Speaking as an unreconstructed Free Speech Absolutist…

…am I the only person who isn’t particularly bothered by White House Press Room shenanigans?  Who genuinely does not care very much whether those briefings are closed off to Buzzfeed or CNN or even the New York Times? 

In third-grade-level terms, free speech means that you get to say what you want, without having to face certain kinds of consequences.  (“Certain kinds of consequences” may extend beyond “government coercion,” if you believe – as I do – that free speech has value, not just as a legal protection, but as a social norm.)  Freedom of the press, in particular, means that media outlets get to investigate whatever they want and that they get to report on their findings. 

It does not mean that certain particularly-successful media outlets get Special Privileges wherein they’re guaranteed Special Access to a White House spin doctor.  In a purely-principled sense, the NYT has no First Amendment rights that I don’t also have, and its exclusion from the press room means no more than my exclusion from the press room.  In a practical sense, certain kinds of hard-hitting journalism may have an important role to play in a healthy society, but those kinds of journalism do not involve having ritual public conversations with the mouthpieces of the powerful. 

You want to write about Trump?  Sounds great.  Shut the fuck up and go research what Trump is doing.  The First Amendment does not require him to have Sean Spicer spoon-feed you, and it’s not like you’re getting any critical information out of that process anyway. 

This whole thing seems like it’s hard to parse as anything other than a combination of “journalists experiencing injured status-consciousness” and “journalists being sad that the easiest and least-useful parts of their jobs are now somewhat less convenient.”