Below is my column in the Hill on the banning of disfavored news outlets from the White House. Putting the legal challenges ahead for the Administration, it is an action that runs against the grain of our values and traditions.
Here is the column:
This week, it became apparent that everyone believes in a free press, as long as it costs them nothing.
Politicians in both parties are now using their offices to insulate themselves from opposing coverage — all in the name of protecting the public or the press.
President Trump has ordered the banning of critical media companies from the White House. Meanwhile, Democrats are fighting to block a corporate media merger on equally raw political grounds.
At the White House this week, President Trump declared, “I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW … and Politico.” He then added that he did not understand why the courts allow the media to print “fake news,” raising the possible addition of censorship to banishment.
On Capitol Hill and across the country, Democrats were pursuing their own political litmus test for media. Twelve blue states are in court seeking to block the acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery by Paramount Skydance. While framing their claims in dubious antitrust terms, many admit that they are trying to protect one of the very companies banned by Trump as a liberal platform: CNN.
Previously, Democrats shut down the government in part over a decision to withdraw government subsidies for another liberal news outlet, National Public Radio. Years ago, some Democrats even asked cable companies to consider dropping Fox News.
Both Trump and the Democrats are oblivious to the implications of their actions, blinded by the political costs of a free press and a free market.
There is little recognition, let alone remorse, among these politicians. For Trump, many in the public rallied to his side in condemnation of media bias during the last election. I have joined in the criticism of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico for their coverage. But this ban is a frontal assault on the free press itself, shattering long-standing principles maintained by past presidents.
Presidents have long condemned the media. George Washington referred to them as those “infamous scribblers.” Thomas Jefferson complained that “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” Yet they recognized that their oath to uphold the Constitution included a sacred duty to preserve and protect the free press.
For the Democrats, the opposition to the merger is equally transparent. Figures such as former Obama administration official Norm Eisen have opposed the Warner Bros.-Paramount merger as an attack on democracy itself. Their aim is to prevent the conservative David Ellison, chairman of Paramount Skydance, from gaining control of CNN as well as existing media assets such as CBS. Despite using antitrust law, he and others have made it plain that their aim is to preserve CNN and other outlets as liberal allies.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) declared that it is a power grab by the “oligarchs,” and that Ellison gaining control of CNN is “not acceptable. This merger must be opposed.”
Former Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer called on Democrats to stop the merger to prevent an effort to “make CNN more MAGA-friendly.”
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has warned that allowing the merger will “subvert CNN’s editorial independence.”
Notably, while MS NOW, CNN, and many of these individuals are condemning Trump’s announcement, they have eagerly joined the movement to block a lawful merger on political grounds. Others have pitched a deal where the merger can go through, but that they want CNN as “a strong consolation prize,” presumably to be sold to a liberal owner.
Again, there is little thought of the costs. There rarely is. When Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others took credit for blocking the merger of Spirit Airlines with JetBlue, they declared it a victory for the Biden administration and the Democrats. Spirit Airlines then went bankrupt and all of its employees were fired.
In this case, CNN may be the Spirit Airlines of the media. It has been struggling with both revenues and ratings, despite occasional spikes. While the Democrats want to preserve the liberal platform that regularly features their interviews and narratives, CNN often operates dangerously close to the baseline on the key advertising demographic needed to keep the lights on.
Warner Bros. has lost billions. The merger would be good for both companies and their employees. Under the guise of opposing a monopoly, Democrats are opposing a deal that has been cleared by the European Commission and once-skeptical experts.
I have worked for four networks as a legal analyst for 30 years, and I want CNN to flourish. We need strong media companies. That means that we need to support both the free press and the free market in maintaining journalistically and financially strong media companies. That often means setting aside our personal disagreements with coverage to oppose political manipulation of the media by either party.
I previously have written about the media and free speech in an “age of rage.” Presidents and politicians have periodically allowed their anger or interests to overwhelm their judgment. President John Adams declared, “The liberty of the press is essential to the security of the state.” Yet, his administration targeted reporters and writers under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.
