Freedom of the Press in danger! High on the Trump authoritarian agenda to undermine and discredit without cause
Echo letter from the Editor-in-Chief of The Dolphin, a Le Moyne student newspaper: "The Danger ⚠ of Trump’s Barring Media Outlets From the White House". By Carly Nicolai
On Februry 12, 2025, the Trump Administration barred a reporter from the Associated Press (AP) from an Oval Office event, and has since restricted AP reporters from attending events and conferences.
This is on the basis of the AP refusing to comply with Trump’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in its stylebook. (OMG 😒😦....a petty retalitatory stupidity, defies explanation❗)
White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich claimed that the outlet’s refusal to use the updated name for the gulf “exposes the Associated Press’ commitment to misinformation.” He also explained that while the First Amendment may protect their freedom of speech, “it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One.”
The AP is no longer alone, though, with a HuffPost reporter being removed from the AirForce One press pool after questioning Vice President JD Vance’s comments about judges not being allowed to override the executive branch. Other outlets barred by the White House include Reuters and Der Tagesspiegel (a German newspaper).
On Feb. 26, the AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg released a joint statement stressing the importance of the press’ ability to report accurately on the presidency, stating that “it is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press.
White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich claimed that the outlet’s refusal to use the updated name for the gulf “exposes the Associated Press’ commitment to misinformation.” He also explained that while the First Amendment may protect their freedom of speech, “it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One.”
The AP is no longer alone, though, with a HuffPost reporter being removed from the AirForce One press pool after questioning Vice President JD Vance’s comments about judges not being allowed to override the executive branch. Other outlets barred by the White House include Reuters and Der Tagesspiegel (a German newspaper).
On Feb. 26, the AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg released a joint statement stressing the importance of the press’ ability to report accurately on the presidency, stating that “it is essential in a democracy for the public to have access to news about their government from an independent, free press.
We believe that any steps by the government to limit the number of wire services with access to the president threatens the principle of a free press as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution.”
The AP filed a lawsuit against three administration officials, claiming it to be a violation of free speech, but on February 24, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden refused the AP’s request to immediately restore their White House access. However, Judge McFadden has not officially ruled on the matter yet, claiming that more exploration is required before he can make a final decision.
The same day, the Trump administration released a statement claiming access to the press pool to be “a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”
The AP filed a lawsuit against three administration officials, claiming it to be a violation of free speech, but on February 24, U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden refused the AP’s request to immediately restore their White House access. However, Judge McFadden has not officially ruled on the matter yet, claiming that more exploration is required before he can make a final decision.
The same day, the Trump administration released a statement claiming access to the press pool to be “a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”
It goes on to defend the barring of the AP, stating: “We stand by our decision to hold the Fake News accountable for their lies, and President Trump will continue to grant an unprecedented level of access to the press. This is the most transparent Administration in history.” (Of course the source of real "fake" news is Fox Fake News❗)
Trump’s decision to remove certain (without cause) media outlets from the press pool breaks decades of bipartisan precedent, usurping the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA), which has been the group determining which reporters participate in the daily pool for about 111 years. Concerns have been raised over the administration’s prevention of well-established organizations from viewing the president’s activities up-close and asking him potentially challenging questions.
The WHCA released a statement condemning the president’s recent actions, claiming that “in a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps,” and that the WHCA exists to “ensure consistent professional standards and fairness in access on behalf of all readers, viewers and listeners.”
In short: while Trump’s decision to remove certain media outlets from the press pool may not be legally reprehensible, it is dangerous in terms of how and where U.S. citizens get information about presidential activity. The AP is often regarded as one of the United States’ most reliable journalistic sources, to the extent that other established outlets such as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and others use it in their own reporting.
In fact, over 40 outlets of varying political leanings signed a letter coordinated by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press imploring the White House to restore the AP to the press pool. The letter claims the decision violates First Amendment principles, adding that “the pool system can only work… if the routine daily decisions about who is in the room, in the gaggle, or on the plane, are divorced from editorial considerations.”
