>>>Yes, the "enemy of the people" has been misbehaving and needed to be reprehended<s>
>
>You mean excluded.
I meant something more like censored, but I accept "excluded".
>FWIW, in little old New Zealand where the premier answers the door in her slippers, failure to follow instructions is a cast iron reason for exclusion from briefings.
I would accept that too, but that was not the reason invoked by the WH for barring Jim Acosta. Instead, the WH claims that he "placed his hands" on a female intern, and provided a video from Infowars as evidence that shows how indeed his hand touched the intern's arm. Which is ridiculous because, if you watch the whole scene (and not just the magnified frames), it is clear that the touch was unintentional; his hand was moving down as he was gesticulating to emphasize his question when the intern suddenly stretched her arm to snatch the microphone from his hand. It's stupid to invoke that as the reason for his exclusion!
However, there is a larger aspect that I wanted to emphasize: when the WH excludes a reporter for asking too many inconvenient questions while the POTUS demonizes the media as the "enemy of the people", the optics -to say the least- would be (are?) really bad. But, that is the effect of Trump's rhetoric; himself (and his office) cannot invoke common sense anymore for condemning someone else's abusing behavior.
>>>You read the incumbent's tweets, right?
>Prompted by this I went and reviewed tweets, but saw nothing to justify this response. Is it just a taunt?
No, not a taunt. Here is one of his latest, re California wild fires. You may want to read the comments, too.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1061168803218948096?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1061168803218948096&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2018%2F11%2F12%2Fus%2Fpolitics%2Ffact-check-trump-california-fire-tweet.html>I'd recommend that there are 2 sides to every story with the truth on the spectrum in between. Insistence that only one version ever is correct, is the path to Orwell's sheep status or the NPC meme that's popular in the dark web.
Totally agree, hence my initial response to your post.
>On this matter, I've reviewed MSM non-stop reports re a Doctored video. 3 responses: first, puh-leez. Politicians and media do that all the time, then lie about it. Remember CNN's doctored video to make Trump look like an idiot dumping fish food in a koi pond?
https://twitter.com/VeronicaRochaLA/status/927400669996130305/photo/1 Remember the gleeful piling on by other media until nontraditional media exposed the falsehood, then no apology or admission of fault, instead "doctoring" reactions so they're no longer to be found?
>Then contrast that with the aghast current coverage of "doctored" video involving at most 2 frames according to tech experts, and perhaps seek out what the person accused of doctoring has to say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RrSfMiAErc>Truth? Completely obscured by all the fakery and posturing IMHO.
I'm not too concerned about the crazies at large. I am more concerned about those in public office.
*
