Trump Cuts Guaranteed Spot in Press Pool for AP, Others
7,479 Views
Comments (48)
Share (6)
Print
Chaos in the State Department Over USAID
Trump’s Plan for Dealing with China
Intel for Intercessors: Jennifer Korn
Why Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is the Right (and Only) Solution
Trump Cuts Guaranteed Spot in Press Pool for AP, Others
7,479 Views
Comments (48)
Share (6)
Print
I Prayed
have prayed
As part of his continued press shakeup, President Trump has removed the formerly guaranteed slots for “wire services” like AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg from the White House press pool. What do you think of this decision?
From Fox News. The Associated Press and Reuters released sharply critical statements of the Trump White House this week in response to news that it was cutting traditional wire service slots in the rotating pool.
This content is supported by your donations.
Give today.
“We are deeply disappointed that the administration has chosen to restrict the access of all wire services, whose fast and accurate White House coverage informs billions of people every single day, rather than reinstate The Associated Press to the wire pool,” AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said, according to reports. …
Wire services are outlets like the AP, Reuters and Agence France-Presse that provide news reports to news outlet subscribers. It is common to see AP and other wire service stories reprinted in other publications.
The New York Post reported Tuesday that the White House had stripped wire reporters of their guaranteed daily access to the president, following the AP winning in court after being excluded from the press pool for defying the administration’s renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America.” …
Now, the White House will instead set aside a second slot for “print” outlets that also includes wire services, as part of the rotating pool covering Trump for limited-space events, the New York Post reported. It has been traditional for either the AP, Reuters or Bloomberg News to have a guaranteed spot in limited pool events covering the president because of their expansive readerships. …
A White House official shared a memo with Fox News Digital about Leavitt’s criteria for selecting the White House press pool. It consists of one print journalist to serve as the “print pooler,” an additional print journalist, a television network crew (ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC), a secondary television network or streaming service, a radio journalist, a “new media” or independent journalist, and four photojournalists.
Wire services like the AP and Reuters will be eligible for selection as part of the daily print journalist rotation, the official said. …
What do you think of this decision? Share your thoughts and prayers below.
(Excerpt from Fox News. Photo Credit: Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)
Comments (48)
Share (6)
Post A Prayer
Print
I Prayed
have prayed
Post A Prayer
Related Content
Trump Admin Urges Lawmakers to Defund NPR and PBS
I Prayed
White House Press Sec. Claims There’s ‘Spiritual Warfare’ Around...
I Prayed
Partner with Us
Intercessors for America is the trusted resource for millions of people across the United States committed to praying for our nation. If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. Privacy Policy
Comments
Really? Did any of you actually read this? Stripping White House wire reporters of their guaranteed access to the president because AP won in court after being excluded from the press pool for disagreeing with the Trump administrations renaming of the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”!!!!!!! That is not a good reason!!!!!! That is as oppressive as anything Obama did!!!!!
This is one stage of the plan. 1. control the news, by threats, so only favorable views are published 2. take action against your critics so they are afraid to speak up. 3. control education by financial threat to promote your agenda. 4. book burning -well stripping of libraries. 5. cause financial chaos. 6. expel anyone you don’t like. 7. work out how you can be king forever.
It is going well so far.
Why should “the AP, Reuters or Bloomberg News to have a guaranteed spot in limited pool events covering the president?” Why shouldn’t all media outlets “a radio journalist, a “new media” or independent journalist”, have as much of a chance to cover presidential news? It’s not like they are being excluded “Wire services like the AP and Reuters will be eligible for selection as part of the daily print journalist rotation. ” What makes them so special that they never have to wait their turn making it so that smaller independent news services rarely if ever get a turn?
Because AP distributes news to over 3,900 media organizations worldwide, including more than 900 international sites and outlets in 23 languages. Many newspapers and broadcasters outside the U.S. are AP subscribers, paying for access to its news feed. And thousands of newspapers, ranging from major national dailies to small local papers, rely on AP wire services for timely news, features, and photographs to supplement their own reporting or to cover areas where they lack resources
Now is a wonderful moment to point out the signs of a good news source. There are basically three kinds of journalism: news, investigate and opinion.
Basic news should be factual. It should give both sides. It should not use emotionally charged language or make the reader feel that they or someone else or a cause is in immediate danger. It should also give anyone or any organization mentioned a chance to respond to comments about them.