They also stated that “the many news organizations reporting on the White House have varied editorial approaches but all have the same collective interest in ensuring that no one is excluded based on their constitutionally protected choices,” pointing out the fact that the president has perhaps singled out the AP as a news outlet due to the conception that it is more left-leaning.
An attorney representing the AP in the lawsuit explained that the issue is not Trump’s dislike of the organization, but his prevention of its involvement at all: “We’re not arguing that the president of the United States has to answer The Associated Press’ questions. The issue is that once he lets the press pool in he can’t say, ‘I don’t like you. You’re fake news. Get out.’”
One does not have to like what a media outlet publishes or the questions their reporters ask, but only in the most extreme cases (causing legitimate harm) should they be silenced or de-platformed. The AP’s choice to call the body of water in question the Gulf of Mexico does not constitute a hate crime, and additionally, is actually accurate in terms of what the majority of the world calls the gulf, as Trump’s executive order changes the name only in the United States.
The president can ignore the AP, but sabotaging their long-held position within the press pool over their refusal of a name change sets a troubling precedent. Ultimately, the AP was punished for not conforming to Trump’s arbitrary decision, which appears to be a disproportionate reaction to the severity of the AP’s “crime.”
The implications of this decision are dangerous. If Trump can punish media outlets for challenging his presidential actions and/or asking difficult questions, then the free press is ultimately threatened, potentially creating a version of journalism where reporters are intimidated into silence and/or conformity. Without a breadth of perspectives from these media outlets, the public is put at an extreme disadvantage, preventing the populace from understanding what is going on in government and how such affairs impact them.
The WHCA released a statement condemning the president’s recent actions, claiming that “in a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps,” and that the WHCA exists to “ensure consistent professional standards and fairness in access on behalf of all readers, viewers and listeners.”
In short: while Trump’s decision to remove certain media outlets from the press pool may not be legally reprehensible, it is dangerous in terms of how and where U.S. citizens get information about presidential activity. The AP is often regarded as one of the United States’ most reliable journalistic sources, to the extent that other established outlets such as Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, and others use it in their own reporting.
In fact, over 40 outlets of varying political leanings signed a letter coordinated by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press imploring the White House to restore the AP to the press pool. The letter claims the decision violates First Amendment principles, adding that “the pool system can only work… if the routine daily decisions about who is in the room, in the gaggle, or on the plane, are divorced from editorial considerations.”
They also stated that “the many news organizations reporting on the White House have varied editorial approaches but all have the same collective interest in ensuring that no one is excluded based on their constitutionally protected choices,” pointing out the fact that the president has perhaps singled out the AP as a news outlet due to the conception that it is more left-leaning.
An attorney representing the AP in the lawsuit explained that the issue is not Trump’s dislike of the organization, but his prevention of its involvement at all: “We’re not arguing that the president of the United States has to answer The Associated Press’ questions. The issue is that once he lets the press pool in he can’t say, ‘I don’t like you. You’re fake news. Get out.’”
One does not have to like what a media outlet publishes or the questions their reporters ask, but only in the most extreme cases (causing legitimate harm) should they be silenced or de-platformed. The AP’s choice to call the body of water in question the Gulf of Mexico does not constitute a hate crime, and additionally, is actually accurate in terms of what the majority of the world calls the gulf, as Trump’s executive order changes the name only in the United States.
The president can ignore the AP, but sabotaging their long-held position within the press pool over their refusal of a name change sets a troubling precedent. Ultimately, the AP was punished for not conforming to Trump’s arbitrary decision, which appears to be a disproportionate reaction to the severity of the AP’s “crime.”
The implications of this decision are dangerous. If Trump can punish media outlets for challenging his presidential actions and/or asking difficult questions, then the free press is ultimately threatened, potentially creating a version of journalism where reporters are intimidated into silence and/or conformity. Without a breadth of perspectives from these media outlets, the public is put at an extreme disadvantage, preventing the populace from understanding what is going on in government and how such affairs impact them.
Labels: Carly Nicolai, Le Moyne, The Dolphin, White House, White House Correspondents Association WHCA
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 8:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home