White House Bans NY Post from public event

[Always in His Presence]

MSN

Nelson replied to the email with a list of questions about what he dubbed the White House's "mysterious prescreening program" that was implemented to curate which reporters can attend presidential events, pressing whether access is denied based on their coverage of the Biden administration. The White House did not respond to Nelson's inquiry.​

​

No dissenting POV's allowed.

What happened to freedom of the press?

 

[Always in His Presence]

White House bans NY Post from Biden event as potential Hunter indictment looms | Fox News Video

The 'Outnumbered' panel discussed the Biden administration barring reporters from am event as a potential indictment of his son remains a possibility.

www.foxnews.com

7 min video discussing the White House ban of reporter/s from a news outlet not complimentary to Mr. Biden.

 

[rambot]

Posted on Fox news.
Fox news?
OAN?
Newsmax?
All banned?

 

[iluvatar5150]

MSN

Nelson replied to the email with a list of questions about what he dubbed the White House's "mysterious prescreening program" that was implemented to curate which reporters can attend presidential events, pressing whether access is denied based on their coverage of the Biden administration. The White House did not respond to Nelson's inquiry.​

​

No dissenting POV's allowed.

What happened to freedom of the press?

White House bans NY Post from Biden event as potential Hunter indictment looms | Fox News Video

The 'Outnumbered' panel discussed the Biden administration barring reporters from am event as a potential indictment of his son remains a possibility.

www.foxnews.com

7 min video discussing the White House ban of reporter/s from a news outlet not complimentary to Mr. Biden.

Since the WH didn't respond to his questions about why he wasn't granted a credential, you and your sources are only left to speculate as to the reason. Since your first article points out that a Daily Caller reporter was allowed in, it would seem odd that being critical of Biden would be the rationale.

Given how critical and skeptical you've been of anonymous sources in the past, I'd have expected you to be even more critical of blind speculation in the face of no sources at all.

 

[Belk]

MSN

Nelson replied to the email with a list of questions about what he dubbed the White House's "mysterious prescreening program" that was implemented to curate which reporters can attend presidential events, pressing whether access is denied based on their coverage of the Biden administration. The White House did not respond to Nelson's inquiry.​

​

No dissenting POV's allowed.

What happened to freedom of the press?

I was against this when Trump did it and am equally against this now. It should not be up to the government on whom is an acceptable reporter.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Posted on Fox news.
Fox news?
OAN?
Newsmax?
All banned?

No and no one said they were - can we not over editorialize and address the news source that was banned?

 

[rambot]

No and no one said they were - can we not over editorialize and address the news source that was banned?

"Over editorialize"...said the guy asking about "freedom of the press" when one organization is banned.
For the record, I'm not a fan of this. I'm curious what reasoning they used.

 

[Always in His Presence]

"Over editorialize"...said the guy asking about "freedom of the press" when one organization is banned.
For the record, I'm not a fan of this. I'm curious what reasoning they used.

When multiple news agencies are brought up when only one is in the OP - I consider it 'over editorializing" or adding things that are not part of the discussion - or bringing up organizations Germaine to the OP - Please accept my apologies and choose which of the alternative fits better in your opinion.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Given how critical and skeptical you've been of anonymous sources in the past, I'd have expected you to be even more critical of blind speculation in the face of no sources at all.

Where is the anonymous source you speak of? The reporter, Steve Nelson, applied for press credentials for admittance - the White House denied him - Steve Nelson requested information and the White House has not replied. Who is anonymous? Steve Nelson or the White House?

 

[DaisyDay]

When multiple news agencies are brought up when only one is in the OP - I consider it 'over editorializing" or adding things that are not part of the discussion - or bringing up organizations Germaine to the OP - Please accept my apologies and choose which of the alternative fits better in your opinion.

One swallow does not a summer make.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Where is the anonymous source you speak of? The reporter, Steve Nelson, applied for press credentials for admittance - the White House denied him - Steve Nelson requested information and the White House has not replied. Who is anonymous? Steve Nelson or the White House?

That's my point: you don't even have an anonymous source. All you have is pure speculation. You claim "No dissenting POV's allowed" despite the fact that they allowed in the Daily Caller.

 

[Always in His Presence]

One swallow does not a summer make.

And bananas left in the Sun turn black

 

[Always in His Presence]

First you say:

Given how critical and skeptical you've been of anonymous sources in the past, I'd have expected you to be even more critical of blind speculation in the face of no sources at all.

I reply

Where is the anonymous source you speak of? The reporter, Steve Nelson, applied for press credentials for admittance - the White House denied him - Steve Nelson requested information and the White House has not replied. Who is anonymous? Steve Nelson or the White House?

And in replying I named the source - Steve Nelson

Now you say

That's my point: you don't even have an anonymous source. All you have is pure speculation. You claim "No dissenting POV's allowed" despite the fact that they allowed in the Daily Caller.

I do not have an anonymous source - I have a named source his name is Steve Nelson - he is the named source reporting he was denied access to a public event.

That is not speculation

 

[friend of]

What happened to freedom of the press?

Deader than a doorknob

 

[iluvatar5150]

First you say:

I reply

And in replying I named the source - Steve Nelson

Now you say

I do not have an anonymous source - I have a named source his name is Steve Nelson - he is the named source reporting he was denied access to a public event.

That is not speculation

Steve Nelson is a source for the fact that he was denied a credential. Steve Nelson is not a source for the reason why it was denied. He doesn’t know why it was denied and the WH didn’t answer his questions on the subject.

Any claim that this move was retaliatory is purely speculative.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Steve Nelson is a source for the fact that he was denied a credential. Steve Nelson is not a source for the reason why it was denied. He doesn’t know why it was denied and the WH didn’t answer his questions on the subject.

Any claim that this move was retaliatory is purely speculative.

Thank you for your opinion -

 

[DaisyDay]

And bananas left in the Sun turn black

Can you explain the relevance of that? I don't get what you're alluding to.

 

[RoBo1988]

MSN

Nelson replied to the email with a list of questions about what he dubbed the White House's "mysterious prescreening program" that was implemented to curate which reporters can attend presidential events, pressing whether access is denied based on their coverage of the Biden administration. The White House did not respond to Nelson's inquiry.​

​

No dissenting POV's allowed.

What happened to freedom of the press?

From a quick Duck Duck Go search, it appears The NY Post has not reported any Joe Biden- Ice Cream reports... for shame!

 

[NxNW]

Deader than a doorknob

You might want to check the actual wording of the First Amendment.

 

[stevil]

No and no one said they were - can we not over editorialize and address the news source that was banned?

Your original post said
"No dissenting POV's allowed."
but it seems that many media outlets who generally do dissenting POV have been allowed.

So we can confidently determine that they aren't banning media outlets with dissenting POVs

So, yes it will be interesting to hear their reason for denying this specific person or outlet, AND yes, they should be required to provide a reason.