That White House Media Ban

Wondering what to make of it? Or what to make of the responses to it?

I find the reaction to the apparent banning of the BBC, Guardian and other ‘liberal’ news outlets as interesting as the apparent ban itself.

I say “apparent” because they were not invited to an informal meeting – ‘gaggle’, in the vernacular – not from the briefings themselves. A bit like when your mates go out and forget to invite you along. They still have their passes to the White House Briefings, when held.

On Friday, Trump spoke / rambled (delete as appropriate) at length at the Conservative Political Action Conference, and it was shown live on BBC News. News, by definition, is something considered to be ‘new’, and Trump’s constant re-iterations of his campaign policies aren’t new. Nor particularly newsworthy.

So why do the hated media, the creators of fake news, the “enemy of the people”, give so much coverage to a man who craves it? Can’t be ratings in the BBC’s case, and they’re not going to get anything out of the relationship except dogs abuse.

There’s nothing anyone outside the US can do about Trump (North Korean VX gas-style assassinations notwithstanding). That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned about some of his Presidential Orders or the activities of his inner circle, but we never gave this much coverage to the European Union or other European countries. Maybe it’s a language thing.

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of the Margaret Thatcher playbook and deny him “the oxygen of publicity”?