White House bans on news outlets represent escalating infringement of the press

Historic blackout by broadcast networks marks media-wide solidarity

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD — opinion@theaggie.org 

Beginning Friday, Sept. 18, President Donald Trump has issued bans preventing Politico, MS Now and CNN from entering and reporting from the White House grounds. The president has cited “FAKE NEWS” and “LIES” as the primary justification for these bans, furthering an accumulating grudge against any news coverage depicting his actions in a negative or critical light.   

A lawsuit has been filed by the three banned organizations, with them issuing a joint statement on Sept. 21 outlining their retaliation and demanding that their reporters regain access. Other major news outlets have acted in immediate solidarity with those who are banned, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, refusing to release coverage of Trump from recent events. 

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” the joint statement from the organizations reads. “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Following the ban, major television networks including ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and even Fox News have acted in sharp retaliation to the ruling, implementing suspensions of pooled coverage of Trump at public events beginning Monday. The 5-network coalition also issued a joint statement on Monday condemning the ban.

This act is one of many that Trump has enacted without following due process — notably through ignoring proper legal proceedings for United States residents wrongfully detained or deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) throughout his second term. His pattern of testing which legal proceedings he can get away with ignoring signals a truly dark approach to governance, with this ban serving as the newest example on the table. 

Ongoing discourse from Trump’s office claims that he is within his rights to “clean out” news that he deems inaccurate, going as far as calling the district court judge deciding the outcome of the ban “not a particularly fair judge.” It is important to note that the judge that he is speaking of is Timothy Kelly, who Trump appointed himself during his first presidential term. Trump has announced that he anticipates a loss when this lawsuit is executed, citing bias once again.

As student journalists, we acknowledge that journalism completely free of bias is difficult to find. Bias can certainly manifest in reporting as a result of many factors, extending from political affiliation to financial ties. Despite this, the principle of journalistic freedom remains crucial to a society that calls itself a democracy. It is the responsibility of journalists to present information and allow you to derive your own opinion from it, not tell you how to think; the government’s insertion into this decisionmaking process blocks crucial information from reaching the eyes of the public.

“The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably,” White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) President Jacqui Heinrich wrote in a statement. “That’s why courts have repeatedly held that once the White House provides access to journalists, it cannot deny that access arbitrarily or based on the content of their reporting. The WHCA calls on the administration to immediately restore our colleagues’ access.”

           Potentially even more alarming than the bans themselves is “Trump TV,” a White House-sponsored news feed providing 24/7 coverage from live events and past footage of the president. The feed itself claims to be the least biased of them all, seeing as the news is coming directly from the White House. However, it should be clear enough that any administration who condemns criticism and only promotes news told through its own framing is skirting due process itself. 

The back-and-forth between journalists and public officials is a crucial form of checks and balances that fuels the first amendment. It is one thing to be critical of how certain news outlets frame current events; it is another entirely for the government to be capable of issuing bans on the basis of finding their reporting untruthful. 

We encourage you to employ a critical eye when reading the news and discerning your opinion. Check the sponsors and backers of news outlets if you think they’re framing coverage in a biased light; chances are, you’re picking up on very real patterns. In a landscape where some amount of bias seems to be unavoidable in reporting, consuming a diverse range of news media will help make bias more obvious when present.   

Regardless of political affiliation, these bans signal an escalating overstep by politicians in trying to maintain an image that they find preferable. Politicians forgo the right to having a say in how the public views them when they take office; this is just part of the deal. Journalists, whether or not you agree with what they’re reporting, are a cornerstone of the American approach to politics. 

The Editorial Board stands in solidarity with journalists across the country trying to hold public officials accountable. The content of the reporting is not the point; the response of politicians seeking to avoid criticism should, instead, speak largely for itself. 

Written by: The Editorial Board — opinion@theaggie.org