The Need for Presidential Press Freedom Principles
President Trump’s ongoing conflict with the American news media has reached a critical point. The White House’s exclusion of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico, accusing them of spreading ‘fake news,’ and the decision by major networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News to not replace CNN in the presidential television pool, highlight the issue. A federal judge recently ordered the administration to temporarily restore the credentials of these organizations, citing a lack of due process. However, reporters faced denial of entry the following day, resulting in another court appeal. By Friday, the television pool was reinstated, resolving the legal battle but not the underlying issue.
Conflicts over press credentials, government language, Pentagon reporting rules, and federal influence on media companies raise questions about presidential influence. How much should a president influence the institutions covering their administration independently?
Proposal for a Bipartisan Statement
Political leaders should endorse a bipartisan statement on presidential press freedom. This statement should be shared with Congress members, governors, current and former Cabinet members. Such a statement offers a simple test, allowing Republicans to believe CNN treats Trump unfairly while maintaining that a president shouldn’t punish CNN for its journalism. Similarly, Democrats can detest Fox News but agree that no future Democratic president should exclude Fox.
Press freedom only remains robust when its defenders extend it to journalism they disagree with. Networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox set an example by refusing to replace CNN when barred by the White House, shifting the Trump-CNN confrontation into a broader debate over television press independence.
Historical Context and Solidarity
Notably, Fox joined its competitors, showing solidarity. In 2009, the Obama administration attempted to exclude Fox News from an interview with a Treasury official. Other networks objected, and the administration relented. Years later, Fox stands alongside its competitors when a Republican administration excludes CNN. The politics may have changed, but the institutional interest remains constant.
This solidarity poses a challenge. Continuous independent coverage of the president is necessary. The entire press corps cannot always accompany the president, so a select group represents the rest. A prolonged suspension endangers this system, as images and sounds increasingly come from the White House. The press must maintain independence and remain an independent witness.
Strategies for the Press
News organizations should continue covering the president wherever possible, expand sharing of video and reporting, and create collaborative efforts involving networks, wire services, newspapers, and digital outlets. When using White House footage, broadcasters should clarify it as government-produced. Involvement of Fox and Newsmax would strengthen this approach, emphasizing that news organizations share an interest in keeping journalism decisions outside presidential control.
Addressing Government Influence
Warnings have persisted, such as Trump’s ‘fake news’ obsession, AP disputes over ‘Gulf of America,’ Pentagon restrictions, and media battles over federal decisions. These events, seen individually, may appear trivial. However, collectively they highlight concerns about government power shaping media coverage terms.
Thus, the response should extend beyond journalism. The proposed statement should be concise enough to unite people with differing views. Its aim is to set a rule for presidential power, not judge CNN, Fox, or Trump. The central principle is clear: regardless of the ruling party, the president should respect the independence of news organizations and the press arrangements for covering the presidency. Officials should respond to reporting with facts and arguments, not through discretional access based on editorial approval.
Assemble a visible group across party lines dedicated to this institutional rule. It should be challenging for any public official to justify a president penalizing established news organizations over disapproved coverage.
Trump’s departure from office will come, and along with it, the presidency will transition. The precedents set will continue. Whatever emerges from recent court battles, the principle must endure. Presidential power over the press is not ultimately about the media. It’s about serving the public.