Politicians are again using their power to manipulate the press by limiting their exposure to media criticism. They are seeking to control what the public reads and watches to protect us from “fake news” or “corporate messaging.”
For centuries, politicians have played on our anger or partisanship to target the media. To defend the free press and the free market is not to agree with these companies or their coverage. It is to defend our right to make our own decisions on what news to read and whom to believe.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
The difficult test is whether a rule still looks legitimate when the same power is exercised by the opposing party. Excluding an outlet because officials dislike its coverage creates a tool that can be reused by every future administration. A clearer distinction is needed between neutral limits on access—space, security, scheduling—and decisions based on an outlet’s viewpoint. What objective criteria, if any, could govern access without giving officials discretion to punish unfavorable reporting?
Oh my…. A lot of good reasonings here, but please see the President’s perspective, here:
https://youtube.com/shorts/9y9Tq7GI6lQ?is=3ZIrj7EcwbxdI2pd
#. It’s 1A and 5A. DJT just shuttered the press room. The press doesn’t have general access to oval office or AF1. Nothing in USC. He’s tired of the tabloids.
Perhaps he’ll invite reputable journalists to the Oval. Maybe Maria Bartiromo will be his WH press release person by invitation only.
I respectfully but strongly disagree that the revocation of White House passes for selected media companies constitutes “a frontal assault on the free press itself, shattering long-standing principles maintained by past presidents.”
The news corporations have no constitutional right to access to the White House or to a taxpayer-subsidized cubicle at the White House. They have no constitutional right to be in the presence of the president or other members of the administration. They have no constitutional right to be called upon at any press event or to receive an answer to their questions. They have no right to travel on Air Force One or in presidential motorcades. All of these privileges and permissions were created over decades since WWII, especially after the advancements in broadcast technologies, because presidents chose to extend them out of self-interest — to promote their administration, policies and parties. A president can legally choose, perhaps to his detriment, to modify or withdraw those privileges, as well. There are no “long-standing principles” at issue here, only long-standing public relations practices.
Nor is there any assault on press freedom. CNN, et al., remain free to operate and to present whatever content they choose. CNN was apparently at the UN this morning, screaming questions at the president, which the president noted. The White House is withdrawing privileges, subsidies and efficiencies from these for-profit corporations, not interfering in their content or operations. I am aware of no precedent that obliges the White House (or the taxpayers) to subsidize for-profit media corporations under the First Amendment.
Professor Turley assumes that Trump is motivated solely by nakedly partisan purposes. Clairvoyance into other’s hearts, minds and motives is indeed a modern national pastime. Yet, the president claims that he is acting on principle to demand professional integrity, fairness and accuracy in news reporting by these organizations. It is worth noting that he is not excluding other organizations, including those that have been highly critical. Is anyone seriously defending the fairness, accuracy and principled professionalism of the modern media? Does the presidency have a right and responsibility as Head of State to demand fairness and accuracy in the public discussion and debate over his or her government’s policies and actions? Could fairness and accuracy promote effective governance, enable national progress and ease polarization?
In any event, focusing on the president’s motives leads us down an even more dangerous path than evicting CNN or MS NOW onto 17th Street. If a president or any official has the legal right to take an action, that ought to end the inquiry. Whether his or her motives are acceptable is a question for the electorate, which this president is facing indirectly in a matter of weeks. Members of the federal judiciary, however, have invalidated otherwise constitutional and lawful presidential decisions on the basis of presumed discriminatory motives — even presumed emotions like “hate.” Do we really want the judiciary assessing whether the president and his rhetoric display the “Correct Perspective” in exercising otherwise lawful powers? That is what the lawsuit filed by the media organizations seems to be inviting us to do.
More broadly, I would suggest that this controversy is another consequence, even if unintended, of the judicial construct for defamation of public officials under NY Times v. Sullivan. One purpose of law is to afford peaceful and fairly arbitrated redress of grievances. When a meaningful opportunity for redress of grievances is effectively forestalled, as it is for public officials under Sullivan, it invites aggrieved officials to take extraordinary actions.
