131
Bravo to all those reporters rejecting this new opaque authoritarian!
Here's the second most important piece of into in the article:
Only the conservative One America News Network signed on.
Does anyone hear the propaganda if there is no one there to listen? The republicans are really fucking themselves on this one.
Seems like they're just bypassing the press and putting out their own propaganda via social media. Hell, Trump has his own platform he had the balls to call "Truth Social".
Isn’t it just a trash old fork of Mastodon? Would certainly make the public Bondi DM make sense.
Don't forget the maga influencers as well
To further drive their points how, the ones remaining should further pontificate this. Every time Trump attacks one of the press during pressers they should all immediately turn their cameras off and pack up their equipment. This would be a glorious rebuttal to his attack on the Press and our Free Speech. They will not, however, because nearly all of them now are complicit actors working for media outlets owned by billionaire Trump donors.
They could all also stop sucking his dick and start reporting on reality. Call a spade a spade, or a dictator a dictator. If trump loses the media, he loses a lot of his power to control the narrative. I don't believe that most of these news outlets have a spine and are willing to work together to tell the truth, but I can dream... Sometimes.
Think about who owns the networks.
Not explaining how this is a hallmark of authoritarian rule, but quoting the bullshit reasons the regime pretends to believe in is still a failing of the duty of the press.
There is essentially no legitimate mainstream media anymore. They've all been acquired by some late stage cap oligarch, so anything they print will be filtered through the lens of disseminating propaganda and manufacturing content on their behalf.
Edit: I'm in no way advocating that "alternative" news is less bias or more trustworthy. The point is that you can't inherently trust ANY media by brand name recognition, the same way that you can no longer trust that brand name equals quality in general; that only applied when there was actual competition instead of a handful of corporations owning the majority of every industry, all sharing the same board of directors, reporting to the same few hundred oligarchs.
I mean, NPR?
Have you ever seen NPR or PBS refer to the thousands of Palestinian civilians kidnapped and indefinitely detained, without charges or trial, as "hostages"? Because I haven't. They are always "prisoners".
Ap news is solid. Their reporting is consistently high quality. With breaking news they dont try and report all the unverified information sticking close to what is actually known.
You are never going to get news that isnt filtered through someone's lens. Alternative news is 1000x worse when it comes to disseminating propaganda.
They did not include which orgs complied with the regime, or draw parallels to the "ministry of truth" authoritarian precedent that this action represents. Look at what they choose to omit.
I never said alternative media is more trustworthy or less bias.
APnews isnt there to list orgs that comply or draw parallels. Theyre a news site they tell you what's happening you read that and if you want to go further you can.There are plenty of other sites that will do that.
It's called due diligence, journalistic integrity, and reporting the facts.
"They're a news site." isn't an excuse for not covering all the facts of the story, in fact, that's the exact reason they're being held with scrutiny. It is their job to provide as much information as possible. That's quite literally what news reporting is for.
I want to insult you because tbh your comment is really fucking dumb.
My comment that's older than their shows that they did name the one org that complied. I agree, the comment above is stupid, but the AP did do what you want. The person above just lied (through ignorance or on purpose) and said they didn't.
Sadly, I think it's a win-win for the fascists.
The press only had a presence in the pentagon because it was advantageous to have them there. The media isn't disappearing just because they are no longer given easy access. They will just have less of a relationship with the department of defense. Yes, it's bad for the journalists, but it's worse for the administration. Those reporters had been there so that they could spread the official talking points. Letting reporters become dependent on their easy access and maintaining a reasonable working relationship makes it a lot easier to seed stories, to ask for small favors and to give off the record comments that shape narratives. Ol' Whiskeyleaks is failing at coercion and in the process is sacrificing influence. That he doesn't understand this is amazing considering he was (theoretically) a journalist until less than a year ago.
As with so many things, they are destroying what their predecessors spent the last century building by being both malicious and incompetent.
As the guy said on NPR, people have phones. The reporters can still do their jobs without being physically present in the building.
I don't see this as a win as I'm pretty sure they wanted less attention and questioning of their activities. It's easier for them to blame the press for walking than to put up restrictions that make it look like they're hiding things.
A few months ago I would accuse Americans here of being a bit hysterical but not any more.
A lot of us are panicking because the future is crystal clear and we just cannot understand how so many people around us as being all business as usual.
A friend of mine was getting tired of my “conspiracies,” so I agreed to write them down with the a date and when one of them happened I’d tell them. I’ve got pages of check marked items. “Believe me yet?” I say. 😡
inb4 trump says he fired them all or some stupid shit.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
131 points (98.5% liked)
politics
26640 readers
899 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS