So the AP provably comes out as a propaganda source and not as an objective journalist source.
That’s enough to deny them press credentials I think.
There are no objective journalist sources. The purpose of the First Amendment is to protect the right of the people to listen to, and read the opinions of, whoever they wanna. Far from assuring objectivity, restricting the government’s ability to regulate printers - which is what the First Amendment does - guarantees that government cannot “assure objectivity.”That’s enough to deny them press credentials I think.
Since no journalistic enterprise can, under 1A, be licensed by the government, granting “press credentials” to anyone is nothing the Constitution has anything to do with. All this poppycock about a rude person associated with CNN having a “right” to equality among journalists with press passes is simply a political fight between the illegal journalism cartel (of which the AP is IMHO the linchpin) and a politician (Donald Trump) whose political party is opposed by the cartel.Everyone has a right to be a journalist. You have that right, and so do I. In fact, we’re exercising Jim Robinson’s right to be a printer just like any paid reporter might exercise the right of his employer (printer). It doesn’t matter whether or not Jim Robinson’s web site uses ink and paper or not because the authors of the Constitution specifically mentioned the right of Congress to establish the patent office “to promote the progress of science and useful arts.” So, there has been progress in the useful art of propagating opinion, which does not require ink and paper. The principle of the First Amendment that I am allowed to read the writing of anyone who wants to allow me to do so does not change. Unless of course the states amend the Constitution . . .