Opinion news is only valuable if the source is someone who is an expert. So, if the opinion piece is about military strategy, an expert in military strategy should be its source or in other words, someone who teaches cadets or a four star general, for example. If about China, it should be someone who has lived in the region, speaks the language and has studied China for decades. If about technology, it should be someone who has spent decades working as a leader in that area. If a news source gives one person’s viewpoint on various topics, day after day, then his or her opinion is not worth anything more than anyone else’s.
Sometimes a news source will interview someone of merit to gain insight into that person’s thinking. That person might be a supreme court justice or someone like Steve Job who might talk about events in his or her life. This is not the same thing as a news source interviewing one person about claims against an organization or a person. A good news source might start an investigation based on one person’s claims but will never post those claims without cross verifying with multiple sources.
The signs of good investigate reporting is that it takes weeks and months of work and is based on cross verification with a significant number of experts as well as documentary evidence. In the case of the break through reporting on a possible lab leak at Wuhan, the person who wrote the Wall Street Journal article interviewed researchers of merit from multiple countries (as many of 15(?)). The author was himself as expert on the DNA of viruses and had written multiple books on the topic.
One sign of questionable reporting is when a reporter (with a shocked look on his face) allows someone to make claims which have not been cross verified.
There are good news sources but most of them you have to pay for because quality news requires time and resources. This means that most of conservative and left wing news when it comes to politics are questionable.
I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE!!
Another wise decision by President Trump!
Thank GOD!
I think it’s what’s needed! Since I was a kid, I knew the Press was biased, but as early as 2008 election with Barrack Obama, it was clear they weren’t hiding it anymore. Since Trump, the Press has been vicious so give these lying, political operatives the punishment they are due!
If a news source is looking for the truth and not trying to find evidence to support the particular bias of a news source than that source will post all legitimate information. So, for example, if reporting about the COVID vaccine, that source should be reporting any new developments on understanding COVID itself and any research from legitimate sources no matter what the outcome about the vaccine. So, given all of the on going research which indicates positive outcomes from the vaccine, some research which support a positive outcome should be reported. If all a source reports is negative than that source is not reliable.
Positive outcomes from the Covid vaccine???
Really?
As an old fashion Journalist I find this excellent! Ethics and unbiased reporting is the creed of all good journalism. May God continue blessings these measures that grant real freedom of speech!
YHVH, Your Word is clear that communication has parameters. You define speech as righteous or unrighteous, and based on that we will be held accountable for even every “idle word” or as the CJB puts it, “Moreover, I tell you this: on the Day of Judgment people will have to give account for every careless word they have spoken; for by your own words you will be acquitted, and by your own words you will be condemned.” Matthew 12:36-37 So if every “idle” word will be judged, so much more those words we speak intentionally and thoughtfully – “for out of the abundance of our hearts, we speak”. Make us aware, Lord. May those things You hate – a lying tongue, a false witness, slander, libel, course speech, false accusation, flattery, divisive language, inciteful speech, etc. etc. etc. – be anathema to those who claim to know You – (and hopefully those who are journalists).
Reading the books of Proverbs and James (actually Ya’akov) should be required daily reading.
It should have been “coarse speech”
Yes, this has unfortunately happened too often from sources who claim to be Christian such as the producers of “2000 Mules’, the reposting of claims of voter fraud which turned out to be false and caused individuals to get hundreds of death threats, the hostility and misrepresentation against Mike Pence and claims that Bill Gates was trying to use vaccine to sterilize people.
And I didn’t mention the claims that Zelensky doesn’t have the support of his people and is profiting from the sales of American arms.
Megan, I’m not in agreement with your specific contentions about these being false reports. I doubt either of us knows for sure, because as the Bible says “we know in part”. But my point is that YHVH does know fully. We will be held accountable, and therefore should be careful, both in the spoken and written word. James says that our tongues are like a fire, with great potential for harm – like a ship’s rudder that determines our destination. Only YHVH can tame our tongues, but we must yield them to His Lordship.
