I could be offering up my review of a tune the I enjoy from Pink Floyd or I could be writing about the ‘wall’ of exclusion on the Southern border…..but I am not at this time…..I am talking about the wall the Trump is building around himself w2hich is also a ‘wall’ of exclusion…..if you are not on-board with the whole MAGA BS then you will be excluded.
He is slowly trying to exclude anyone from government that could possibly stand in his ascension to deity.
The newest attack is on the press….
The White House said Tuesday that its officials “will decide” which news outlets can regularly cover President Trump up close—a sharp break from a century of tradition in which a pool of independently chosen news organizations go where the chief executive does and hold him accountable on behalf of regular Americans. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the changes would rotate traditional outlets from the group and include some streaming services, the AP reports. She cast the change as a modernization of the press pool, saying the move would be more inclusive and restore “access back to the American people” who elected Trump.
- “Moving forward, the White House press pool will be determined by the White House press team,” Leavitt said at a daily briefing. “A select group of DC-based journalists should no longer have a monopoly of press access at the White House.”
- Critics of the move included Peter Baker, the New York Times‘ chief White House correspondent, the Hill reports. “Having served as a Moscow correspondent in the early days of Putin’s reign, this reminds me of how the Kremlin took over its own press pool and made sure that only compliant journalists were given access,” Baker said in a post on X.
- Leavitt spoke a day after a federal judge refused to immediately order the White House to restore the APs’ access to many presidential events. The news outlet, citing the First Amendment, sued Leavitt and two other White House officials for barring the AP from some presidential events over its refusal to call the Gulf of Mexico the “Gulf of America” as Trump ordered.
He has already banned some so-called ‘liberal’ press but not called so by me) as PBS, AP, Reuters, etc. And now the rest of the story….
This is just another page from the authoritarian handbook…..control what is reported and eliminate any opposition press, if possible.
Whatcha wanna bet that OAN, FOX, and other right wing echo chambers will have full access?
What do you see in this move?
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it—there’s no doubt these changes to the White House press pool are stirring up strong feelings on both sides. It’s true that Trump’s administration is shaking things up by taking control of who gets access, which breaks from a long-standing tradition of letting the White House Correspondents’ Association handle it. That shift naturally raises eyebrows, especially given how it’s playing out alongside things like the AP’s exclusion over the “Gulf of America” naming dispute. Critics like Peter Baker, who’ve seen authoritarian tactics up close, aren’t wrong to point out the parallels—it’s a valid concern when any government starts picking and choosing its messengers.
On the flip side, the White House, through Karoline Leavitt, is framing this as a move to modernize and democratize access, arguing that the old system favored a small, entrenched group of D.C. insiders. They’re promising to keep legacy outlets in the mix while adding newer voices, like streaming services, which could reflect how people actually get their news in 2025. If they follow through on that, it might not be the total exclusionary “wall” some fear—more like a reshuffling of the deck. The test will be in who they actually let in. If it’s just OAN and Fox getting the golden tickets while others are sidelined, that’s a fair point to call out as stacking the deck. But if they do broaden the pool meaningfully, it could challenge the narrative of pure authoritarian control.
Both sides have a piece of the truth here. History shows that controlling the press is a classic power move—your “authoritarian handbook” reference isn’t off-base. Yet it’s also worth watching how this plays out before assuming it’s all one-way traffic to MAGA echo chambers. What do you think—any chance this could end up being less about silencing dissent and more about reshaping who gets to ask the questions?
John…their excuse is nothing but fluff…..so far it looks like the media critics are the ones excluded….that can be a modernization move. chuq
It can also be a move toward a more Goebbels style journalism environment.
That is more likely chuq
I appreciate your perspective and the passion behind it—there’s no doubt these changes to the White House press pool are stirring up strong feelings on both sides. It’s true that Trump’s administration is shaking things up by taking control of who gets access, which breaks from a long-standing tradition of letting the White House Correspondents’ Association handle it. That shift naturally raises eyebrows, especially given how it’s playing out alongside things like the AP’s exclusion over the “Gulf of America” naming dispute. Critics like Peter Baker, who’ve seen authoritarian tactics up close, aren’t wrong to point out the parallels—it’s a valid concern when any government starts picking and choosing its messengers.
On the flip side, the White House, through Karoline Leavitt, is framing this as a move to modernize and democratize access, arguing that the old system favored a small, entrenched group of D.C. insiders. They’re promising to keep legacy outlets in the mix while adding newer voices, like streaming services, which could reflect how people actually get their news in 2025. If they follow through on that, it might not be the total exclusionary “wall” some fear—more like a reshuffling of the deck. The test will be in who they actually let in. If it’s just OAN and Fox getting the golden tickets while others are sidelined, that’s a fair point to call out as stacking the deck. But if they do broaden the pool meaningfully, it could challenge the narrative of pure authoritarian control.
Both sides have a piece of the truth here. History shows that controlling the press is a classic power move—your “authoritarian handbook” reference isn’t off-base. Yet it’s also worth watching how this plays out before assuming it’s all one-way traffic to MAGA echo chambers. What do you think—any chance this could end up being less about silencing dissent and more about reshaping who gets to ask the questions?
John I found your comment in Spam….sorry about that…..chuq
no problemo
😎
I sent a comment twice now….
I got it by as from ‘Someone’ chuq
I tried commenting on this —but—-
You think protecting the border and building the wall is a matter of exclusion ? Astonishingly dangerous lack of realistic perception.
Ignoring the bull in the china shop is more dangerous chuq
It won’t be long before they announce a new ‘Ministry of Propaganda’. They will call it something else, but that’s what it will be. Trump can easily find some lackey like Goebbells to be in charge of it. That can cover ‘culture’ as well, censoring films, books, TV shows, and theatre. Best wishes, Pete.
‘Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels exercised control over all German mass media and creative artists through his ministry and the Reich Chamber of Culture (Reichskulturkammer), which was established in the fall of 1933.’
That seems to be the consensus……chuq
I guess Trump was excluded from any gangs as a kid and probably any pets wouldn’t accept him as pack leader so now he creates his own.
Interesting take but sounds like a sound one chuq