From the Sand-pit by Ken Gibbs

I see that the USA Department of Justice is seeking to determine whether several TV networks broke federal competition law when they suspended pool coverage of President Trump.

Viewing the introduction above, needs some clarification as I come from a non-US background and am – horrors ! – a migrant myself, so I need to tread with considerable caution, as we don’t need to have ICE becoming involved:
First, my understanding of the word ‘pool’ is a water-based edifice normally reserved for entertainment and/or for ensuring fitness, possibly polluted by green algae in the President’s attempt to have a Reflecting Pool to memorialise himself;
Secondly, as the report apparently emanated from the White House where considerable building works are – or might be – ongoing related to a dance hall wing of that building or institution, so possibly now includes an Olympic sized swimming pool where dancers will be able to cool off after their strenuous dance routines; and
Thirdly, if the DoJ has become involved, it almost certainly is because of Presidential pique.
A quick check with a colleague who comes from a part-US background, as to whether my understanding of the word ‘pool’ is accurate, shows that it is isn’t, and that, in this instance, the word ‘pool’ refers, rather, to a group devoted to reporting the Presidential activities to ensure that everyone in the land is aware that the President is working faithfully for the United States of America.

Actually, this event seems to have come from the direction of the President himself who took exception to the reporting of Presidential activities by certain press outlets, and banned them from the White House by withdrawing their press passes to the White House. Sounded a bit like someone throwing toys out of the pram. . . . .
Well, it seems that those banned press entities could play at the same game, so they stopped reporting on the Presidential activities – allegedly until their press passes would be reinstated. This, inevitably, was going to cause a tit-for-tat game which does little to enhance the Presidential reputation.
Time for a new press feature, “From the sand-pit” ?

This reminded me of the Rhodesian Rebellion where the ruling party decided that they had had enough of the meddling by the British Government, and they declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) from the British Crown. Looking back on it now 60+ years later, it was a bit of a storm in a tea-cup, but at the time it affected us considerably. The Governor at the time – appointed by the Crown – decided that he would not recognise the Rhodesian Cabinet declaration and would definitely not sign any legislation submitted to him by the Cabinet. It was a paper-tiger move because he was immediately placed under house arrest by the Rhodesian administration.
The local press had a field day reporting on the rebellion which was countered by the Cabinet introducing laws against the press through censorship. The spat didn’t last too long, but the world knew that the rebels had a problem on their hands. Both the Bulawayo Chronicle and the Rhodesia Herald reported what was happening but had to submit their copy to the censors. Where the censors forbade an article, a blank was printed in its place. When the Governor was awarded a Knighthood, this was front page news as the Governor was a Rhodesian himself – so the news-stands in Bulawayo and Salisbury (as it was in those days) had just the headlines. Tongues wagged hard and despite there being no internet to spread news quickly, ‘Bush Telegraph’ was surprisingly efficient.
Perhaps if the US White House Pool excluded members had reacted by showing just the headline and nothing more, they might have had an even better chance of being noticed for the absence of their reporting ? If the headline showed “What is the President trying to hide ?” tongues would have wagged overtime.

As this is about Pool Coverage and involves the current, sitting, President, we can’t call the affair ‘Watergate’, can we ? Would ‘Poolgate’ cover it ?