5 ms·

A quick google search suggests Obama did the same thing. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=6156794&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote200

• agildehaus 10y ago
  That's hardly equivalent.
  • serf 10y ago
    you're right. Trump should have just reduced the amount of chairs available and warned the folks he liked, like Obama did. Right? God forbid a president do something straight forward without making up reasons as to why it is a noble action. I agree it's wrong, but I'm not willing to give a pass to another president because he worded it differently and achieved the same ousting.
    • neilellis 10y ago
      Check the date on that article. He wasn't president.
    • daeken 10y ago
      > I'm not willing to give a pass to another president because he worded it differently and achieved the same ousting. Obama was a presidential candidate when that occurred, not a president.
    • addicted 10y ago
      Are you comparing seats on a plane to seats in a press briefing room?
    • agildehaus 10y ago
      Obama wasn't president when this happened. This wasn't Air Force One they couldn't fly on. Limited space without the logistical capacity to bring in another plane seems a perfectly valid excuse to me.
    • choogle 10y ago
      did you even read the article, he was a candidate at the time and booted people who supported his opponent, how is that the same as the sitting president doing the same thing?
    • asynchronous13 10y ago
      There is significant difference between the press crew that travels with a candidate during the campaign and an official white house press briefing.
• conistonwater 10y ago
  > Obama did the same thing FYA: > Barack Obama's campaign has booted from its airplane three reporters who work for newspapers that have endorsed John McCain. > The campaign says that a limited number of seats forced it to make the tough decision of which journalists would be permitted to follow the Democratic presidential candidate in the last four days of the campaign, but the papers are calling foul, claiming they were targeted for their editorial-page positions and kicked off while nonpolitical publications like Glamour and Jet magazines remained on board. This action is about the press briefings. What are you talking about? Do you have something specific in mind?
  • coldtea 10y ago
    How about these then: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/10/cpj-report-on-obama-press/2960607/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/10/10/cpj-report-on-... Obama vs. Free Press: White House Claims Ban on News Photographers Actually a ‘Win’ for Transparency
    • conistonwater 10y ago
      Your link doesn't match your title, so what's up with that? But in any case, wasn't that wrong too—the thing you linked to about leakers and whistleblowers? I don't think I understand what you mean with how about these then. (Unless you genuinely do mean it as whataboutism, in which case it doesn't seem to me like a valid point.)
    • vacri 10y ago
      Keep in mind that the 24-hour news cycle is a relatively new 21st century thing, so comparisons about information control to earlier times isn't straightforward. Monitoring every action of a politician is much more intense than previously. It doesn't make the actions in the link right, but it's important to keep that context in mind.