Here Are Three Major Reasons CNN and MS NOW’s Tears After WH Ban Mean Nothing [WATCH]

Benny Johnson criticized CNN and MSNBC reporters over their response to losing White House press credentials, arguing that their objections over press freedom conflict with how those same networks responded when President Donald Trump and conservative voices faced restrictions on major online platforms.

Reporters from CNN and MS NOW were denied White House access after Trump announced the restrictions.

Johnson said the controversy should be viewed in the context of how the press handled restrictions during the previous administration.

“CNN and MSNBC reporters were crying outside of the White House gate this morning because they had their press credentials revoked because Donald Trump has now banned fake news from the White House,” Johnson said.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

“And here are three reasons why those tears shouldn’t affect you.”

Johnson first accused the Biden administration of restricting access for reporters who might have asked difficult questions.

“Reason number one: Joe Biden banned 500 different reporters from the White House, mainly center-right or conservative reporters that might ask uncomfortable questions about the single most rigged presidency of our lifetime,” Johnson said.

He also criticized the number and structure of Biden’s press appearances.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

“Joe Biden did a grand total of like seven press conferences his entire time as the resident of the White House, and they banned the media from asking him questions,” Johnson said.

“They pre-scripted questions. This has been proven, and no reporters had any problem with that.”

Johnson then turned to the argument that restricting White House access raises First Amendment concerns.

He contrasted the current reaction with the media response when Trump was removed from major social media platforms.

“Reporters from CNN and MSNBC are screaming that this is a First Amendment issue, but they were nowhere to be found when Donald Trump was banned from the biggest platforms on Earth: YouTube, Facebook, all Meta properties, X, Twitter at the time,” Johnson said.

Johnson listed additional platforms from which he said Trump was removed and accused reporters of celebrating those restrictions.

“Donald Trump was stripped off of, I think, Etsy, Instagram, LinkedIn. Did Donald Trump even get a chance to be on LinkedIn?” Johnson said.

“They raided his house. They kicked in his door. They canceled his bank accounts. And these reporters didn’t say anything.”

According to Johnson, the reaction went beyond silence.

“In fact, they danced like goblins on that decision, and they loved it,” Johnson said.

“They thought it was a win for democracy and civility.”

Johnson also accused the networks of hypocrisy over their previous decisions not to carry Trump rallies live. He argued that outlets demanding greater access to Trump now had previously chosen not to provide their viewers with uninterrupted coverage of his remarks.

“These exact same reporters and these networks refused to ever take President Trump’s rallies live,” Johnson said.

“If they cared so much about getting access to President Trump, they cared so much about their viewers being able to see what Donald Trump has to say, why didn’t they take the rallies live?”

Johnson specifically recalled CNN explaining why it would not broadcast Trump rallies in their entirety.

“And you know, I remember specifically multiple times when CNN would go on air and say, this is the reason why; it was always Jake Tapper. Here’s the reason why we’re not going to broadcast President Trump’s rally live,” Johnson said.

“We’ll just bring you the updates. We’ll interrupt the president. They do this constantly.”

Johnson argued that the dispute is ultimately about access rather than restrictions on what journalists are permitted to say.

“The entire argument here collapses on its face because they don’t care about the First Amendment,” Johnson said.

“They never cared about the First Amendment when it was something that didn’t apply to them.”

He also pointed to his own experience with online restrictions.

“They didn’t care about the president’s speech being canceled. They didn’t care about the multitude of us, including myself, that were banned from social media, shadow-banned,” Johnson said.

“They cheered it on.”

Johnson accused the networks of working to restrict conservative voices while presenting Trump inaccurately.

“And then they do everything in their power to make sure that our voices get canceled, to make sure that the president is taken out of context, or they just straight-up lie about the president of the United States,” Johnson said.

He concluded by drawing a distinction between controlling what journalists say and deciding who receives access to White House grounds.

“The ultimate point is that Donald Trump isn’t coming in over the top and telling them what they can and cannot say,” Johnson said.

“He is limiting access.”

Johnson argued that White House access itself is not guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“That’s not something you’re entitled to. There’s no right to access in the First Amendment,” Johnson said.

“You don’t have a right to sit there on the campus of the White House and scream at the president every single day.”

“That is not a right that is found in the First Amendment,” Johnson continued.

“So you can yell all you want from the outside, but you know, hard to hate from outside the club: you can’t even get in.”

WATCH:

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.