Banned Media

Is it wrong for the president to eject certain media agencies from the White House press room?  CNN, MSNOW, and Politico certainly think so.  Many other news agencies agree.  However, there is only so much space in the press room.  Do certain agencies have a right to that limited space?  Do they have more right to the space than an obscure newspaper from Wyoming or Iowa?  Sure, it makes sense to have news agencies with the greatest reach to have access as that gives the easiest route to disseminate news.  Then again, that could be a detriment if those news agencies are consistently hostile.

In the early days of the republic, there were party papers.  Andrew Jackson's Kitchen Cabinet had a couple of friendly newspaper editors as members.  Jackson's message was printed as he wanted it printed.  Did the people only get government propaganda through such a system?  No, the Whigs controlled newspapers as well, blasting whatever message the Jacksonian papers delivered.

Supposing that there are 100 seats in the pressroom, why can't the administration choose which agencies get them?  If a thousand news agencies across the country and internationally apply, could the administration just pick the 100 least hostile?  Would that be censorious?

The media is overwhelmingly left leaning, which means it is reliably hostile to Republicans and cheerleaders to Democrats.  A quick request from ChatGPT came up with these numbers:

With such an obvious tilt in the coverage, why wouldn't the administration take some action to mitigate it?  Where the Trump Administration seeks to limit access to proven hostile news agencies - which he claims produce 'fake news' - the Obama DOJ was aggressive in law enforcement regarding reporters and their sources.  He was getting net positive coverage and still sought to muzzle the media.

The entire press corps apparatus in the White House is a convenience first extended by President Theodore Roosevelt, which means it did not exist for the first half of the country's history.  There is no requirement for it.  Besides, Trump is constantly out speaking.  In his first term, he had 88 press conferences, which averages to around 2 a month.  By contrast, Biden had 37, less than 1 per month.  Trump was interviewed 326 times, or nearly 7 times a month; Biden 125, or 2.6 times per month.  There is no dearth of Trump in the media.

The Bureaucracy Dissents

The title of this Politico article is practically treasonous:

Federal workers turn to encryption to thwart Trump

The article details how career bureaucrats at the various agencies in DC are coordinating among themselves with encrypted messaging to dodge laws regarding workplace communication.  In other words, they are pioneering a version of Hillary's offsite email server.  Why use secret communications within the bureaucracy?

The goal is to get their message across while not violating any rules covering workplace communications, which can be monitored by the government and could potentially get them fired.

 

The story puts the best possible spin on why these bureaucrats are engaging in this secretive communication.  They have to be able to oppose Trump if he tries to undermine the mission of the agency, tries to destroy important scientific data, or flout the law.  In fact, we know that most of the bureaucrats are Democrats (DC went 91% for Hillary) who don't want to implement Republican policy.  When the country votes for Democrat policy, the bureaucracy moves expeditiously but when the country votes for Republican policy, the bureaucracy must be dragged kicking and screaming.

 

Over at Labor, employees are coordinating in private emails to oppose the nomination for the Secretary of Labor.  Oh, that is going to make for a great working relationship if Puzder gets the job.  The same sort of opposition is surely happening at the Dept of Education regarding Betsy DeVos, at EPA for Pruitt, at Energy for Perry, etc. 

 

Thanks to civil service reform, we have non-partisan civil servants.  After all, labor statisticians can do statistics for Republicans or Democrats, right?  Of course, if someone came along who thought a particular bureaucracy needed streamlining and economizing, the current non-partisan bureaucrats might suddenly find they aren't as non-partisan as they thought.

 

It is entirely appropriate for an employee to voice disagreements.  A good boss will take note and perhaps moderate.  However, if not, the employees do what the boss instructs, provided it is legal.  If the employee cannot do this, it is time to find another job.  Assembling a resistance movement within the organization should result in immediate termination.

 

Yet again, here is evidence that the bureaucracy needs to be emptied on a regular basis.  The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883) succeeded in creating a bureaucratic leviathan that is barely responsive to the elected representatives of the people.  Let's go back to the spoils system.  Sure, we'll get a crop of novices every 4 years but government 'service' will cease being a career.

Biased Introduction

I listened to a short debate between Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and a woman from Politico.  When Julian Marshall of the BBC introduced his two guests, he labeled Glenn as 'right-leaning' but offered no such label for Heather from Politico.  Before either person has said a word, it has already been established that Glenn is biased and Heather is not.  This is not accidental.  Though Politico is viewed as relatively unbiased in the Republican vs. Democrat axis, it is immensely biased in the establishment vs. outsider axis.  Politico is all about the insiders, the palace intrigue, the parliamentary plots.  How might the audience have reacted if Marshall had instead labeled Instapundit as outsider-leaning and the Politico as insider-leaning?  Now the biases of each are revealed.  That he didn't do so reveals his bias.