>>I meant something more like censored, but I accept "excluded".

How is he censored? He can write whatever it wants. He just can't be personally disruptive in the White House any more and may have to rely on the 50 other CNN reporters who have passes.

>>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,...

Yes, that's the "look a squirrel" focus from the MSM, but it's not the entirety of the WH statement. IME you always, always need to go back to source rather than taking MSM narratives at face value.

Sanders' initial statement included:
This conduct is absolutely unacceptable. It is also completely disrespectful to the reporter’s colleagues not to allow them an opportunity to ask a question. President Trump has given the press more access than any President in history.

Mercedes Schlapp followed up:
Look, I think it’s important to show that Jim Acosta did place his hands on this White House staffer. She’s young, she was shaken up, she was intimidated by what Jim Acosta did. What we are seeing is bad behavior that cannot be tolerated and, in fact, there’s been several reporters who have shared their viewpoints about ... privately about Jim Acosta where he’s being so disrespectful that other reporters don’t have a chance to ask a question. This behavior is not going to be tolerated.

and Sanders again:

CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment. After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions — each of which the President answered — he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern, so that other reporters might ask their questions. This was not the first time this reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters.
The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional. The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor. If there is no check on this type of behavior it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.

Seems to me that "some people" are determined to focus on the squirrel, not on the appalling pattern of behavior.

>>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.

Sure he can, and did. Meanwhile where's the media boycott of the WH to save Saint Acosta?

>>No, not a taunt. Here is one of his latest, re California wild fires. You may want to read the comments, too.

It'll be interesting to see what the investigation finds. Meanwhile thoughts go out to the affected families.