Just say no: Trump’s illegal ban on three news outlets demands massive solidarity

Photo via RawPixel.

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.

Continue reading “Just say no: Trump’s illegal ban on three news outlets demands massive solidarity”

The New York Times takes on Trump’s crusade against freedom of speech and of the press

The New York Times has published a comprehensive examination of Donald Trump’s attempts to stifle freedom of speech and of the press. Written by Jim Rutenberg and Maggie Haberman, it’s cast as a “news analysis” so they can offer some judgments. I’m guessing that it will be on the front page of the Sunday print edition.

There’s nothing in the story that hasn’t been previously reported, but it’s all here — from Trump’s bogus lawsuits against ABC and CBS to his Justice Department’s failed attempt to subpoena Times reporters; from an FBI raid on the home of a Washington Post reporter to FCC chair Brendan Carr’s threats against broadcast networks. Rutenberg and Haberman write:

Almost 20 months into Mr. Trump’s second term, his long-running media clashes have grown into a sweeping campaign to control speech in America that stands out for applying so many levers, so fast, all at once.

Although First Amendment protections remain reasonably strong, there are soft spots, and Trump is exploiting them. For instance, the right of journalists to protect confidential sources is extremely limited, especially in the federal courts, and hauling reporters into court sends a message. It’s nearly impossible to win a frivolous libel suit, but Trump has used such suits to extract settlements from media corporations that need favors. Broadcast may be in its death throes, but it remains the one part of the media that is subject to government regulation, thus opening it up to Carr’s depredations.

The Times roundup is a must-read for anyone who cares about the role of a free and independent press in a democratic society. And know this: If Democrats take back one or both branches of Congress this November, Trump’s behavior is only going to become more unhinged and authoritarian.

The ties between the Lindsay Clancy mistrial and a famous 290-year-old press-freedom case

If you’re wondering why a lone juror who may have ignored the law about reasonable doubt could lead to a mistrial in the case of Lindsay Clancy, a landmark verdict that advanced press freedom 290 years ago provides some important background.

Sign up for free email delivery of Media Nation — and become a supporter for just $6 a month.

Sue O’Connell of NBC 10 Boston interviewed three jurors after a mistrial was declared. The foreperson, Roni Carlson, said the holdout “admitted he had reasonable doubt” but told his fellow jurors, “I’m still not going to say that she’s not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Continue reading “The ties between the Lindsay Clancy mistrial and a famous 290-year-old press-freedom case”

Public figures, private figures and why the difference matters in The New York Times libel defeat

The New York Times lost a libel case Thursday for the first time in more than 60 years. Ironically, both defeats played out in Alabama.

The earlier loss, in 1960, led to the landmark Times v. Sullivan ruling of 1964, in which the Supreme Court decided that it wasn’t enough for a public official to show that a offensive statement was false and defamatory. The official also had to show that it was published despite the knowledge that it was false, or made with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

The second loss seems unlikely to lead to a similarly favorable outcome for the Times. Kai Spears, a former University of Alabama basketball player, won a $9.25 million judgment after the Times falsely reported that he was at the scene of a fatal shooting. Ryan Phillips, who covered the U.S. District Court trial for Patch, observes that $7.5 million of that was for punitive damages, which the Times will almost certainly appeal.

Continue reading “Public figures, private figures and why the difference matters in The New York Times libel defeat”

An indie journalist in Worcester avoids having to identify his confidential sources — for now

Worcester City Hall. Photo (cc) 2015 by Dan Kennedy.

An independent news organization called This Week in Worcester may be compelled to identify its confidential sources as the result of a libel suit brought against the outlet by a city police officer. First Amendment watchdog Andrew Quemere posted about the case on Bluesky.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

According to Brad Petrishen of the Telegram & Gazette of Worcester, Superior Court Judge Gillian Feiner decided not to force This Week publisher Thomas Marino to identify his sources at this time, and she urged Marino and the plaintiff, Officer Thomas Duffy II, to work out a pre-trial settlement. Feiner did not rule out requiring Marino to identify his sources later on.

Continue reading “An indie journalist in Worcester avoids having to identify his confidential sources — for now”

Two cheers for the Mass. Senate, whose proposed shield law would formalize the status quo

The Massachusetts Statehouse
The Massachusetts Statehouse. Photo (cc) 2024 by Dan Kennedy.

The Massachusetts Senate has passed a shield law that would give journalists some protection from having to identify their confidential sources, reports Matt Stout (sub. req.) in The Boston Globe. But it’s not clear how much the measure would actually accomplish.

Please support this free source of news and commentary by joining my Patreon for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly newsletter with exclusive content.

The shield legislation, in the form of an amendment filed by Sen. Rebecca Rausch, a Needham Democrat, would have to pass the House and be signed by Gov. Maura Healey before it becomes law.

