Journalists freaking out over universal background checks for media convention coverage

[DonP]

The same media that has been uniformly supportive of “universal” background checks as a precondition to exercising Second Amendment rights, are portraying their own required background checks as a threat to their First Amendment rights.

The issue stems from Presidential Policy Directive 22, an Obama administration decision that apparently gives the Secret Service the total responsibility of “access control” to the political conventions.

The media, needless to say, are incensed. A piece in the Daily Beast – characterizes the Washington press establishment as “up in arms.” (Ironic use of the metaphor) "That article even suggests that the Secret Service, having been “tarnished” by “aggressive investigative reporting,” may abuse its newly-conferred authority to settle the score.

Journalists cited by the Beast fault the “inscrutable security screening process for which there are no plainly established criteria, and from which there is no appeal,” as well as the idea that government is now exercising discretion over “who can and can’t be a journalist.” (Funny, sounds exactly like the secret terrorist watch list so many of these same people want used to deny 2nd amendment rights?)

“I don’t think the First Amendment allows that,” one journalist huffs. (Sure it does, after all any right can be regulated, you're the people who told us so.) Concerns have also been raised that arrests arising from what the journalists claim is prior First Amendment activity might be enough to exclude them. Some are even floating the idea of “boycotting” the vetting process for credentials en masse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/how-the-secret-service-is-trying-to-handcuff-the-press.html?

This is just so frickin' rich, and I'm betting not one of these pompous media weasels will even see the irony in this applying to them. I guess "Good for the Goose - Good for the Gander" doesn't sit very well with the Bloomberg's many media fans. But it's telling that just the concept of a background check offends them.

I guess not many of them are gun owners or it wouldn't be any big deal and just like many gun control supporters they either haven't ... or can't pass a basic background check.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

1. Me, you mean me.....?

But, but, I'm no Joe Six Pack, Bubba Gump yahoo..... I have a degree in journalism!!!

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

2. Oh, wait, just thought of something.....

You think it could have anything to do with the 'Weekend in Colombia' coverage?

[bluestateguy]

3. Right to free speech is not the same as right to access

The former is an right, the latter is more of a privilege.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. I agree with bluestateguy

Having the task of presidential protection should include the authority to bar "press" members who don't, shall we say, measure up.

Now I'm nobody and that's just about who listens to my opinions but IMHO those seeking access to a presidential press conference or any closer presidential access should have to pass a category 3 "Yankee White" background check or equivalent (without the SSBI; see DDI 5210.87).

I mean really... being qualified shouldn't be an issue. What does it say about the folks that would fail?