Can’t do that!
“Journalists” from MSNOW, CNN and Politico had their access to the White House grounds denied today, after President Donald Trump said on social media that he had banned the news outlets over what he called their “constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS.”
He’s not wrong. And MSNOW, CNN and Politico are not by any stretch of the imagination the “independent” news organizations they say they are, or even genuine journalists, since it is remarkably obvious that they are really “Democratic Party surrogates with press credentials,” as one wag accurately describes them. And they are, as the President stated in one of his most audacious, bold and correct assessments, “enemies of the people.”
It is also true that as pivotal mid-terms approach, those three outlets and many others are throwing a major portion of the weight of the news media into spinning, concealing, misrepresenting and and prioritizing news stories in the manner most likely to push votes to Democrats and Socialist/Communists, not based on facts, law, common sense, logic or the best interests of the nation, but based on an ideological agenda.
Never mind. Trump’s actions here are futile, and I assume he knows it; if he doesn’t, then he has a bunch of lawyers to fire. He’s doing this to focus attention on the Axis news media’s unethical and corrosive efforts to manipulate elections, as it did in 2016, 2020, and 2024. Yes, it’s unethical for a President to deliberately violate the Constitution knowing that his actions will be struck down. It’s also unethical for journalists to use First Amendment protections to abuse their power and undermine democracy, but there is nothing in the Constitution that stops them from doing it
“The White House belongs to the American people and the decisions made inside are funded by our tax dollars,” MS NOW said in a statement posted on X. “MS NOW intends to take any and all steps necessary to defend our First Amendment rights and the essential role of independent journalists in our democracy,” it added. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
Yada yada. That’s all the right rhetoric. Too bad it’s such a scumbag organization using it.
“We have a right under the U.S. Constitution to do our reporting without hinderance or interference from the government and this ban is an illegal assault on this fundamental right,” CNN said in a statement posted on X. “We will not be deflected from our duty to hold the government and other public bodies to account, and we will continue to report on the actions and processes of this administration without fear or favor,” the statement added.
Of course, CNN made virtually no effort to hold the Obama and Biden administrations “to account,” but were, instead, complicit in their unconstitutional behavior. The Constitution, however, doesn’t say what biased and unethical news organizations can’t do, just what the government can’t do to them.
Politico Press, the publication’s communications team, said that “POLITICO will continue to fairly report on this White House and future ones. We will vigorously defend our First Amendment rights against any attempt to restrict them.”
The funny word in that statement is “continue.”
Nevertheless, President Trump doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, making the metaphorical ethical leg mighty weak as well.
Too bad.
Question – they have free speech rights, but do they have access rights under the Constitution?
The courts will find it so, saying that without access, their rights are undermined. I guarantee it.
How is access determined? My blog was not given access. There is only so much space in a room.
Rather than banning CNN which is Trump’s default – turn the volume to 11, the courts can declare the ban unconstitutional and then Trump can apologize and show that he is complying with the courts by reinstating CNN’s access – access which can be visibly seen by anyone looking on from the street outside the Whitehouse as they see CNN waiting at the very back of a very long line that probably will not fully fit in the designated press space.
I don’t see the Constitutional issue here. All of these organizations are still able to publish anything they please. They can develop sources outside the White House briefing room. Or would that be too much effort? It may be unfair to give some news organizations more access than others, but how is it unconstitutional?
I believe the winning angle for CNN et al. is going to be viewpoint discrimination. Members of the public don’t generally have a First Amendment right to be admitted to the White House. Journalists often seem to believe that they have special First Amendment rights beyond those enjoyed by the public but they are wrong.
However, how the White House chooses whom to admit matters. There’s a thick stack of case law holding that it generally can’t make those distinctions based on whether it favors the speaker’s viewpoint or not, and that would appear to be exactly what Trump is doing here.
I haven’t read the complaint, if one exists, but I have yet to hear anyone but you make that argument.
Trump’s justification was that these outlets were deliberately reporting falsely. He did not allege that their viewpoint was repugnant, but rather that their false and erroneous :
“I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … and Politico … from the White House as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS!” he wrote. “Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow.”
So he is alleging a harm, not that they have the wrong ideology or viewpoint. Specifically, he suggests that they are falsely reporting on him in particular.
That’s not a viewpoint.
