Here is a perhaps intreguing article by Kenneth P. Vogel and Michael Calderone from
Ok, that logo didn’t work out so well.
The ideas surrounding free speech and access by the press lend themselves to both paranoia and abuse. People in power can almost always limit their interactions with the press, but at the same time, they only have so much time to give so they must make a choice. This type of thing could be nothing. After all, seats on the plane are a scarce resource. As a scarce resource, seats on the plane, have to be distributed. How and by whom such decisions get made I suppose is a matter of discretion. That discretion could intentionally exclude some or unintentionally exclude some. In the end, someone has to get the axe. I’m not going to say that anything is necessarily different here than in the past in politics. The left even complained of not having enough access to the Clinton White house. I have to maintain that any press is a potential liability to anyone in power or seeking it. This should be well understood. As for the distribution of scarce goods, in economics the markets largely make decisions as to the distribution of scare goods which lets many individuals be involved in the process. Here, like in economics, Obama wants complete discretion as to who gets what. If you cross him, you get not. Unfortunately for papers such as the Washington Times,and there is not enough exposure to preclude such potentially draconian actions. If ABC or the NY Times were excluded, all hell would break loose. Assuming they are in the tank for his lordship, that would never be. As for political-economy, sadly, those who disagree with said lordship or his friends face the possibility of losing more and more of the scarce goods that they desire.