For starters you paint with too broad a brush. Yes a lot of the media is biased and has hurt the reputation of the media in general but that is not proof that "the press doesn't do their job". There are very much so good journalists doing a good job. Again, we can kick the media a lot and it deserves a lot of kicking but my concern is keeping the government accountable.

I remember when conservatives used to care about government accountability. How are we going to argue for firearm rights as a check against an authoritarian government then not care about government getting bigger and more secretive?

Wrong.  Too many facts in evidence to have the naive opinion that the press as a whole is doing a good job as intended by the founders.

Nobody kept Biden's or Obama's administration accountable.  But you're worried about Trump?  He's solving problems, or at least taking action to solve them, when his predecessors only made them worse.

Conservatives no longer care about government accountability?  Now who's using a broad brush?

Wrong.  Too many facts in evidence to have the naive opinion that the press as a whole is doing a good job as intended by the founders.

Nobody kept Biden's or Obama's administration accountable.  But you're worried about Trump?  He's solving problems, or at least taking action to solve them, when his predecessors only made them worse.

Conservatives no longer care about government accountability?  Now who's using a broad brush?

If you are just going to keep making whataboutism arguments there is no point in continuing, this isn't about the media it is about the government. Even pro-Trump Fox news refused to consent to the new rules, that is enough to show you it isn't just anti-Trump liberal news.

If you are just going to keep making whataboutism arguments there is no point in continuing, this isn't about the media it is about the government. Even pro-Trump Fox news refused to consent to the new rules, that is enough to show you it isn't just anti-Trump liberal news.

Wrong.

If you arrest a criminal, is the story about the police, or about the crime/criminal?

The Pentagon has every right to protect their highly sensitive environment from outsiders.  That includes journalists. 

Ever been to the Pentagon?  I've been several times, including right after 9/11.

Just walking about the hallways give you information on offices being close for repairs, people assigned to the offices, etc.  So much information can be used when combined with other information that might divulge classified operations.

i don't know why i even try to explain it to you.  You're unable to comprehend anything you don't already know but still have opinions on.

So you are avoiding the question. gotcha 

SInce the reply is being quoted, what question?  DId you just imagine that you asked one?

Wrong.

If you arrest a criminal, is the story about the police, or about the crime/criminal?

If there is question of wrongdoing then it is about both.

The Pentagon has every right to protect their highly sensitive environment from outsiders.  That includes journalists. 

Agreed but journalists also don't have an obligation to ask the government permission to report stories. An ethical journalist will contact the government if a story is about to break so as not to put people unnecessarily in danger, but consider that the 1st amendment is part of the check and balance against government. A good reported can say they have a story about a secret operation about to occur but in the end the military cannot stop the reporter, they can only request the reporter delay the story so as not to compromise the mission.

Imagine a scenario a journalist might face, someone within the Pentagon leaks information to a reporter where a military unit did something unlawful or was given an unconstitutional mission. If the reporter goes to Hegseth (or his designee) to ask permission and they are told they are not allowed to report on it, how is that in line with the freedom of the press?

i don't know why i even try to explain it to you.  You're unable to comprehend anything you don't already know but still have opinions on.

Funny, I find myself with the same thought about you.

If there is question of wrongdoing then it is about both.


Agreed but journalists also don't have an obligation to ask the government permission to report stories. An ethical journalist will contact the government if a story is about to break so as not to put people unnecessarily in danger, but consider that the 1st amendment is part of the check and balance against government. A good reported can say they have a story about a secret operation about to occur but in the end the military cannot stop the reporter, they can only request the reporter delay the story so as not to compromise the mission.

Imagine a scenario a journalist might face, someone within the Pentagon leaks information to a reporter where a military unit did something unlawful or was given an unconstitutional mission. If the reporter goes to Hegseth (or his designee) to ask permission and they are told they are not allowed to report on it, how is that in line with the freedom of the press?

EEF comes back and gets swoooshed and more poor examples. lol. So entertaining.

EEF comes back and gets swoooshed and more poor examples. lol. So entertaining.

Yeah.  There's no question of wrongdoing with Hegseth.  Only butt-hurt journalists and Liberals who don't want to be told "No" -- ever.

The First Amendment isn't a free pass to behind closed doors where operations planning and executions take place.  Nor is it an exception allowing the press to have access to our national security information that only those with a need to know and the proper clearances can access.

They've been given special privileges for so long as "the 4th branch of government", it's gone to their heads.  The most recent failure was propping up the empty shell of a man as President his entire term when the proof he was unfit was in our faces whenever he was allowed to appear in public, which was seldom.

Ever notice how nobody makes the point of Biden being a one-term president?  That used to be the litmus test for whether or not a president was successful.  To be voted out of office after one term was a sign that he was not a very good president.  He dropped out versus being kicked out, but only because the truth was too blatant to cover up any longer.  Still waiting for the other shoe to drop and show that most of his "actions" were executed by autopen and without his explicit approval.

Sorry, but when the press starts working for the people instead of their chosen party again (assuming they ever did), then maybe a free press will exist.  Until then, they are.nothing more than propaganda mouthpieces for their party.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; ...