VUL446q

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) January 30, 2026

Benz and DataRepublican have reams of posts on this topic (including the CIA proxy USAID/USIP teams), which we've discussed on this forum in the 'purging of the deep state' thread for 2+ years now. I won't go too far into it here but if interested in real, active censorship of online/media coverage/political speech, there's the real 'issue.'

Internews alone funneled/spent more than a half billion dollars 'training' and indoctrinating proper democrat-aligned political speech.

MidRatsAg said:

---

The difference is that a Democrat administration, to my knowledge, hasn't been so afraid of the other side's media that they've resorted to banning major outlets in their entirety from the White House.

It's the difference between welcoming discourse and engaging in it vs. censorship.

If the Blue news outlets are not reporting things factually, the administration should simply present the facts rather than resorting to censorship.

---

Not being invited into someone's home is not censorship. Being on the White House grounds, aboard AF1 and the like - those are privileges not rights.

CNN and others remain free to spout their bull**** 24/7. They are just no longer going to be given additional access because they use that access to attack and spread misinformation, and Trump has had enough.

Censorship is what happened under COVID. Censorship is "fact-checking" POTUS with lies in order to score points for their political allies.

Do you really think Trump is afraid? That's the sort of mental mind tricks Texas and Baylor said when the Ags left to go to the SEC.

CNN and others banned from Waffle House

flown-the-coop said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

The difference is that a Democrat administration, to my knowledge, hasn't been so afraid of the other side's media that they've resorted to banning major outlets in their entirety from the White House.

It's the difference between welcoming discourse and engaging in it vs. censorship.

If the Blue news outlets are not reporting things factually, the administration should simply present the facts rather than resorting to censorship.

---

Not being invited into someone's home is not censorship. Being on the White House grounds, aboard AF1 and the like - those are privileges not rights.

CNN and others remain free to spout their bull**** 24/7. They are just no longer going to be given additional access because they use that access to attack and spread misinformation, and Trump has had enough.

Censorship is what happened under COVID. Censorship is "fact-checking" POTUS with lies in order to score points for their political allies.

Do you really think Trump is afraid? That's the sort of mental mind tricks Texas and Baylor said when the Ags left to go to the SEC.

---

I'll quote a previous reply I made a few minutes ago that I think explains my opinion in response to your statements:

Quote:

---

I do think that excluding several news outlets entirely erodes public trust in the executive branch.

I also think it raises a question about those outlets' First Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee access to facilities or government officials. But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

Oyster DuPree said:

---

CNN and others banned from Waffle House

---

And Spirit airlines.

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

During 4 years of the Biden administration, they granted a total of…. ZERO interviews to Fox News.

Candidate Kamala did one interview with Bret Baier in the final glowing days of her 107 Days to Fweedom.

So, defenders of CNN, where is this right of equal access?

How many times were Fox reporters ignored during press conferences and gaggles? Newsmax? OANN?

Biden literally selected reporters and agreed questions for their pressers of which there were few.

Acting like the Trump admin is some sort of secret society of mass censorship is about the most laughable, deranged take that truly exposes some folks will never recover from 2 terms of Trump.

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

schmendeler said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

richardag said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

Rockdoc said:

---

Stay calm. You'll get over it. You'll still get your distorted liberal news from the same old liberal outlets.

---

Seeing you guys just swallow everything he does is so precious. Very good-girl coded.

---

Disagreeing with your hyperbolic rants only means several posters believe you don't have a rational argument.

---

Maga said goodbye to rationality about a decade ago

---

This was Trump's inauguration.

Please continue your rants that the RIGHT said goodbye to rationality...

---

One chick ten years ago. The amount of use you guys have gotten from it is impressive.

---

Yeah. It was JUST ONE. Do they pay you by the gaslight?

jrdaustin said:

---

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

I think you're on a slippery slope with this argument, because you're limiting the definition of "excluding participants".

Why? The Biden administration allowed opposing media into the room, but only allowed questions from compliant media that had previously agreed to ask pre-approved questions in which answers, along with a picture of the reporter Biden was to call upon, were written on a piece of paper for Biden to read from.

I would argue that anyone not on that piece of paper was "excluded" under your definition.

Yet, there was zero outrage from the members of the media that were politically aligned with the administration.

I'm sick of the hypocrisy.

---

What's crazy is they have no ability to see or acknowledge their hyposcrisy when presented with clear evidence of such. Going as far as to say not having CNN in the room undermines public faith in the Executive. But as you point out, only calling on certain reporters at the "public" forums gave us great confidence.

Again, in the entirety of the Biden administration he never sat down once with a hostile, honest reporter. NOT ONCE.

The DSA response to that on this thread… crickets.

schmendeler said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

If you refuse to recognize basic objective reality you make discussions exceedingly pointless.

