Free press is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. Its freedom implies absence of an overreaching state. Good press seeks to inform, to inspire debate, and, more importantly, to criticize. While most of us may roll our eyes at talk shows, or find the constant stream of negativity from media outlets wearisome, it’s important to recognize the vital role the press plays in keeping us as active and independent citizens. Their reports are the ones we recall when the time comes to cast the ballot — the numbers, graphs, and impactful stories that are covered stick to us like ink from that cheap ballpoint pen. No news is not good news in this case.
As any other head of state, the activities of the president and his cabinet are documented with precision by a wide range of media outlets. From its origins in the 1930s, the White House press pool was an elegant solution to a common problem: too many reporters, too little space, and just one president. According to Paul Farhi of Columbia Journalism Review, a “pool” journalist would be selected from a list of volunteers by the White House Correspondents’ Association. “The White House hasn’t a direct role,” Farhi writes, “this non-involvement was by design.” The non-interference from behalf of the White House was a crucial factor in this, as it ensured press independence. Reporters could operate without fear of government censure, serving as an additional check to presidential power. In that way, being a “pool” journalist was both a privilege and a responsibility — their work is part of the historical record, and they serve as the eyes and ears of the public inside the White House. They aren’t acting as independent journalists anymore.
President Trump has not hid his disdain for the media. He’s made sharp comments, even during his first term as president. Either by chiding a reporter for their “nasty” tone for inquiring into national stockpiles back in 2020, or stating that only “a very evil person” would question the delayed response to the Texas floods in July of this year; he’s never been particularly fond of the press. It’s no surprise, then, that his hand-picked administration would feel much of the same way.
On March 25, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, announced that their administration “will determine who gets to enjoy the very privileged and limited access in spaces such as Air Force One and the Oval Office.” The given reasoning behind this controversial move was to broaden the reach of a more diverse set of media, and “restore access back to the American people.” As mentioned before, there’s never been any love lost between the president and journalists: the president, in his private capacity, has filed many lawsuits against media outlets and social media companies. In fact, the president’s chief regulator of broadcast media, Brendan Carr, has launched investigations on each of the major broadcast outlets — ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, and PBS — save Rupert Murdoch’s Fox, which is a corporate sister of the pro-Trump Fox News Channel. Even so, the president later sued Murdoch, according to David Folkenflik of NPR, for reporting on his relationship with the sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in his Wall Street Journal, claiming “false, defamatory, and malignant statements” made against his person.
However, restricting access to the media is something entirely different than investigating potential cases of slander or libel. In fact, the Associated Press — an independent news organization — was the first to feel the effects of the White House’s new policy, having been barred from covering presidential events on the basis that their AP Stylebook continues to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by its proper name, instead of “The Gulf of America.” The Associated Press sued, stating that the Trump administration’s ban is a fundamental attack on freedom of speech and should be overturned. In what appeared to be a victory for the Associated Press, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ruled in April that based on First Amendment grounds, the president cannot penalize the organization based on the content of its speech. However, just a month later, by a two to one margin, a panel of three judges in the Court of Appeals in Washington suspended the previous ruling, stating, in their majority opinion, that “the First Amendment does not control the president’s discretion in choosing with whom to speak or to whom to provide special access.”
Whether “special access” is now synonymous with the transparency that’s required from a functioning democracy remains to be seen — but Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, the only dissent, wrote that there isn’t anything stopping the majority’s reasoning to be applied to the press as a whole, resulting in a White House press corps whose members are afraid of publishing something that might anger an incumbent administration.
“That turns us into stenographers, not reporters.”
Those were the words of NPR Pentagon correspondent, Tom Bowman, after turning in the identification that grants him access to the building. He worked for twenty-eight years as a Pentagon correspondent, but after seeing the new policies for journalists established by the Defense Secretary, he chose to turn in his badge rather than accept the slew of restrictions imposed. He wasn’t the only one. In fact, all major news organizations chose to leave, and they have now been replaced by a series of far-right and conservative outlets, such as Frontlines, run by Turning Point USA, and Lindell TV, a streaming service run by MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.
However, the new restrictive standards imposed on the Pentagon correspondents aren’t the only source of calls of censorship. In July of this year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved a merger between Paramount, CBS’ parent company and Skydance, the Hollywood studio. The vote, and subsequent approval, came only after Paramount paid $16 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the president over a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris. However, the money paid wasn’t the concession, as Paramount also agreed to scrap DEI policies and instituting a “bias monitor” at CBS. FCC commissioner Ana Gómez stated in an interview that this creates a dangerous precedent, as it could lead to media companies “self-censoring” themselves in order to pursue and support a particular narrative — more importantly, one supported by the administration. Much like with the Pentagon correspondents, and the clashes with news outlets, the Trump administration has a narrow view of what they deem as “un-biased” reporting, and are willing to take the necessary steps to make sure their vision takes fruit.
Critics of the Trump administration have pointed out that their hostility and pressure towards reporters and the media seems to be representative of a broader effort to do away with the checks on the power wielded by the executive branch. Among the myriad of government officials dismissed this year has been Hampton Dellinger, who investigated federal employees’ complaints against the government. Initially, he had challenged his removal in the Courts, seeking judicial relief, but after some time had dropped the process, after the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Washington DC Circuit sided on behalf of the Trump administration.
As of November of this year, the Trump administration has continued to restrict media outlets from covering events, and more recently, access to the press secretary’s office “without an appointment.” The pool seems to be growing narrower, but the administration has continued to claim security risks for the reasoning behind their actions.
“I’m a very strong person for free speech,” stated the president, in an interview in October. “When somebody is given, 97% of the stories are bad about a person, that’s no longer free speech. That’s just cheating.”