Fans of the free press (you know, that ole pesky bastion of checks and balances protected by the pole position amendment on the Bill of Rights) and governmental transparency were left with their heads spinning recently when the almighty President Donald J. Trump banned several news outlets from the White House.
The great Spraytanned One put the kibosh on CNN, MS Now and Politico darkening the White House doors, and reporters from all three outlets were turned away; their press passes disabled or confiscated. Trump stated that he dislikes their reportage and warned that other outlets could follow. In an ongoing back-and-forth, those outlets filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Trump administration, and a federal judge has since ordered that the administration restore their access.
The relationship between American presidents and our free press has been, at times, contentious. I mean, none other than George Washington cited intense public scrutiny and derision, largely derived from newspapers critical of his “monarchial” style and policies as being a reason to not seek a third term.
Then there was that whole bit about paranoid Richard Nixon believing the “left-wing” press being out to get him, regardless of the positive coverage he received, and with journalists appearing on his enemies’ list.
With Trump, it seems like a matter of reporters being able to cover his government, as long as he enjoys that coverage.
Going forward, I think it would be advantageous for the White House to simplify matters for prospective journalists and organizations desiring to cover its day-to-day doings. There should be a new form when vetting reporters and outlets. Underneath “Name” and “News Organization,” there needs to be a box added with a “Yes” or “No” checkmark beside it, and the question: “Will the president like your questions?” So anyone who checks “No” can be escorted directly to the sidewalk outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and of course the opposite for anyone who checks “Yes.” Once a reporter checks the affirmative box, a helpful White House staffer can hand them pre-made questions to ask that will affirm how awesome and handsome President Trump is.
The absurdity of the whole setup is almost too neat for satire. A reporter’s job is to find out what officials occasionally prefer that the public not know, and the job of a leader, especially the president, includes answering questions about his decisions, even when he might prefer a different question be asked.
If a critical story can cost a newsroom access, then every reporter receives the same message going forward: be careful what you print and/or air to the public.
Trump is fond of claiming that news outlets, including the three that were 86’d, report “fake news,” and while he is free to dispute a story, identify an error and demand a correction, or complain about a headline, he cannot makes his personal satisfaction the price of entry to the People’s House. The White House is a part of our government, not a restaurant where the owner can throw out anyone who leaves a bad review.
If today’s excluded outlets are CNN, MS NOW and Politico, then where does this guest list end? Tomorrow’s exiled outlet might be whichever newspaper deigns to ask why a public contract went to a campaign donor, or why an official’s account of an incident does not add up. The threat to ban more outlets makes the lesson plain to We the People: everyone else should take notes, preferably the kind that are flattering to the Great One.
Many commentators have used the word “fascism” to describe this latest move regarding the press, and it adds up. A single press ban does not, in of itself, erase every single democratic institution in these United States, but punishing journalists for unfavorable coverage is quite the familiar move toward ultimately authoritarian rule, and lets Trump decide which voices are legitimate, and encourages the rest of them to police themselves, so as to make sure all the reporting and commentary fawns over him.
The first casualty might be a journalist’s press pass, but the larger target rests with the public’s ability to hear and read independent accounts of governmental goings on.
While reporters who find themselves banned from the White House can still work outside of its gates, news does not stop existing when access is removed. All this ban tells me, and other Americans, is that our president finds scrutiny so intolerable that he would rather revoke credentials than answer questions. So, maybe, Trump should hang a sign above the entrance: “THE PEOPLE’S HOUSE. PRAISE THE MANAGEMENT TO ENTER.”
At least then the policy would be honest.
Chris Edwards is editor of the Tyler County Booster, a sister newspaper in the Polk County Publishing Group. He can be reached at cedwards@polkcountypublishing.com.
