Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you think this story has anything to do with "freedom of the press", I believe that it is you that misunderstands it.
If you think this story has anything to do with "freedom of the press", I believe that it is you that misunderstands it.
No, I understand it well. When you interfere with the ability of the press to cover something they have all rights to cover, you are interfering with "freedom of the press." When you allow, and then ban someone from covering your campaign, you are interfering with his freedom as a member of the press.
And when I say "freedom of the press" I'm not referring to it in a Constitutional sense.
If you think this story has anything to do with "freedom of the press", I believe that it is you that misunderstands it.
No, I understand it well. When you interfere with the ability of the press to cover something they have all rights to cover, you are interfering with "freedom of the press." When you allow, and then ban someone from covering your campaign, you are interfering with his freedom as a member of the press.
And when I say "freedom of the press" I'm not referring to it in a Constitutional sense.
Without the "Constitutional sense", the phrase "freedom of the press" is meaningless.
Aside from 1st Amendment protections, the press doesn't have any special "freedom".
If you think this story has anything to do with "freedom of the press", I believe that it is you that misunderstands it.
No, I understand it well. When you interfere with the ability of the press to cover something they have all rights to cover, you are interfering with "freedom of the press." When you allow, and then ban someone from covering your campaign, you are interfering with his freedom as a member of the press.
And when I say "freedom of the press" I'm not referring to it in a Constitutional sense.
Without the "Constitutional sense", the phrase "freedom of the press" is meaningless.
Aside from 1st Amendment protections, the press doesn't have any special "freedom".
Then, why is every major news outlet from here to England up in arms about it?
Still, the press pool picked their journalist for the day, so we have to assume he's credible.....The Daily Mail recent front pages
This is all credible journalism?
It is a free country, it is not like Daily Mail readers are going to vote for Hillary ever...
What does the fact that media outlets are upset have to do with "freedom of the press"?
If you think this story has anything to do with "freedom of the press", I believe that it is you that misunderstands it.
No, I understand it well. When you interfere with the ability of the press to cover something they have all rights to cover, you are interfering with "freedom of the press." When you allow, and then ban someone from covering your campaign, you are interfering with his freedom as a member of the press.
And when I say "freedom of the press" I'm not referring to it in a Constitutional sense.
Without the "Constitutional sense", the phrase "freedom of the press" is meaningless.
Aside from 1st Amendment protections, the press doesn't have any special "freedom".
Then, why is every major news outlet from here to England up in arms about it?
What does the fact that media outlets are upset have to do with "freedom of the press"?
Plenty. They feel they have the right and freedom to cover her campaign. The reaction you saw was because a presidential campaign interfered with that freedom. The press selected a reporter to represent them, and when that choice was vetoed, that sent them all up in arms and rightly so.
And as an aside, are you okay with what she did? I mean, you saw what happened when Romney and Obama started censoring reporters in 2012 right?
And it should tell you something that the liberalized media is defending a reporter from a conservative newspaper.
And it should tell you something that the liberalized media is defending a reporter from a conservative newspaper.
What should it tell us?
And it should tell you something that the liberalized media is defending a reporter from a conservative newspaper.
What should it tell us?
That regardless of political leanings, reporters stick together.
I'm completely at a loss to why anyone who's not a reporter would care about this.
Ok, I knew that already. So what?
I'm completely at a loss to why anyone who's not a reporter would care about this.
Why? Because the implications go far beyond this incident. If this is how she treats reporters as a presidential candidate, just imagine how she'll treat them if she becomes president.
Why should I care about how Hilary Clinton treats reporters?