The producer of 2000 Mules, Salem Media, admitted that the information in the documentary and movie were wrong. And some of the information was even proven in Atlanta court to be incorrect.
https://apnews.com/article/2000-mules-film-apology-f1c2de96f17e72241761b4e6deaee5cb
The alternated video that has been circulated where Bill Gates appears to say that vaccines caused sterilization can be compared with the actual interview which shows that what he actually said was that he and his wife had noticed that whenever vaccines ere available in third world countries that they had noticed that families had less children and were told that this is because the parents felt that since their children would likely reach adulthood, The parents chose to have less children. Bill Gates is actually concerned about the rate at which world population is dropping (has said so many times). There is no reason for anyone to sterilize anyone because the world population is dropping world wide and is, in fact, an issue with governments in Europe, Japan, China and the United States. https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9917566788
One video that was shared 13 million times as proof of voter fraud was of a man delivering votes and someone in the background asking who he is with someone else saying he is the postman. Someone posted that video online and asked if it can be verified if the man was a post man and from there it was shared again and again as proof of voter fraud. As it turned it he actually was a postman. The people at the election site knew him and he had ID. The man received hundreds of death threats. https://www.reuters.com/fact-check/video-ballots-dropped-off-pennsylvania-falsely-shared-election-fraud-2024-11-04/
It has been claimed that Zelensky does not have the support of his people but someone has already posted on this website three independent polls(they are named) which all showed that 70% supported him with 80% agreeing that he was the legitimate leader. The claims that he has been selling weapons has never been proven.
So, yes, EVERYTHING I SAID CAN BE PROVED. I just picked at random one of many different possible sources with the same information.
Yes, sadly, we should pray for president Trump that he would repent for all the slander he has spoken against other people and that he would repent about lying.
Stopped taking the Meds again “Susan” ? You really should take more care – delusions abound without the proper prescription .
Thank you for this article. I agree that cutting the press lefts sounding boards was a good decision.
Each time I read something negative about the president or his admin or staff I look to see what news broadcasted it. Usually it is one of the news reporters that is biased…….including abc news, msnbc, cnn, Wapo, NBC, Washington examiner, WSJ, NYT, NPR, Public Broadcasting……how are people going to get an honest viewpoint of the “Real” news unless the fake news is put in the background? I understand it is a conscious choice of what and what not to listen to/watch……
Currently, the real news that I get is off the grid. The real news should be in the forefront, not in the background.
I appreciate President Trump putting out the official Executive Orders news. The blue one. It delivers the transparency all of the news should state.
I don’t think President Trump is denying free speech, first amendment rights. He is putting those news companies in their place. In the background where they need to be, since they distort the truth to their own opinions, which they will continue to do, until they figure out that all they do is lie. President Trump did not prevent them from reporting, he did not deny their free speech. He just denied where they couldn’t promote it. He is protecting the American people. I’m good with that.
Off topic. I live in communist Ct and sometimes without even knowing it my free speech is effected. i grew up in this area of indoctrination. This is not a safe state to live in. We have a handful of republicans who are diligently working hard to fight getting rid of the public benefits charge on our electric bill, nothing more than a hidden tax, “socialized” electric. The prayer warriors I am in contact with and I are constantly praying and writing letters to the CT government officials urging them to stop making “back room” deals of corruption. The devil is such a liar.
So, yes, good decision by The Trump Admin. Keep up the good work.
Deciding that something is reliable or not should not depend on whether the source is negative or positive about President Trump but whether they are reporting in a factual manner with No bias either to the positive or negative. If a source is always positive than they are probably not any more reliable than a negative source. If you only go to sources which are positive than it is likely that you are in the dark about events that you need to be aware of.
Now is a wonderful moment to point out the signs of a good news source. There are basically three kinds of journalism: news, investigate and opinion.
Basic news should be factual. It should give both sides. It use not use emotionally charged language or make the reader feel that they or someone else or a cause is in immediate danger. It should also give anyone or any organization mentioned a chance to respond to comments about them.
Opinion news is only valuable if the source is someone who is an expert. So, if the opinion piece is about military strategy, an expert in military strategy should be its source or in other words, someone who teaches cadets or a four star general, for example. If about China, it should be someone who has lived in the region, speaks the language and has studied China for decades. If about technology, it should be someone who has spent decades working as a leader in that area. If a news source gives one person’s viewpoint on various topics, day after day, then his or her opinion is not worth anything more than anyone else’s.
Sometimes a news source will interview someone of merit to gain insight into that person’s thinking. That person might be a supreme court justice or someone like Steve Job who might talk about events in his or her life. This is not the same thing as a news source interviewing one person about claims against an organization or a person. A good news source might start an investigation based on one person’s claims but will never post those claims without cross verifying with multiple sources.
