The incoming Trump administration has signaled that it will be giving some podcasters, bloggers and news commentary websites access to White House briefings. As the night follows day, the Axis media is freaking out. The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room only has a capacity of 49 seats (the room could be changed to a larger one, of course) and adding participants means that some legacy media reporters will have to go. Good.

Here’s the objective, fair, unbiased headline at NewsCastStudio, the trade publication for broadcast news media: “Report: Trump officials may meddle in White House briefing room seating, add pro-MAGA outlets.” Allow me to translate: “pro-MAGA outlets” means non-Axis propagandists, those who may not see it as their duty as ‘advocacy journalists’ to undermine Republicans in general and Trump in particular.

The White House Correspondents’ Association is technically in charge of deciding seating access and assignments, but the White House controls who gets access to the building and room. Having the White House Correspondents Association decide who can be part of the the press corps questioning the White House spokespeople in daily briefings is a classic “fox in the hen house” system. Still, the White House has the power to block the access of a particular reporter or an entire network (Bye-bye, MSNBC!) by denying security passes. This would, of course, be condemned as undemocratic and something Hitler would do, but the Biden team kicked the conservative Daily Signal out of the briefings because it was inadequately supportive of Joe.

In Trump’s first administration, a reporter’s “badge” couldn’t be suspended because without a warning and due process. The Biden Administration eliminated that rule (it was a “norm,” not really a rule) last year so the White House could control its media narrative more tightly. Six requirements were enacted as conditions predicate to a press pass, with conditions like having either a business or residence in the DC area. That one would exclude, for example, podcasters like Joe Rogan or bloggers like Ann Althouse. The current selection of reporters who fill those 49 seats is a stacked deck against Trump just as it has been a claque for Joe Biden, with a couple of exceptions.

The article in NewsCastStudio characterizes the situation this way: “It’s not entirely clear how solid the WHCA’s control of the room’s roster is and if it could canceled or essentially ignored by an administration that is known for not playing by the rules.”

Their rules are that the mainstream, Axis media must be given every opportunity to undermine and attack the Trump Administration, and any outlets or reporters who have a different concept of their role should sit in the back row or be excluded completely.

Ethical rules for participation in the briefings would include more non-traditional media representation and ensure a bias balance. Outright breaches of ethical journalism principles by an organization should result in adverse consequences. Put that in writing; lay out the standards and procedures. For example, CBS News and NBC News should have their privileges suspended as punishment for “60 Minutes” editing its Harris interview to deceive viewers, or NBC giving Harris free promotion of her candidacy on “Saturday Night Live.”

Do I think it is likely that a Trump Administration would seek balance and fairness rather than just a more supportive press corps? No, of course not. I also think, however, that the current group of partisan hacks are ethically estopped from complaining when the metaphorical pendulum finally swings in a new direction.