Editorial staff responds to Trump’s press ban

On Sept. 18, President Trump banned members of the press from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House. We believe this ban is unconstitutional.

His reason for the ban? He didn’t like their “fake news” and negative coverage. 

In a Truth Social post, Trump said media outlets shouldn’t be allowed to report “fiction and lies” about his administration. This feels like a dangerous act of retaliation against constitutionally protected press activity.

Early Monday morning, CNN, MS NOW and Politico filed a joint lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the ban is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment and a breach of Fifth Amendment due process. They asked the U.S. District Court in Washington to restore their access through a temporary restraining order quickly.

In a joint statement, the outlets said the lawsuit defends “the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes.” They argued the administration withdrew their access because it objected to their reporting, without notice or a meaningful process. 

How did Trump respond? He sent White House surrogates to defend the action, inaccurately stating that access to government facilities is a privilege rather than a right. They claimed the administration was targeting “bad faith” journalism. 

Then the media responded. In an unprecedented show of solidarity (that included major networks like ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC), the press pool announced Monday that it would not cover Trump that day to protest his ban on news outlets. Since then, the television pool has completely paused coverage of Trump’s events, but they haven’t stated if their suspended coverage will continue.

This solidarity is significant. This is not a dispute about whether a particular news outlet deserves special treatment. It is a dispute over whether “we the people” have access to the government regardless of whether the president thinks the coverage is favorable.

The issue is not about what we (or anyone) thinks about CNN, MS NOW or Politico. It’s not about whether every story they publish is fair or complete. The more consequential concern is the alleged abuse of official power to penalize media for unfavorable coverage. We believe that news organizations should be scrutinized and challenged when they make mistakes. (The Herald has printed corrections in the past when we made mistakes.) But criticism and corrections are not the same as retaliation.

The First Amendment protects a free press because those in power sometimes find reporting embarrassing or critical. If White House access is granted or withdrawn according to whether or not coverage pleases the President, reporters may stop asking difficult questions, wary of the repercussions if they dare to do so. The exact questions that need to be asked. And answered.

This isn’t the first instance in which Trump has seemingly ignored the Constitution when it comes to the media either. In February, Trump banned Associated Press journalists from the Oval Office because they kept calling the newly renamed “Gulf of America” the Gulf of Mexico. 

For the entirety of his second term, Trump has attacked and belittled members of the press, solely for doing their job and asking questions that need to be asked. 

He called ABC News’ one of Rachel Scott’s questions “stupid” and her “one of the worst reporters,” told MS NOW reporter Akayla Gardner that she was “not a smart person,” and called CNN’s Kaitlan Collins “the worst reporter” while criticizing her for not smiling. And who can forget when he said “quiet, piggy” to Bloomberg reporter Catherine Lucey in response to her question about Jeffrey Epstein’s emails.

This pattern matters because these personal attacks risk chilling the aggressive reporting the public deserves.

In journalism classes, we are taught public officials have a right to dispute reporting. But it isn’t appropriate to personally degrade reporters, or threaten to cut off government access, as a substitute for answering legitimate questions. From our perspective, this is what the President is trying to do.

Trump banning CNN, MSNBC and Politico is nothing like when the U.S. Treasury Department attempted to ban Fox News from a single press pool interview in 2009 during the Obama administration.

For starters, that ban only lasted a few hours because other news outlets refused to participate if Fox couldn’t. Trump, on the other hand, has already denied access to the White House and seized press passes from the three groups he banned last week.

Another concern we have was the support Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave Trump. 

Sanders was in the Oval Office for a separate announcement. She was not involved in Trump’s decision to ban the media. However, when reporters questioned the President about his ban she defended Trump’s position and said he was entitled to expect the press to be “honest and fair.” 

Should journalists in Arkansas be worried? Will her support have a chilling effect on Arkansas media?

If a president can kick out national journalists for negative coverage, and our governor agrees, hypothetically, what stops our Student Government Association or the university administration from revoking A-State student reporters’ credentials?

As a reminder, the Nixon administration didn’t contain the press during Watergate. Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, and the press wasn’t barred from covering it.

​As of press time, the CNN, MS NOW and Politico legal case remained unresolved. We think the principle at stake is not complicated: government officials should not retaliate against journalists because their reporting is critical. 

Monday night, Sept. 21, the Trump administration officially launched Trump TV, an online live stream. The move drew criticism from press-freedom advocates and Democratic lawmakers, some of whom have labeled it “state-run media.”

The legacy press is being silenced. As aspiring journalists, The Herald editorial staff collectively believes this is wrong. Freedom of the press is part of who we are as Americans.

This isn’t just a media issue; it’s an issue that should matter to every American. So we want to know your thoughts, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with our stance. Because in the end, The Herald staff believes in freedom of the press.

​

Editor’s Note: This editorial represents the collective position of The Herald’s editorial staff.

Categories: Opinion