Journalists freaking out over universal background checks for media convention coverage

The same media that has been uniformly supportive of “universal” background checks as a precondition to exercising Second Amendment rights, are portraying their own required background checks as a threat to their First Amendment rights.

The issue stems from Presidential Policy Directive 22, an Obama administration decision that apparently gives the Secret Service the total responsibility of “access control” to the political conventions.

The media, needless to say, are incensed. A piece in the Daily Beast – characterizes the Washington press establishment as “up in arms.” (Ironic use of the metaphor) "That article even suggests that the Secret Service, having been “tarnished” by “aggressive investigative reporting,” may abuse its newly-conferred authority to settle the score.

Journalists cited by the Beast fault the “inscrutable security screening process for which there are no plainly established criteria, and from which there is no appeal,” as well as the idea that government is now exercising discretion over “who can and can’t be a journalist.” (Funny, sounds exactly like the secret terrorist watch list so many of these same people want used to deny 2nd amendment rights?)

“I don’t think the First Amendment allows that,” one journalist huffs. (Sure it does, after all any right can be regulated, you're the people who told us so.) Concerns have also been raised that arrests arising from what the journalists claim is prior First Amendment activity might be enough to exclude them. Some are even floating the idea of “boycotting” the vetting process for credentials en masse.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/05/how-the-secret-service-is-trying-to-handcuff-the-press.html?

This is just so frickin' rich, and I'm betting not one of these pompous media weasels will even see the irony in this applying to them. I guess "Good for the Goose - Good for the Gander" doesn't sit very well with the Bloomberg's many media fans. But it's telling that just the concept of a background check offends them.

I guess not many of them are gun owners or it wouldn't be any big deal and just like many gun control supporters they either haven't ... or can't pass a basic background check.