Donald Trump’s edict banning three news organizations from the White House is illegal, and I have little doubt that the courts will overturn it in due course. The question is: How should the rest of the media respond?
Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation — and become a supporter for just $6 a month.
Trump said on Friday that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would no longer be allowed access, writing on Truth Social: “There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories,” adding: “Now, if they want to write them, that’s fine, but I don’t have to let them into my — into the people’s house.” And sure enough, CNN and MS NOW were turned away at the gate earlier today.
What this calls for is massive solidarity. Not a single news outlet should send anyone to the White House. I’d make one exception: The Associated Press, to which most news organizations subscribe. If anything like this were to happen, the AP should make its White House coverage available to clients and non-clients alike. Of course, the AP has had its own problems with access after refusing to go along with Trump’s ridiculous “Gulf of America” ruse.
Here’s part of what Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, had to say about Trump’s attack on the three news organizations:
It’s difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government. It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move. The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public.
National Press Club president Mark Schoeff Jr. said this in an emailed statement:
Banning news organizations from the White House based on the administration’s disapproval of their coverage is a clear attempt to control which voices are allowed to witness and report on the exercise of presidential power….
The First Amendment does not permit the government to pick and choose which journalists are allowed to do their jobs. When the President of the United States bars credentialed news organizations from access to his administration, he weakens one of the nation’s strongest checks on those who hold power.
As for why Trump’s move is illegal: It’s viewpoint discrimination. First Amendment rulings over access to government proceedings and officials over the years have made it clear that you can’t ban some news outlets simply because you don’t like what they report.
There are many examples I could cite, but let me offer just one. In 2018, then-CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s White House press credentials were revoked after a contentious back-and-forth between him and Trump during a news conference. The administration backed down after a federal judge rules in Acosta’s favor, with CNN reporting at the time that U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, “said he believes that CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case overall.”
The White House press corps has been notably lacking in showing solidarity in the face of Trump’s numerous attacks on freedom of the press. But there’s no reason to think that Trump is going to stop at these three. As he said Friday:
Trump also said during Friday’s press gaggle in the Oval Office that he may ban The New York Times and The Washington Post next.
“I mean, they’re disgusting,” Trump said. “I don’t get it. Why would they be? You know, we’re doing so well, and they’ll take the most positive story and make it as negative as possible.”
The most important journalism about Trump’s reckless authoritarianism does not come out of access to official proceedings like press briefings. Rather, it comes out of the hard work of obtaining documents and checking in with sources. A press boycott, in other words, would do more good than harm.
Discover more from Media Nation
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dan: You’ve elaborated on why it’s wrong but not on how a boycott would do “more good than harm.” Not disagreeing, just wishing you’d elaborate on the “good”you’d expect.
What is to be gained by pretending that it’s business as usual? I’m not entirely sure myself what good would come out of it, but I’d like to see at least some attempt to force a confrontation.