The Solution is very simple: each media outlet gets ONE question per outlet, and they get to invite only ONE representative. This way, you don't just have a mainstream media that is controlled by 6 companies, you have alternative media outlets such as TruePundit, TheDailyCaller, ThePopulist, and (sorry) Yes Even Infowars.
One cannot claim they care about democracy and freedom of speech, and then pick and choose which outlets are entitled to access to the white house. Because asking questions is different than making statements. Infowars can say what they want on their outlet, but in the White House Press Room, they get ONE question, just like CNN. If they want to ask a stupid question, that is their prerogative--and it's up to a democratic and free public to decide if that question is stupid.
I want to remind the reader that all we've seen from the mainstream media in the press room in the last year have been stupid questions: unfair, sensationalized anti-Trump-leaning, baited questions, with a few reporters filibustering and making unwarranted, unfair accusations against a press secretary who is trying--against all odds--to inform the public with accuracy.
I think it's time to cut those actors off from their filibustering and let other outlets have a chance.
One outlet, one person, one question. That way, if you can fit 200 people in there, then 200 news outlets get a press pass.
Press passes should be related to verified subscribership, and consideration should be made as to ultimate ownership. For example Conde Nast cannot shard their company into 100 news outlets and then try to fill the white house press room with Conde Nasties, likewise Infowars can't split into Alex Jones, War Room, Real News with David Knight and divest them from their parent company as separate shows and then try to get 3 or more press passes.
No, it's one outlet, one ultimate owner, one person, one question.
If they filibuster, and ask another question, they are dismissed from the press room this time and not allowed back the subsequent time as a punishment. This is NOT because the White House is trying to hide anything. This punitive measure is because they are depriving ALL the other outlets from their question.
If another outlet wants to ask follow up questions, they may. Those reporters should coordinate follow up questions so that they can ask them. There is nothing wrong with reporters coordinating ahead of time to ask a complex series of questions, like handing each other a question flowchart...in fact, that should be encouraged.
The Public wants the Truth. Not going deep enough with questions is a defect to our understanding, so we should encourage 'deepness' and connecting-the-dots as a new modality of press, rather than sporadic, disconnected stories that each occur in a vacuum--that doesn't help anyone. Consider the stories of the MSM last year versus Luke Rosiak of TheDailyCallers coverage of the Imran Awan case.
If there is limited time and not every outlet gets to ask their question, there should also be a lottery or bingo type scrum to determine which outlets get to ask their question.
Personally, I'd like to see a white house press meeting where EACH AND EVERY outlet gets to ask a question, even if that means having fewer white house meetings in favor of a VERY long white house meeting that is weekly or every 2 weeks, an hour or 90 minute long meeting
The White House Press should be able to give April Ryans and Jim Acostas a warning, a sanction and then a permanent dismissal by the white house press secretary. Alternatively, they can be 'voted off the island' by their peers, for asking questions that insult the White House Press Secretary, the other members of the Press, the American People, the Executive Staff, or the President---and they can do it by suggestion box, which then stimulates a vote where 50% of the press room have to agree that person should be dismissed
This will cause that person to be permanently banned from the press room and their press pass revoked, but the news outlet can send a different person. The news outlet can avoid any bad press by revoking and replacing the individual's press pass and 'sending someone different' at any time. In other words, it's a travelling pass bound to the outlet, and the outlet has to pay any extreme vetting charges to make sure the person isn't any kind of security risk when in the press room
Extreme vetting in this case isn't just a rudimentary background check by the secret service, it includes an fMRI based lie detection test approved by their medical doctor, which includes UNDER fMRI an oath of loyalty to material facts in reportage complete and without omission, and to being honest with the American people to the best of their ability and understanding, and an statement of hoping for success and trust of the US Government to accurately dispense the news. If they have a problem with this mindset, they don't get a press pass
This will eliminate CIA actors and foreign intelligence agents that are embedded in the our media. We don't want them there because their reportage is simply a psychological form of lobbying to the interests of the interest THEY serve and not the American people