AP wins reinstatement to White House events | Hacker News Reader

AP wins reinstatement to White House events

apnews.com

42 pointsjaredwiener10 comments

Here's the actual decision: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/AP...

What would it take to make it a norm for news articles to actually link to the thing they are reporting on?

> Trump has dismissed the AP, which was established in 1846, as a group of “radical left lunatics” and said that “we’re going to keep them out until such time as they agree it’s the Gulf of America.”

Being the most respected non-partisan source for both left and right media outlets apparently doesn't mean anything if you dare name what must not be named.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"

Of course we'd rebel at simply being told to do something. So instead it's just labeling everything inconvenient as "the left". There's certainly some of that groupthink dynamic in the blue tribe, but nowhere near as institutionalized.

'“Under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists — be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewher — it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote.'

So, where is the limit then? Surely if a group of journalists had some very extreme viewpoints on race or religions that would be more of an issue for McFadden?

The question can be turned around: what is the limit to the WH's ability to ban journalists for their speech if they can ban a journalist for this speech?

> Surely if a group of journalists had some very extreme viewpoints on race or religions that would be more of an issue for McFadden?

I do not see a reason to believe this.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-gulf-mexico-america-ap-firs...

Has a nice explainer for how the WH press pool works.

We also publish WH pool reports here, if interested: https://www.forth.news/whpool

> The relationship between the president and the press is intended to be adversarial. That’s essential for knowing what the president and his administration are — or are not — doing in the United States’ name with taxpayer money.

This is a great way of putting it.

Presumably not.

The First Amendment is specifically intended for this -- because who decides what is an extreme viewpoint? Imagine if a newspaper endorsed the President's opponent in the next election -- could they then be barred from all official events?

They could not be granted access in the first place, but once they are, the government cannot use that access to retaliate.

There is plenty of room for whataboutism. But what won them this case is that Trump himself said that the AP was banned because of what they were printing in their stories. That's walking across a bright line boundary where "Wait why is it OK to exclude racists?" isn't.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com