---

You're making the argument that because some groups calling themselves Marxist identify within the DSA umbrella that makes anyone that is part of DSA a Marxist. It's lazy thinking. The only person actually asserted by someone here as a Marxist has explicitly denied being one. Your original assertion remains unproven.

Good day sir.

---

Hey...your party is the one that keeps picking them...so...

richardag said:

---

EFR said:

---

This gets tiresome, I can't believe people are determined to believe he did these things.
-violent crime has been on a downward for years.

• Violent Crime Falls at Historic Rate, New FBI Data Show

-higher median income…yep, inflation has a way of doing that.

• Americans are richer than ever and poverty hits an all-time low (numbers adjusted for inflation)

illegal immigration is not "zero".

• Tenth straight month of zero illegal aliens released at the border

That is just a few on your list that jumped out at me, but the game is on now.

---

---

Watch out.

Facts will make them sad.

MidRatsAg said:

---

The difference is that a Democrat administration, to my knowledge, hasn't been so afraid of the other side's media that they've resorted to banning major outlets in their entirety from the White House.

It's the difference between welcoming discourse and engaging in it vs. censorship.

If the Blue news outlets are not reporting things factually, the administration should simply present the facts rather than resorting to censorship.

---

The left got really good at censorship of social media, so they have that going for them.

Ag with kids said:

---

richardag said:

---

EFR said:

---

This gets tiresome, I can't believe people are determined to believe he did these things.
-violent crime has been on a downward for years.

• Violent Crime Falls at Historic Rate, New FBI Data Show

-higher median income…yep, inflation has a way of doing that.

• Americans are richer than ever and poverty hits an all-time low (numbers adjusted for inflation)

illegal immigration is not "zero".

• Tenth straight month of zero illegal aliens released at the border

That is just a few on your list that jumped out at me, but the game is on now.

---

---

Watch out.

Facts will make them sad.

---

"The New York City and Los Angeles police departments are among the 40% of law enforcement agencies nationwide not sharing their 2021 crime data with the FBI."


The data is bogus

CNN, MSNOW, and Politico are not news, they are content creators.

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

MidRatsAg said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Denying office space in no way infringes upon their right to write, publish, or air their opinions.

---

I agree that they don't have a right to an office in the White House. I don't think that they do. I do think that excluding several news outlets entirely erodes public trust in the executive branch.

I also think it raises a question on those outlets' First Amendment rights. The First Amendment doesn't guarantee access to facilities or government officials. But when the government creates a public forum or access program, excluding participants because of their viewpoints can raise a First Amendment question.

---

You'd be right if they were simply viewpoints.

When you report 99-100 percent negative on this it's propoganda.

flown-the-coop said:

---

They have not been silenced, so there is no "violation of first amendment rights". To say so shows a very poor understanding of freedom of speech and press - as the FFs intended and as the people of the United States have intended and supported.

The comment about eroding trust in the executive is pure hooey. Seriously? No one can type that and think they are making an honest take.

Trump provides more public access and insight into his presidency, his entire administration, the White House, all of it. Yet somehow having Caitlin Collin's from CNN in the room ensures public trust in Trump?

Seriously?


Seriously?

---

I do think there's a question. The D.C. Circuit court has specifically held that once the White House establishes press facilities and access for journalists, the First Amendment protections apply and prohibit content-based exclusion.

Quote:

---

At the core of the Press Clause is the right to publish without requiring prior government approval. Although licensing systems were a common form of prior restraint when early conceptions of freedom of the press were debated in England, a modern equivalent is the use of government-imposed criteria to determine which media representatives may attend press conferences and briefings. When the government controls who has access to information, it effectively controls who is able to publish that information.

---

samurai_science said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

richardag said:

---

EFR said:

---

This gets tiresome, I can't believe people are determined to believe he did these things.
-violent crime has been on a downward for years.

• Violent Crime Falls at Historic Rate, New FBI Data Show

-higher median income…yep, inflation has a way of doing that.

• Americans are richer than ever and poverty hits an all-time low (numbers adjusted for inflation)

illegal immigration is not "zero".

• Tenth straight month of zero illegal aliens released at the border

That is just a few on your list that jumped out at me, but the game is on now.

---

---

Watch out.

Facts will make them sad.

---

"The New York City and Los Angeles police departments are among the 40% of law enforcement agencies nationwide not sharing their 2021 crime data with the FBI."


The data is bogus

---

"Incomplete " would be a better term.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

---

Were they denied based on the content of their reporting?

Silent For Too Long said:

---

The Cherokeen Herald out of Rusk. Texas had never been given a press pass. Does that mean the good people of Rusk have been denied their constitutional rights?

---

Has The Cherokeen Herald applied for a press pass, and do they meet the content neutral requirements that are in place to get a press pass?
That's quite a dumb argument you have.