The signs of good investigate reporting is that it takes weeks and months of work and is based on cross verification with a significant number of experts as well as documentary evidence. In the case of the break through reporting on a possible lab leak at Wuhan, the person who wrote the Wall Street Journal article interviewed researchers of merit from multiple countries (as many of 15(?)). The author was himself as expert on the DNA of viruses and had written multiple books on the topic.
One sign of questionable reporting is when a reporter allows someone to make claims which are not cross verified while sitting there with a shocked look on his face.
There are good news sources but most of them you have to pay for because quality news requires time and resources. This means that most of conservative and left wing news when it comes to politics are questionable.
Tom, these are good and legitimate points. I would have to say that most “journalists” in our modern day are sadly lacking in either education, training, or application in being legitimate journalists that understand and operate under these principles.
A good news source will only employ good reporters. And their editors review what is posted. So, if you go to a reputable news source (there are a few), the issue of finding good reporting is taken care of for you. But as I said, these sources you will have to pay for the content because in order to allow reporters weeks and months to investigate something takes financial resources. It also requires money to support reporters who live in other parts of the world or are experts in different areas. The Wall Street Journal is one example.
Again, if you only go to news sources that rely on advertisement and are free to the public than those sources are going to be biased because those that advertise want a certain audience and will only pay to advertise if that audience visits that site so the site has to give their audience what they want. Those kind of news sources also don’t have the money to support reporters spending weeks investigating something.
Bravo, President Trump!
The fact that these Left bent “reporters” care more about an ILLEGAL, WIFE BEATING GANG MEMBER than ALL THOSE WHO WERE MURDERED, ASSAULTED, AND RAPED AT THE HANDS OF ILLEGALS says it all!!! If they CANNOT, WILL NOT and REFUSE to just report the facts, then YES, they ABSOLUTELY SHOULD LOSE any preferred status in the press room!!! Free speech comes with RESPONSIBILTY and people don’t seem to understand that! Instead of being “reporters, journalists, or news anchors” the Leftist activists should be made to label themselves as “opinionated biased activists”. If you want to be in the news, then you should be held to a higher standard and unbiased on all reporting!
Carter, while I agree with your desire for “unbiased” reporting, I don’t believe it is fully possible – it is just an ideal, which SHOULD be aspired to. However, I would be satisfied if reporters were honest enough to admit their biases up front, instead of pretending they have none – and are just reporting the “facts”. If I were a reporter, I would have to admit, and proudly so, that I have a Biblical worldview – that is my bias!
That is the difference between professionals and the person on the street, whether it is a doctor or psychologist who knows that they cannot repeat what they are told or a professional reporter or historian who work in a disciplines that require him or her to report in a non-biased manner and to check the reliability of witnesses and to collect evidence. Granted if you go to the free news, you will not always see this but that break down of standards has happened because when the public expects news to be free, someone pays for it, and the advertisers and their money have a say so about what they pay for. Good reporting, however, has continued and is the reason why the truth comes to the surface. The information about the corruption of the Biden family, the Wuhan lab leak and the Hunter Biden lap top stories were broken by investigative reporters, not by MAGA new sources.
As AP, Reuters and Bloomberg appear to be very biased in their reporting, extremely left leaning, no matter how beneficial so many of this current Administration’s actions are on behalf of the American People, I applaud this decision. If their journalists ever return to a hoped-for midline ideology and present truly unbiased reports about World events, they surely would be reinstated to their privileged position.
I get it… no one wants to continually be bombarded by hate and it’s obvious those news sources hate President Trump. But cutting them off is a form of censoring…. instead, would we not be doing better by banding together in prayer for the CEO’s of those companies to have God bring Holy Spirit filled people into their circle of influence and help them see things from a more Godly perspective so that they come to Jesus who will help them see the world events and the people involved through eyes of truth and love instead of the lies and hate the devil feeds them?
That’s been my prayer for some time… it’d be nice to know others are praying that way also, including the President.
As Les makes the point below, this isn’t cutting off or being censored – it is removing a favored status, which never should have been given them in my opinion. How about both – pray for them and remove any favored status which is inappropriate. It doesn’t have to be an either/or.
“Favored” means guaranteed access, so if they cannot get access, they are being censored. Aren’t we striving to return to a fair and balanced White House???
And, yes, Shelia is right. Those in the middle, the 25% that decides elections, are concerned.
AP & Reuters daily print lies and misrepresentations. This is a good decision
Praise God! Finally some accountability regarding the leftist press! “May they be removed and another (righteous, champion of the truth) take their place!”
