Well...erm...okay then. While I'm going to take what you're saying now at face value, I must admit I'm thrown off by this play you're doing here. Nothing against you, I'm just not familiar with your approach to arguing on here. And I don't think it's good posturing on your part especially with how you directly threw dirt at me earlier regarding this very thing; in fact, I think it's disingenuous arguing on your part. But fine...let's just move past that.
Now I can absolutely understand frustration w/ certain right-wing media stories against Obama--like the ones you've pointed out. And I should clarify a few points:
-I don't consider it any worthwhile criticism against Obama to say "GASP! He had an unfavorable attitude against media that opposed him!" or wasn't too keen on giving Fox as many interviews as with other networks (I don't know the tally across all of them; only bringing this up b/c of previous comments).
-The issue comes when that unfavorable attitude is translated into action. As others have pointed out, this--by all means temporary--banning of a correspondent for a singular press event didn't just materialize b/c Trump was angry at CNN FAKE NEWS. No, said correspondent acted out of line previously and this is the WH's response. Do I still believe this action is a wrong-headed move to make? Yes, you can still grasp the full context of the situation and still believe it's over-reaching. Plus, Trump acts belligerent to them as well so it may as well remain a two-way street at this point.
-Where I decided to jump in was in respect to a...whataboutism-lite comment to show that this isn't exactly new territory when looking back at the Obama admin too. I was incorrect about the Washington Free Beacon link, but I believe I made 2-for-3 in respect to my other points raised. I'm worried about the road we're going on in respect to press freedom too, but I think people need to reassess their...suspiciously convenient comatose between '08-'16 and acknowledge precedent for this type of behavior was set before Agent Orange came into office.
I am still not sure if the first link is an Apple to Apple situation. Not inviting Fox news to an interview they never ask for really isn't the White House Job. Also if they stated they would prefer Fox not attend is totally different then them saying Fox cannot attend.
As to this reporter, we will see where this goes. I noticed once Trump is able to do one thing he will take it to the extreme. So if we say this reporter was out of line and the temp ban for this event is warranted. Lets see how far Trump will take this. If anyone from CNN gives him tough questions at any time and they feel banning them is warranted then we may have an issue.
Well, allow me to reiterate on what I've stated previously. I haven't argued that it's a perfect 1:1 situation here, but they are analogous in respect to press treatment & general press reaction.
-Trump's usual spiel: "You're fake news!" etc. / Trump admin action: active banning of a press reporter from a particular event after an "insulting outburst" (as WH may claim) against Trump previously.
-Obama's spiel: "There's talk radio, that's one thing. Then there's operating as a news outlet, that's another." (similar type of degradation against ideological opponents just in more couched terms) / Treasury Dept. action: Perceived exclusion (not a 'non-invitation') from a special type of 'interview pool' event with which every other credentialed MSM outlet had no trouble trying to schedule.
Now, I've already tackled the notion of said exclusion arguably based on logistical errors (which WH contended at the time), along with acknowledging other nuances that still make it a pretty open-and-shut case. For one, we have all of FOX's competition (who'd probably have a more intimate knowledge of the goings-on at that particular time) demanding Fox News either be allowed to join in the pool or we won't conduct the interview. Secondly, despite whatever "logistical issues" the WH argued to deflect, you have an e-mail specifically wishing Fox News to not attend the Feinberg interview session. And let's be clear: there's not really much of a grey area between "preferring" and "ordering" when being issued such directives. So, that's not really making much of a case here. All in all, I think this case sports enough parallels to OP (and that's not even the worst example to present against Obama's press treatment).
Right, but that's part of the issue. Part of why this temp. ban sounds like an abuse of power is b/c of whom we're dealing with here & that potential for this to be a slippery slope. "Well...what's going to constitute bad behavior the next time around?"