Trump lifts media blacklist on banned news organizations

Looks like Trump is lifting his blacklisted "news" organizations.

A few specific outfits were banned from Trump events probably to keep the heckling and hooting under better control during the events.

Now let's see what happens at future events.


Trump lifts media blacklist on banned news organizations

U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Wednesday ended a media blacklist that had drawn strong criticism from press freedom advocates, allowing a number of banned news organizations to resume getting credentials to cover his campaign events.

Trump had banned The Washington Post, Politico and Buzzfeed after coverage that was critical of him. The banned organizations had continued covering his campaign, but had not been able to get credentials to formally attend his events.

Press freedom advocates strongly condemned such bans. Reporters without Borders said when the Post was banned in June that it was an "act of hostility" toward the media and a serious violation of press freedom.

a reply to: xuenchen

So now they'll be able to do 2 hit pieces per day on Trump and his supporters, instead of just one.

a reply to: xuenchen

so its okay for the media to twist his words...
" im sure my 2nd amendment people have something to say about that " = trump said to kill hillary!

the media ( newspapers, internet blogs, tv...) no longer have the best interests of the american people at heart. to me, they are no longer "journalists" but paid actors. they read the news that they are given to read. they do not formulate their own opinions, but justify the opinions of their bosses,owners, handlers, etc.

they should not be granted access to anything if they are going to report false allegations and a bunch of bull crap. another reason i am voting for trump. if all the media outlets are out to make him out to be the bad guy, then TPTB must truly be afraid of him. and for that reason i am on the trump train... if the elite are trying to derail it, and are scared of possible outcome, then to me its an obvious choice.

Their "banning" was not becuase they were critical of him, it is because they were dishonest and blatantly biased against him in their coverage.

It was generous of him to give them another chance.

They were still free to report on Trump the whole time and all of his appearance are widely streamed, unlike hillary's promise to shutdown Breitbart and others permanently.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Because anything negative is a hit piece right?

The victim complex is strong with Trump, guess that is why he wants to open up the laws and go after those people with the power of the state.
Talk about freedom!

a reply to: xuenchen

Glad to see somebody Trump friendly acknowledging that his campaign has been manipulating the media by blacklisting anyone he views as too critical.

A few specific outfits were banned from Trump events probably to keep the heckling and hooting under better control during the events.

In other words, the behavior he was encouraging?

a reply to: Sremmos80

It's the same story with anybody else besides Hillary. Either they get ignored, or ATTACKED. Ask Jill Stein.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Their "banning" was not becuase they were critical of him, it is because they were dishonest and blatantly biased against him in their coverage.

It was generous of him to give them another chance.

They were still free to report on Trump the whole time and all of his appearance are widely streamed, unlike hillary's promise to shutdown Breitbart and others permanently.

No, it was because they wrote down things he actually said.

This is probably advice Trump has taken from the establishment Reps.


All publicity, is good publicity.


Seems to be tenfold with Trump because the more negative the press are about him the more his numbers grow.


& this just makes him look like the bigger man.
It's a win win for Trump.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance
Their "banning" was not becuase they were critical of him, it is because they were dishonest and blatantly biased against him in their coverage.

It was generous of him to give them another chance.

They were still free to report on Trump the whole time and all of his appearance are widely streamed, unlike hillary's promise to shutdown Breitbart and others permanently.

No, it was because they wrote down things he actually said.

I have to agree with Deny Arrogance for once.

Especially in the case of the WP.
They had a major hard on with their negative Trump articles.


Now his numbers are growing and Hillary's are dropping slightly, he comes out on top.

He looks like he's turned the other cheek for once.
It's a smart move.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It just depends on what you read and watch. Anything with a right leaning bias is just as hard in Hilary as those with the left leaning bias are on Trump.
Some people just see people calling Trump out on his bs as attack pieces and I don't get it.
All whIle being more than happy to post the articles that do the same on Hilary and call it 'real journalism'.

a reply to: theantediluvian

when a media outlet has 16 stories a day bias towards you, and doesnt write one story on how hillary deleted emails she said were not work related... theres an issue
the media should not be bias
the media should be fair, just, and impartial... which these media outlets were not, running hit piece after hit piece, praising hillary clinton as the female form of jesus christ, and donald trump as the dark lord himself

a reply to: theantediluvian

when a media outlet has 16 stories a day bias towards you, and doesnt write one story on how hillary deleted emails she said were not work related... theres an issue
the media should not be bias
the media should be fair, just, and impartial... which these media outlets were not, running hit piece after hit piece, praising hillary clinton as the female form of jesus christ, and donald trump as the dark lord himself

a reply to: Sremmos80

Oh you mean how it was progressives showing up at all the Trump rallies and assaulting people and starting riots, but all spring when I'd scan through all the coverage it all blamed it on Trump supporters being the culprits (rioting at their own rallies I was scratching my head trying to make sense of that idea). Later on I reviewed all the videos and it was clearly progressives out there as the aggressors. Meanwhile Trump who was supposedly advocating violence, with his own supporters supposedly rioting their own rallies, and yet not one single person was ever assaulted at a Hillary rally. You mean bias like that cuts both ways?

originally posted by: nobunaga
a reply to: theantediluvian


the media should not be bias
the media should be fair, just, and impartial...

Especially Breitbart. But they will never be. They are a clickbait outfit that does articles like "Obama is a secret Muslim born in kenya"

a reply to: reldra

Okay that's one. Can you list how many "liberal" outlets vs. how many 'Trump' outlets?

www.washingtonpost.com... news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/06/the-questions-about-hillary-clintons-health-are-absurd/
Can we just stop talking about Hillary Clinton’s health now?

www.washingtonpost.com... 16/09/05/13458832-7152-11e6-9705-23e51a2f424d_story.html
A new 50-state poll shows exactly why Clinton holds the advantage over Trump

https: //www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/07/dallas-morning-news-endorses-hillary-clinton-backing-first-democrat-in-76-years/
Dallas Morning News endorses Hillary Clinton, backing first Democrat in 76 years


i can keep going for days

and when donald trump does something considered by just about everyone a good deed:
Donald Trump’s trip to Louisiana is the perfect opportunity to talk about climate change, which he won’twww.washingtonpost.com... out-climate-change-which-he-wont/

i mean for goodness sake... the man takes time off the campaign trail to visit with victims, to donate money, time, and much needed supplies... and instead of saying look what donnie is doing, when obama wont even go because he is golfing, and hillary just made a phone call.... they criticize him. thats bias... thats bs... thats being paid to to write what your told to write... not to write what is right.

donald trump could carry a cripled kid 15 miles on his back in a thunderstorm, on no sleep, while singing the national anthem.... and the media would still find a way to make him look like crap.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: reldra

Okay that's one. Can you list how many "liberal" outlets vs. how many 'Trump' outlets?

I don't have the list. There are waaayyy more right wing off the deep end sites.

Their "banning" was not becuase they were critical of him, it is because they were dishonest and blatantly biased against him in their coverage.

Agreed, you can see the bias in the very wording of their articles and headlines. Was (and is) pretty blatant.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

You really want to act like there was no outlets not blaming it on the people?
OK bud, if that is the reality you want to live it that is fine.