Very well said.
Scotus has some precedents. Press room is a public forum for instance. Otoh DJT’s decision really wasn’t arbitrary and capricious. His objection is most likely tabloid theater of which MSN is left and right. Perhaps once per month giving the astute journalists more time to really do serious journalism accompanied by relevant questions?
The “Journalism” schools all believe that their profession must be activists! They can save themselves by becoming “Balanced and fair” like they claim to be! All the Trump admin needs to do is PROVE their bias in court! No problem!
Politicians? Surely you jest unless you are talking about the likes of AOC, Piker, Omar, Warren, Jeffries, or countless other blues. The media has nothing to present in their defense. The very notion is a very bad joke. The modern left is a plague. Period.
Our “free press” is largely a tool for the radical left. All they have to do is try to be somewhat objective, but that is beyond them – Orange Man Bad. It’s so tiresome.
After the sound is up and running, watch c-span. I really expect DJT to care much if the press room darkens. He’s got 2.5 years of business to do and no time for annoyances. Imo
*. ^^^^Not to care much…since they’re all working together is it safe to assume it’s just good cop bad cop news? Gotta run 😏
The press pffft. They read the script and the next events are predictable but I’ll refrain from prediction unless it’s on a gambling site with porn, competitive porn of course.
Adios
You know a bunch of big corporations run by billionaires are CNN et al, yes? That includes Fox. So much for them being the “radical left,” only in the sense that they put on a few useful idiots from time to time to harass us over masks, dei, trans, etc. Whatever keeps our eye off the ball of PEACE AND PROSPERITY
Which Trump has brought us NEITHER
He is himself “The uniparty” and the “establishment” and “the deep state” now all in one tyrant
After midterms we can go back to the trials of djt.
There is no such thing as *a* media company’s “right” to attend a press conference. So that move is *not* a violation of 1A.
However, this definitely is:
“I don’t think a court should allow fake news to be written day after day after day.” (Trump)
That is a demand for some bureaucrat (a speech Czar) to somehow distinguish “fake” vs “real” news. And then that the government use its police powers to enforce those diktats — with seizures, fines, jail. It is as reprehensible a violation of free speech as is the Leftist demand to censor “dis-” and “mis-information.”
Some might reply: “Well, a republican administration would use that speech control power judiciously.” Maybe. Maybe not. But what about the next administration? Or the one after that?
I seem to recall an Office of Disinformation during a previous regime.
read the case law, restrictions must be reasonable and content neutral
trump is a tyrant
I wonder who even reads or watches outlets that once had a modicum of decency and some attempt at the truth? There are some of my lifelong friends who have been swept up in what can only be a form of mob mentality. These are not the people I have known for decades! They are worse than the followers of Jim Jones or some of the radical terrorists. They make no cogent argument but they are emotional!
During World War II, the OSS hired the psychoanalyst Walter Langer to profile Hitler. His summary included this statement. “His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong. People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
I don’t watch these outlets and I think it is imperative that the consumer of information to ferret out the truth and compare many sources and treat what they read with a great deal of doubt, until it can be definitively proven. THAT is difficult.
Some of the responsibility rests on the reader or viewer. Why trust any source that has 24 hours of space to fill? Hit the off button and read a book and better yet, invite a friend to lunch or coffee and have a real conversation.
Having said that, I think it is wrong to ban the “press” and it is illogical to pick such a fight as it will never hold up in court.
I think you hit the nail on the head, 24 hour news is not a viable business option. It was novel when Ted Turner started CNN oh so many years ago and it thrived, mainly because we went from 20 minutes/day of hand picked biased U.S. centric news to what the F–k was happening all over the world. Well, turns out we only care so much about world wide news so how do you fill 24 hours? You do it with opinion. And 20 hours or 23 hours of opinion is just too much and people are turning off.
