Most Americans know that Trump has excluded a few media outlets from an informal press gathering, called a gaggle. They include NYT, CNN, LAT, Buzzfeed and Politico also the BBC. There has been quite a response from these organizations. Here is reaction from CNN. Here it is from the NYT. Trump's action has been called a violation of the First Amendment, also unprecedented. I was curious if either of these statements was true, and so began a surf, and now this blog post.
Some are not aware of how presidential press coverage works. Briefly, there is what is called the White House Pool. These are reporters who have security clearance sufficient to have direct presidential access. There are currently 72 reporter with such credentials. The White House, to guarantee access, promises to have at least one print/internet, one radio and one television reporter at each news conference. While there are remarkably few 'rules', there are traditional behaviors such as this, that extend back to the earliest days of televised press conferences. Those behaviors, however, require only one reporter from each genre. Everyone else is there at the grace of the White House.
To return to the questions of constitutional violation and unprecedented behavior, the first is easy. Trump has not violated the First Amendment. He has not censored the press. They can, and are, printing and saying whatever they like about him. These organizations' reporters have not even been tossed out of the White House Pool. They have access to the pool feed. They can hear everything everyone else hears, exchange notes, etc. They just are not permitted in the same room.
Regarding precedent, differential press access is well established. Obama held at least a dozen closed door meetings with friendly journalists from liberal outlets. He would give them information only given other reporters days later. This information comes from Breitbart; NYT had nothing on its preferred access to Obama.
The entire concept of presidential press access has undergone marked changes. There is a nice summary from Time magazine. The media today have an expectation of presidential access but this is not supported by history. Eisenhower edited his television feed. Several presidents have edited or pre-chosen questions to answer. It is only since Bill Clinton that the daily news briefing was televised. There is a longer tradition of news feed editing than of open access. Even today, Hillary Clinton is notorious for refusing to answer anything except highly selected questions.
There is no question, however, that Trump has been maligned by the MSM more than any candidate or president in history. Our media have printed Trump cavorts with Russian prostitutes, he is in collusion with Putin, he has required resignations from the EPA, has fired all of America's top diplomats. Trump has been called insane, his wife called a gold-digger and a whore, his son an autistic. Here is a partial list of fake stories the MSM have produced since Trump's election. Even suspicion of criminality and cover-up did not lead the press to treat Nixon as they have treated Trump.
While the media's treatment of Trump has been unprecedented, his actions with the media are within the sleeve of even recent behaviors.
The media outrage is highly selective. Clinton selects which questions to answer ahead of time. Obama dressed down a reporter for shouting a question. Obama provided preferential access to reporters favorable to him. No one reports this, but when Trump excludes a few who write demonstrably false and defamatory material, he is an oppressor. It is ironic that several media outlets threatened to boycott presidential news conferences but if Trump excludes them it is suppression of the press. The polite relations between media and president have perks, but also responsibilities. The media have grossly violated the conventions of that relationship but complain when Trump responds. Trump has vilified the media. The media have done all they can to undermine Trump. I see no relationship of trust and respect here, let alone politeness. Trump is simply applying the new rules of the game, with precedent set by current Democrats and without any legal violation.
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of what you say, only from governmental oppression and censorship. The media expect it to mean no consequences to their work, regardless of content, but they stopped speaking truth years ago, and enjoy little respect or trust from the public. The media once had the role of speaking Truth to Power. Now Power has finally called out the media on their distortions and they don't like it.
I'm sorry the media feel bad, but they have richly earned their exclusion. If they want access they should stop publishing insults and wildly distorted 'news'.
Ted
Some are not aware of how presidential press coverage works. Briefly, there is what is called the White House Pool. These are reporters who have security clearance sufficient to have direct presidential access. There are currently 72 reporter with such credentials. The White House, to guarantee access, promises to have at least one print/internet, one radio and one television reporter at each news conference. While there are remarkably few 'rules', there are traditional behaviors such as this, that extend back to the earliest days of televised press conferences. Those behaviors, however, require only one reporter from each genre. Everyone else is there at the grace of the White House.
To return to the questions of constitutional violation and unprecedented behavior, the first is easy. Trump has not violated the First Amendment. He has not censored the press. They can, and are, printing and saying whatever they like about him. These organizations' reporters have not even been tossed out of the White House Pool. They have access to the pool feed. They can hear everything everyone else hears, exchange notes, etc. They just are not permitted in the same room.
Regarding precedent, differential press access is well established. Obama held at least a dozen closed door meetings with friendly journalists from liberal outlets. He would give them information only given other reporters days later. This information comes from Breitbart; NYT had nothing on its preferred access to Obama.
The entire concept of presidential press access has undergone marked changes. There is a nice summary from Time magazine. The media today have an expectation of presidential access but this is not supported by history. Eisenhower edited his television feed. Several presidents have edited or pre-chosen questions to answer. It is only since Bill Clinton that the daily news briefing was televised. There is a longer tradition of news feed editing than of open access. Even today, Hillary Clinton is notorious for refusing to answer anything except highly selected questions.
There is no question, however, that Trump has been maligned by the MSM more than any candidate or president in history. Our media have printed Trump cavorts with Russian prostitutes, he is in collusion with Putin, he has required resignations from the EPA, has fired all of America's top diplomats. Trump has been called insane, his wife called a gold-digger and a whore, his son an autistic. Here is a partial list of fake stories the MSM have produced since Trump's election. Even suspicion of criminality and cover-up did not lead the press to treat Nixon as they have treated Trump.
While the media's treatment of Trump has been unprecedented, his actions with the media are within the sleeve of even recent behaviors.
The media outrage is highly selective. Clinton selects which questions to answer ahead of time. Obama dressed down a reporter for shouting a question. Obama provided preferential access to reporters favorable to him. No one reports this, but when Trump excludes a few who write demonstrably false and defamatory material, he is an oppressor. It is ironic that several media outlets threatened to boycott presidential news conferences but if Trump excludes them it is suppression of the press. The polite relations between media and president have perks, but also responsibilities. The media have grossly violated the conventions of that relationship but complain when Trump responds. Trump has vilified the media. The media have done all they can to undermine Trump. I see no relationship of trust and respect here, let alone politeness. Trump is simply applying the new rules of the game, with precedent set by current Democrats and without any legal violation.
The Bill of Rights does not guarantee freedom from the consequences of what you say, only from governmental oppression and censorship. The media expect it to mean no consequences to their work, regardless of content, but they stopped speaking truth years ago, and enjoy little respect or trust from the public. The media once had the role of speaking Truth to Power. Now Power has finally called out the media on their distortions and they don't like it.
I'm sorry the media feel bad, but they have richly earned their exclusion. If they want access they should stop publishing insults and wildly distorted 'news'.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment