The White House set a terrifying precedent by banning the Associated Press (AP) from presidential events over the media organization’s refusal to recognize the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”
No matter where you get your news, one of the roles of the press is to be a watchdog of the government. This is why you see articles about the federal government in nearly every high-circulation newspaper, along with articles regarding local government in the local papers and outlets – information on Pittsburgh city council’s meetings, for example.
The Globe is no different. While we may not have someone covering Student Government Association (SGA) meetings now, we are able to go to these meetings for the very reason of being able to document what happens.
With the federal government deciding to take away access to meetings from what may be one of the most respected news organizations in the world over word choice, people should be worried.
It means that this government is sensitive and does not respect the laws set forth in the First Amendment. Are we throwing “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press” out the window now? Granted, the consequences would be worse if multiple news organizations had access removed because of a refusal to call something by the government’s preferred name, but we don’t know what’s next at this point.
Additionally, the AP acting and suing the federal government over this ban may be the least surprising news out of this situation. Did this current administration expect such an important pillar in the media to not strike back?
Now, media organizations spanning from CNN to Newsmax have called upon the White House to reconsider its ban on the AP, but that is unlikely to change. A Feb. 24 federal court ruling gave the first round of AP’s lawsuit to the White House, stating that the newswire service waited too long to file the lawsuit, meaning the situation isn’t dire according to judge Trevor McFadden.
For decades, the AP’s access to White House events has not been restricted much at all thanks to its privileges of being a news wire service along with Reuters, which allows articles published by either organization to be published in any news outlet that subscribes to each organization’s services. However, this long-standing policy is no more, and Reuters was also passed over for media access to President Donald Trump’s first cabinet meeting.
According to the White House Corps, accredited press credentials are being given to independent outlets such as those that only exist online and influencers who post about news. The White House does note that members of the legacy media will still have a fair chance, but is this true when longstanding, credible organizations are skipped over for an influencer who may have a lot of followers?
Popularity does not equal notoriety, and notoriety does not automatically equal credibility. Expanding press access to official White House events is a needed change and should be open to media outlets and individuals of varying reporting backgrounds and markets, but it should not be up to solely the government alone.
If it is, the U.S. government may feel empowered to only pick reporters who will not question anything and will go with whatever agenda is being pushed. No matter the political affiliation of who’s in charge, that’s problematic.
Journalists in the U.S. get enough flack as it is. While it’s almost expected for our government to not always appreciate the press, it should never be to the point where access is cut off at a whim. Only time will tell to see what future media organizations get pushed out of the White House.
