He should have stood his ground and said "Jim assaulted a woman- CNN isn't banned, just him for his unacceptable actions. He can apply again in 1 year and we'll re-evaluate if he's shown genuine reform of his behavior."
No, when the courts said he couldn't ban people, he should have ended press conferences entirely. There's nothing in the law saying they are required and there's no reason why a bunch of anointed priests should be allowed special privileges.
Hold press conferences online and let people vote on the questions. Journalists have to get in line like everyone else.
He should have stood his ground and said "Jim assaulted a woman- CNN isn't banned, just him for his unacceptable actions. He can apply again in 1 year and we'll re-evaluate if he's shown genuine reform of his behavior."
I'm sure the networks would have aired explanation in full and called off the dogs...
It's not about calling off dogs. It's about telling the media to go get fucked by said dogs.
Any response they make is irrelevant.
Don't threaten MSNBC anchors with [what they'd consider] a good time.
No, when the courts said he couldn't ban people, he should have ended press conferences entirely. There's nothing in the law saying they are required and there's no reason why a bunch of anointed priests should be allowed special privileges.
Hold press conferences online and let people vote on the questions. Journalists have to get in line like everyone else.