I applaud this. They are mot reporting news they are promoting their narrative. This blinds and deceives the unsuspecting.
They need to get rid of all the mainstream media and just televise their meetings to the public. Let the public decide.
I love this president, but I think it is a “slippery slope.” Free speech is even for those we disagree with and this can send a wrong message to independents in the upcoming election. We are losing ground with this group.
I continue to Pray for wisdom and discernment for this president. For the Holy Spirit to guide him and give him “pause” before speaking. To guard his heart, his mind and his tongue. To have all his intentions be pure. For his protection, continued stamina and health. Also,Lord, give him resilience and to know that accusations do not define him- only you do. Be his helper,Lord, as he strives to bring peace and safety to the world- in Jesus name- Amen!
Teresa,
You misunderstand – they are not being denied access, they are losing a favored status that they’ve been given by leftist regimes.
True independents know that these outlets are wholly owned subsidiaries of the the DNC
Removing favored access means that they do not have guaranteed access which is the same as censorship.
I as a Christian am dismayed at the number of people posting here who think that MAGA should now censor the news and only positive articles should be allowed. In the real world, with any political decision, there is a down side. In order to make good decisions, voters need to understand both the cons and the pros of any political decision.
A full 15 minutes of the latest press conference which lasted 30 minutes, was spent by the press asking all kinds of concerned questions about the illegal m13 immigrant who was deported to El Salvador. This was all on the heels of the day before of a testimony of a mother whose daughter was violently raped and killed by a different illegal immigrant, but an illegal immigrant none the less.
These same press reporters have alluded that this man is ” a father of the year unquote type of person when in reality he is a wife-beater and an illegal immigrant and an m13 gang member. This press also has spent much time in the news making the governor of Maryland seem like some kind of compassionate hero for going to El Salvador and trying to retrieve this man at the objection of El Salvador’s own president!
In my opinion every single one of those reporters should be banned from the White House for the next 4 years. This is insufferable and intolerable.
Personally I feel like the Trump team has been way too nice to these reporters.
Amen totally agree
It’s very simple. No president should have to tolerate liars in his press pool. If they’re unwilling to report facts, they don’t belong there.
The change in behavior on the part of the reporting and the reporters if such change does indeed occur, can be easily gauged by the words used to write up stories about President Trump and what he is doing. I would expect that the individual journalists would check themselves to be sure they are not writing from spite, or worse, a hatred of America.
Though I like what he is doing and agree that it will help to have more accurate news, we have to think about the future. If this is what Trump does now how can there be any fair reporting in the future if the next administration is Democrat? Won’t they do the same thing and start eliminating conservative media voices?
Of course ! But the alternative is to openly admit defeat every time distorted LIES are promoted – as has been the practice for the past two or three decades !
The time has come for decency and truth to be rewarded and lies and falsifications punished ! That’s what every decent, honest country tries to achieve. America should now champion the same as she now once again has a decent hard-working man in The White House.
The same cannot be claimed for all the “Courts” in the USA who very openly demonstrate their lack of impartiality outrageously on a daily basis !
We don’t have to look to the future. We can look to the past. The Democrats DID eliminate conservative media voices, as soon as they seized power in 2020. Under Biden, 8,000 conservative websites disappeared overnight (the night of December 9, 2020). On December 9, 2020 YouTube (controlled by Google) announced its intent, as of that day, to block and remove content that contained statements “alleging widespread fraud or errors changing the outcome of a historical [sic] presidential election.”
By the following morning 8,000 conservative and Christian websites–had vanished. Including mine. Many of those websites had thousands of subscribers. That’s how the Democrats managed to persuade voters that there was “NO EVIDENCE” of voter fraud or tampering and that Joe Biden had won. There was nothing BUT evidence of fraud, which they suppressed. I have mountains of it, all kinds.
We conservatives didn’t have a voice again until President Trump was back in the White House.
From the Island of Guam, a U.S. Territory in the Western Pacific: While there has been long standing practices for many functions and operations in government, it is right and just to determine what is the Truth in making decision or in deciding what to do about addressing concerns, issues, criticism, needs and problems. Therefore, it is imperative to publicly establish principles, values, public laws, rules and regulations, on the basis of the Judeo-Christian worldview. This is what I pray for.
I have no problem with limiting any press service that has after a news session at the White House distorted the truth.