Continue reading “Two cheers for the Mass. Senate, whose proposed shield law would formalize the status quo”

Three for Friday: Trump and the Times, Mass. public records and journalism cuts at UMass Dartmouth

1905 photo via Wikimedia Commons.

I’m heading out for a family wedding in a little while, but the media news keeps coming. Here are three stories you should be aware of.

📰 Trump backs down. “The federal government says it will drop its subpoenas compelling New York Times reporters to testify about anonymous sources in a case that involved President Donald Trump’s claims about a Qatari-gifted Air Force One jet” (CNN). My earlier coverage.

📰 Mass. Senate to boost public records. “Top Senate Democrats signaled Thursday they will seek a vote next week on legislation that would, like a bill passed last month in the House, subject both the governor’s office and the Legislature to some kind of public records framework, taking aim at the same topic already targeted by a question on the November ballot” (CommonWealth Beacon).

📰 Journalism cuts at UMass Dartmouth. “Student journalists at UMass Dartmouth are speaking out about what they say may be unfair treatment, or even retribution, after the university’s only journalism professor was let go — two months after a university dean wrote that the professor’s contract extension was already ‘approved’” (New Bedford Light).

In 2024, Trump killed a federal shield law. Now he’s exploiting that to harass The New York Times.

One of several planes that have been used as Air Force One. Photo (cc) 2015 by Gage Skidmore.

In the waning days of the last Congress in December 2024, a Republican senator killed efforts to pass a federal shield law that would have protected journalists from being forced to identify their anonymous sources or turn over confidential documents.

If you value news and commentary like this, please sign up for free email delivery of new posts — and consider becoming a supporter for just $6 a month. Supporters receive a weekly email with exclusive content.

The so-called PRESS Act, which had passed the House unanimously, died when Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas — acting at the behest of Donald Trump, who’d just been re-elected — objected to an attempt to pass it by unanimous consent. Cotton said that passage would turn senators “into the active accomplice of deep-state leakers, traitors and criminals, along with the America-hating and fame-hungry journalists who help them out.”

Now we see the consequences of Cotton’s recklessness. Michael M. Grynbaum reports in The New York Times that three of the five Times journalists who exposed security problems on the new Air Force One — a corrupt gift to Trump from the Qatari government — received subpoenas ordering them to reveal their sources.

Continue reading “In 2024, Trump killed a federal shield law. Now he’s exploiting that to harass The New York Times.”

From the Trump regime to a rogue judge in New Jersey, the First Amendment is under assault

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Thomas McCloskey. Official photo via the New Jersey Globe.

It’s not a good day for the First Amendment, as four New York Times journalists have been subpoenaed in connection with their report (sub. req.) that Donald Trump’s new Air Force One plane — a gift that he corruptly accepted from the Qatari government — lacks important security features.

The journalists have been called to testify before a federal grand jury on Wednesday. Although the exact nature of the inquiry hasn’t been revealed, it’s probably an attempt by the Trump regime to determine who leaked the information to the Times.

This morning, though, I want to call your attention to a more blatant violation of the First Amendment: a judge’s demand that a New Jersey newspaper remove school security footage from its YouTube channel and refrain even from writing about it. On Thursday, the judge softened his order slightly but then extended it to all news outlets.

Continue reading “From the Trump regime to a rogue judge in New Jersey, the First Amendment is under assault”

For the second time in a week, federal agents threaten critics of the Trump regime in upstate NY

Federal agents looking for David Streever at his home in Rochester, N.Y. Photo via Syracuse.com.

Here we go again. Last week Michelle Breidenbach of Syracuse.com reported that a poll worker in Syracuse, New York, had been handed a threatening letter by two federal agents.

Follow my Bluesky newsfeed for additional news and commentary. And please join my Patreon for just $6 a month. You’ll receive a supporters-only newsletter every Thursday.

The letter, which claimed she had endangered ICE personnel, was almost certainly the result of her having written an Instagram post calling on Jonathan Ross, the ICE agent who shot and killed Minneapolis protester Renee Good, to be indicted. Ross had already been publicly identified in the press. (The Syracuse incident was the subject of my newsletter last week for paid supporters, which I’m now offering for free.)

Now we learn that two federal agents showed up at a home in Rochester, New York, last Tuesday to deliver a warning about an email that David Streever had sent to Todd Lyons last February. At that time Lyons was the interim director of ICE; he’s since left that post. Breidenbach reports that Streever was on vacation in Finland with his 7-year-old daughter, so the letter was left with his wife, Hilary Brandt Streever, an Episcopal priest.

Continue reading “For the second time in a week, federal agents threaten critics of the Trump regime in upstate NY”