Can political media break the addiction to access?
Trump’s ban on AP could be an opportunity for greater independence.
Donald Trump’s ban against the Associated Press covering White House events is an outrageous assault on freedom of the press.
It may have a positive effect, though, if it makes the news media more aggressive and resourceful and less dependent on news items that politicians dole out. After all, journalism shouldn’t look like feeding time at the aquarium.
As you probably know, the AP offended Trump by referring to an international body of water by the name it’s had for four centuries – the Gulf of Mexico. Trump prefers “Gulf of America” because he wants to rule by whim and likes to get weak people to show their loyalty by endorsing his stupid ideas. Plus, Trump enjoys confrontations with the news media.
So the AP is being barred from presidential events, denying the news service one of the political press’ most precious commodities: access. On Friday, the AP sued White House officials to get its access back. Perhaps the news service will prevail, as CNN’s Jim Acosta did in 2018 when Trump’s suspension of his press pass was lifted by a court ruling.
The AP had few choices other than filing the lawsuit because support from other news organizations has been weak sauce – a few stern letters and quiet appeals. They’ve apparently forgotten German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller’s famous statement about the Nazis: “First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists …”
They will come for all legitimate journalists.
Yet when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held a briefing last Thursday, not a single question was asked about the AP ban. A proper response would have been some form of guerrilla warfare. What if every legitimate news organization had asked about the ban? Or perhaps a reporter could have asked a question this way: “I was talking with an Associated Press reporter this morning, and she was wondering about …”
The news media needed an “I am Spartacus” moment. Instead, the message was: “I’m definitely not Spartacus. No way. That’s him over there.”
Some press advocates have called for a boycott – for reporters to refuse to attend White House events if the AP is barred. Brian Stelter of CNN’s Reliable Sources newsletter said some news leaders opposed that idea because, as one of them put it, “rejecting access to the president is a strange way to argue that we should have more access.”
A boycott would probably fail. But even if it did, it would come at a cost for Trump. Attention is oxygen for him. He cares deeply about what’s reported in what he calls the “fake news.” That said, there are enough kooks and liars from right-wing media to fill the seats in the briefing room and make it appear to those who are less familiar that he’s being asked real questions by real reporters.
Trump is already welcoming disinformation specialists like Gateway Pundit and One America News, which should make mainstream media ask themselves whether they really want to be stuffed in the clown car with them. NPR’s David Folkenflik reported last week that previously discredited news people like Lara Logan – so bonkers that she’s banned from Fox News and Newsmax – have been welcomed at events by the Trump regime.
It’s possible that Trump will raise the stakes, kicking out other news outlets that don’t use “Gulf of America.” That would force them – like the AP – to find workarounds to report the news. It definitely would make newsgathering more difficult. But it also would be an opportunity to battle against the tyranny of access.
Politicians in power know they have information that news outlets want. Heck, they can invent news. Cynical politicians use this to their advantage. I know this from personal experience: I was metro editor of the Chicago Tribune when Rahm Emanuel was mayor. He knew the value of the news he was making because he often gifted his favored reporters with mini-scoops rather than make general announcements that every news organization got at the same time.
I’m not saying the news media could entirely break free from being at the mercy of politicians. The press needs to report what politicians are promising and planning, which is why the AP ban is troubling. But think about the most valuable news you’ve seen in the last month. It may have involved Elon Musk’s bulldozing of government agencies. Hardly any of that was announced by anyone. Hard-working reporters worked their sources to determine who was targeted by Musk’s slash-and-burn squads. Attending a White House briefing was an opportunity to hear lies about what was happening, not to gain clarity.
Which points to a key fact about covering politicians: What they do is more important than what they say.
So, yes, attend the news conferences when you can. But know that a better story may be found in the home of a chronically ill person who is forced to ration her medicine or in the computer files of a college professor who has been tracking pharmaceutical prices for the last two decades. There’s a lot of news out there that you can get without begging politicians for access.
A key way politicians gain leverage over journalists is through “exclusive interviews.” These are overvalued by the media, and the competition to get them may lead to backroom dealing. What promises do news organizations make to get newsmakers to show up at their televised town halls? What punches do they pull?
When I was at the Tribune in 2017, I got a close look at the dynamics of access.
It was the first week of Trump’s first term, and ABC’s David Muir had an exclusive interview with Trump at the White House. Along with an hour-long special on TV, ABC released a transcript of the interview, including comments that did not make the broadcast. One of our reporters noticed that those remarks included Trump saying falsely that two people had been killed in Chicago during Barack Obama’s farewell address in Chicago a few weeks earlier.
Trump said:
“So, look, when President Obama was there two weeks ago making a speech, very nice speech. Two people were shot and killed during his speech. You can’t have that. They weren’t shot at the speech. But they were shot in the city of Chicago during the speech.”
The Tribune determined from official police records that no one had been shot in Chicago during Obama’s speech. In fact, no homicides had occurred in the 24 hours before and after the speech. We contacted ABC, which attested that the transcript accurately depicted the president’s words. But despite multiple inquiries from the Tribune, ABC declined to release video of Trump making the comment.
I can’t help wondering whether ABC’s lack of interest in highlighting Trump’s lie about Chicago was an access issue. Were they thinking about the next time they’d ask Trump for an interview? Who knows? When the media negotiate with newsmakers for exclusives, there’s a lack of transparency. There’s a lot we don’t know.
What I do know, though, is that our country’s most impactful journalism doesn’t require the permission of politicians.
Advertise in this newsletter
Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.
The country's most impactful journalism is occurring outside of corp media where journalists are doing their jobs without direct access. Access to deranged, sociopathic, mendacious politicians is highly over rated and can be harmful when granted to a guileless or worse, collaborative, press.
Most of the Mainstream Media has coward in the corner as Trumphuk’s minions hand them useless garbage. What we need is real reporting on the effects of the Trumphuk—Muskalini eviscerating of our democracy. That ain’t going to come from sitting in a WH presser.