Scalise's 'Biden Did It Too' Defense Gets Smacked Down By Jon Karl
Scalise argued that Biden had imposed similar restrictions on reporters and repeated the comparison online.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCrooks and Liars is a blog with an openly partisan voice, and this article relies substantially on selected quotations and social-media posts. It identifies its author, but the text offers limited independent sourcing or documentary support for its central comparison.
- Source type — A partisan blog; a lower institutional-reliability prior than an established newsroom.
- Editorial standards — The text uses overtly opinionated language and does not present a clear independent reporting method.
- Author attribution — The article names an author.
- Source selection — Quotes an interview, social posts and a fact-checking response, but provides limited direct sourcing beyond them.
The article gives concrete details about the credential changes and includes competing factual claims, but its account is brief, heavily judgmental and dependent on selected quotations and posts rather than a fuller range of independently documented sources.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article provides some factual detail about Biden-era credential rules and includes Scalise’s comparison and Trump’s own statement, but it presents the issue through a strongly critical frame and gives little space to their explanations.
- Loaded language — Uses profane and evaluative language that signals a one-sided judgment.
- Counterarguments presented — Includes Scalise’s comparison and quotes Trump’s statement, but does not develop their supporting arguments.
- Source diversity — Quotes an interviewer, social-media users and a fact-checking response, but offers limited independent sourcing.
- Omitted context — Does not provide a fuller account of the administration’s stated basis for the restrictions.
The article is strongly critical of Scalise and Trump, using dismissive and profane language while presenting the comparison to Biden as an excuse. Its framing and word choice indicate a strong leftward lean.
- Language tone — Uses openly hostile and profane descriptions of Scalise’s argument and Trump’s conduct.
- Framing — Frames Scalise’s comparison as a failed excuse and emphasizes the difference between the administrations’ actions.
- Source selection — Gives substantial space to critics and social-media responses, with little elaboration of Scalise’s reasoning.
Steve Scalise defended the Trump administration’s press restrictions by arguing that Joe Biden had imposed similar limits, but the article says the situations differed. It contrasts Biden-era credential rules with Trump’s ban on outlets and the removal of CNN from a press pool assignment.
The article reports that President Donald Trump announced that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were being banned from the White House, then removed CNN from a scheduled television pool assignment. During an ABC interview, Steve Scalise argued that Biden had imposed similar restrictions; the article says Jon Karl challenged the comparison and Scalise later repeated his claim online.
The article cites an account saying that Biden-era hard-pass rules became stricter and the number of passes fell from 1,417 to 975, but that most holders did not reapply and only one application was denied. It also quotes Representative Don Beyer saying the prior administration changed its credential process while allowing reporters to retain access. The article contrasts those changes with Trump’s restrictions and quotes Trump describing outlets as “FAKE NEWS.”
Community verdict
11 VOTESPeople in this story
SWIPE →House majority leader defending the Trump administration’s press restrictions
President whose administration barred outlets from the White House and removed CNN from a press pool assignment
Trump's version of this story ↗Former president whose administration changed White House press credential rules
Representative who commented on the difference between the administrations’ press-access policies
Part of a bigger story
2 OUTLETS- ARTICLES
- 2
- OUTLETS
- 2
- AVG CRED
- 41
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…