The news channels will have to evolve to survive the next 20 years. What will that be? Somewhere some kid will become the new multi billionaire as he fleshes that problem out.
@E.M.
Who watches? Boomers, the insular, people that aren’t comfortable with getting their news from modern sources, people overseas for whom their only American news are these outlets. Lots of people, unfortunately.
Ask yourself – why is Trump doing this now? The obvious answer – it is a distraction from bad news. It is better for Trump for the big story be his fight with the Media (which he already knows he will lose in court and admitted as much), than for the big story be the effect of the Iran war on Diesel prices. And yes, Trump knows that gas and diesel are headed higher. Much higher. And right now, he can’t do Jack about it. So, he makes the big story a 1A fight.
Check you’re history. Both O-dumber & biden did the same the MSN said zip.
“. . . the effect of the Iran war on Diesel prices.”
You can always tell a poser.
This one knows nothing about the impact of the Ukraine-Russia war on the production of diesel fuel.
Oh the Iran war is affecting diesel. You wouldn’t know sour crude from your own sour puss in the mirror
The collective MSM/media has busted its butt (excuse my crudeness) seeking, searching, dissecting, every little word that Trump utters, every little private move he or his sons makes, -including BOTH networks making a point about a Russian oligarch and Don Jr’s wedding party on the beach
-and yet somehow, I don’t recall ABC David Muir or NBC Tom Llamas even MENtioning this:
“Family tied to suspected Chinese spy Christine Fang gave $4.4 million to Newsom, other California politicians.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/yin-family-christine-fang-4-4-million-gavin-newsom-california/?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
From the very first day I joined this blog a few years ago, the media has been my anathema because it has so much power to manipulate public sentiment, public views.
(This relates to my earlier comment(s) regarding selective reporting, selective facts, selective outrage.)
When Trump horned into Mamdani’s news conference today, after accusing CNN, MSNOW and Politico of being “fake news”, Trump gave as an example that they didn’t report that he won “in a landslide”.
Queries to you MAGAS: did Trump “win in a landslide”? How do most of us define “landslide”? Would he have gotten 1.48% more popular votes than Kamala Harris if he hadn’t lied about “no new wars”, and that he would “on day one” immediately bring down the cost of groceries, energy and everything? How about the promise to end the Russian war against Ukraine “on day one”? What do polls say about how these promises played into their decision to vote for Trump?
Popular vote isn’t everything GIGI!! Won all 7 swing states Electoral votes 312-226 States 31-19
In the 2024 presidential election, Donald Trump won roughly 85% to 86% of the nation’s counties and county equivalents, carrying approximately 2,661 counties compared to Kamala Harris’s 451.
THAT’S 2,661 to 451 in counties GIGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALMOST 86% of all counties!!
GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT GIGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YES LANDSLIDE GIGI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lin,
Good point.
Many years ago, I was at an airport and we were subjected to having to watch CNN, the panel-o-pundits took something Trump tweeted, and spent the next 5-10 minutes twisting a simple tweet into something that, if you looked at it by the light of a magic candle, on the night of a full moon, while chanting some kind of ancient incantation from the Mayans it might look like he said he was going to do . . . something totally unrelated to what the tweet said.
I do NOT want CNN to go away. I do not want to see them fail as they are doing. I want to see them get back to their objective journalism. Same could be said about the rest of MSM.
Advocacy journalism is not journalism.
Old Fish: I agree, but what you describe is MAGA media that was established by oligarchs to defend Trump, defend Republicans, to attack Democrats and mainstream media because they tell the truth about what a total disaster Trump and his administration have been.
DEMS did this to Trump BEFORE he was even in office GIGI!!
Are you illiterate? There isn’t the slightest hint of partisan politics in my post. You are manufacturing nonsense instead of thinking about how the press has become a political weapon instead of a watchdog. Just dumb.
Watchdog is one kind of journalism. It watches how officials vote or money being spent etc. It’s factual.
Advocacy journalism? It’s new. Is it tabloid?