I've said this before, but it bears repeating... a free and unfettered press is an essential component of the balance of power that makes our democracy work. It's part of what makes America great now.
So when a major party candidate bans media he doesn't like from covering his events, it smells like demagoguery.
He pulled press credentials from The Washington Post after it ran Op Ed pieces he didn't like. He's already banned Huffington Post and a few other online news sites whose coverage he didn't like. And he's said in his campaign speeches that he wants to change laws that protect freedom of the press, making it easier to sue media if he doesn't like what they report.
Doesn't this sound like he'd prefer state-controlled media like in Communist and dictatorial nations such as Russia and North Korea?
What I think the major media should do is, as a group, boycott his events, including his news conferences. I know this would be an unorthodox response, but we are dealing with an unorthodox person who goes by his own rules which are constantly changing.
If they stop giving him the free coverage he craves and needs to advance his campaign and his personal brand, then maybe he’ll start to play by the rules. And if he doesn’t, then he will be the one to suffer instead of our entire election process, as imperfect as it may be.
But making moves to unilaterally undo our First Amendment is not what a presidential candidate should be doing.