I don’t know how the court will rule. If I had to guess, I’d say they would require Trump to continue to permit them access, just because the this Court is more interested in the status quo than refereeing what it will see as a political squabble. But I’m not sure the First Amendment requires the President to give access without regard to the quality (or lack thereof) of the reporting. After all, they don’t have to give access to every Tom, Dick, and Harry blogger or podcaster who wants in. Still, the court will probably just punt it back to status quo without offering any opinion.
But Glenn, Trump’s meat-axe rhetoric has always equated “fake news” with “news that is biased against me.” It is, but that doesn’t make it “fake.” My various categories of what constitutes fake news are non-partisan. The fact that those techniques are more often used to advance Democrats and undermine the Right doesn’t make the techniques better or worse.
Yes, true enough. There is no question that it would not be reasonable to accept his definition of “fake” or “lies” uncritically, and I don’t.
Having said that, there is at least an argument that these outlets are deliberately using their access almost exclusively not to report on the President, but to attack him personally. The First Amendment may protect the attack, but I have doubts that the President must go out of his way to make it easier for them to do it by granting them something most of what passes for “press” today cannot get.
I am glad I am not the only one finding that the argument about abridging the outlet’s freedom of speech is questionable. These outlets can continue to speak out as they please. Trump is not stopping them from reporting anything. Most outlets wind up using AP and UPI anyway. Both of whom lean progressive so this could help the three in question save some money by outsourcing the content that undergirds their preferred narrative.
In todays world of citizen journalists anyone can claim to be a journalist. As was pointed out by others who determines who gets access and why does any of the three in question have a greater right to access than someone else. I would suggest that some bloggers and podcasters have far larger audiences than CNN, Politico, or MSNOW. So if reach is a determining factor they would have to displace other outlets to get a seat.
In that case would acquiescence to their demands for a regular seat be seen as government limiting free speech for someone else who is displaced because of those demands. More over, if the court rules against Trump and others are ejected to give the 3 a seat has the court violated the free speech rights of those displaced?
Theoretically, if viewpoint equity is a goal then far more conservative leaning outlets should be given seats in the press room.
Theoretically, if viewpoint equity is a goal then far more conservative leaning outlets should be given seats in the press room.
True. But not including them when they have never been included is less of a proactive restriction based on viewpoint than what Trump just tried.
If he loses then there should be a lottery on who gets access to the Whitehouse and that anybody and everybody who claim to be journalists should have a chance.
“But not including them when they have never been included is less of a proactive restriction based on viewpoint than what Trump just tried.”
Can we apply that logic to DEI as well. The progressive argument for DEI and reparations is that past exclusion has held them back and that proactive discrimination is good.
The Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law….” Has Congress made a law?
Is that meant to include all 3 branches by inference?
The excluded agencies could watch the briefings live on Fox News or streaming, and then write their slanted stories. (Does CSpan carry the briefings live?) Even if they regain access, I doubt they will be given much opportunity to ask questions, so they will still be writing based on the questions of others.
Despite the words “Congress shall make no law,” the Supreme Court has held that it applies to all branches and federal government as a whole. In Herbert v. Lando, (1979) the Court formally articulated this principle in its footnotes, stating that the First Amendment applies to the non-legislative branches of government—to every “government agency—local, state, or federal.” Before that, the Pentagon Papers case made it clear that the White House couldn’t restrain the press.
Technically legal, maybe.
Another unforced error, definitely.
He’s guaranteeing the Dems take the house, at least.
As to the last, I think this only triggers the news media and the “No Kings” crowd. The public contempt for the news media is overwhelming: I dobt anyone will vote against a GOP rep because Trump is mean to CNN.
In your most recent t post you refer to WaPo engaging in death by a thousand cuts. That’s true.
Why does Trump help them by looking vaguely dictatorial to any fence sitters out there prior to the midterms.
Some of those cuts among the 1,000 are unnecessarily self inflicted.
Why? As I have written on EA in many ways at many times, because a perverse God decided to place the US in mortal peril of a permanently corrupted society, culture, political system and republic, and decided it would be amusing to choose as the one individual with the unique characteristics of courage, patriotic values, leadership skills, luck, opportunity, experience, charisma and leadership skills that has a chance of forestalling the disaster a spectacularly flawed man with a shamelessly offensive character and no respect for ethics whatsoever. Good one, Jehovah! I am not amused.