Well, at least for now, they're going to try the opposite approach and see what happens. An open letter to Trump from the US Press Corps:<p><a href="http://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump_white_house_press_corps.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump_white_house_press_co...</a><p><i>"We’re going to work together. You have tried to divide us and use reporters’ deep competitive streaks to cause family fights. Those days are ending. We now recognize that the challenge of covering you requires that we cooperate and help one another whenever possible. So, when you shout down or ignore a reporter at a press conference who has said something you don’t like, you’re going to face a unified front."</i>
I remember W. played a similar game. He would limit access to the press, which would cost the news agencies money because they couldn't cover the man. To get access, they had to have a history of printing favorable articles about the administration.<p>The press will always complain about this, but apparently in W's case, it was more egregious.<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/white-house-keeps-a-grip-on-its-news.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/14/business/white-house-keeps...</a><p>It was pretty obvious Trump is even less tactical about it than W though when he would refuse to answer the yelling guy's question because he disliked that they pushed the Trump dossier.