The Press Ban that United the Media

Everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth.

George Orwell

There is something ironically poetic about President Donald Trump’s latest executive decisions. 

In the grand scheme of history, rulers have often decided that the messenger must be silenced if they speak ill of those in power. Now, the 47th president has decided that if you don’t like the news, you should revoke their ability to report it. 

Last month the White House carried out a swift press corps purge, stripping access passes from CNN, Politico, and MS Now. 

The rationale? The access is a “privilege, not a right.” 

Now, some of us half-expect Secret Service to dress as bouncers, asking reporters to show ID before gaining access past big velvet ropes shielding the West Wing. With this logic, no one is allowed entry unless they promise to properly represent the president in a way he deems fitting. 

The display would be theatrical, comical even, if it did not involve the heavy threat of constitutional freedoms.

A Nonpartisan phenomenon

Within the American political sphere, rarely do we ever see unity, especially across party lines. Dissenting politicians can barely agree on what color the sky is if it means they had to agree with one another, never mind settling consensus on major legislative issues. 

That being said, when this administration decided to bar specific news sources from the White House, rather than celebrating, taking advantage of the selective coverage, or abiding by the silencing of their competitors, something unprecedented occurred. 

Across the polarized political landscape, networks that spend every second trying to take down the rating of each other—ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News—recognized a shared truth: this was an overarching threat to media’s right to question authority.

In solidarity, all news stations suspended their White House coverage until the banned program’s access was reinstated, affirming their right to report. 

For years, people have rolled their eyes at how partisanship crept into the forefront of television channels, formulating impenetrable echo chambers. But the sudden reporter eviction by the Trump administration silenced the shouting match, allowing reality to settle for the future of the freedom of the press. 

The Consequence of Comfort

Partisanship is deeply embedded in us. It’s our nature to abide by party-line ideals and push alternative perspectives aside. Everyone would love to operate in their curated ideology bubble, where the hardest inquiry of the day is “How is our president so brilliant?” 

But that is not reality. Not in a democracy. Not in America. 

Our political system thrives off of friction. Staying in the comfortability of our beliefs allows for dissonance to grow. Staying stagnant cuts off curiosity, consequently leading to faded passion for staying informed and vigilant. 

A society that refuses to read deeply, think critically, and encounter perspectives differing from their own is awfully easy to mislead, and even easier to strip natural freedoms from.

A free press should not be something we defend only when it benefits us. If we believe in freedom of the press, then we have to defend it even when we dislike what the press has to say.

Because the moment we decide that censorship is acceptable simply because the target is someone we disagree with, is the moment we give those in power the permission to decide who gets to speak next.

• college
• entertainment
• media
• news
• writing