While pettiness and superficiality characterize both political and journalism spheres, the ongoing drama between the Trump administration and the Associated Press sets new low standards for trivial things.
That’s what the AP was like Throwable from access to White House events This is because they refused to call waters in the west of Florida, east of Texas and southern Louisiana the “American Bay” that provides Trump. There is no doubt that the White House has more grievances to the AP than what is called a body of water, but that’s a working explanation for now.
The AP appears to have won the round in this pillow fight when federal judge Trevor McFadden ordered the White House to restore AP access to oval offices and other limited spaces when other presses are also allowed. However, White House press this week bounced off the mat and once again restricted access to an oval office meeting between President Trump and President El Salvador. The AP claimsperhaps correctly, this latest barrier is that it violates the judge’s order.
The White House again put pressure on it this week, removing the guaranteed spot for wire service on the spinning press pool. The AP runs to court again, claiming that the movement targets the AP.
This dust up has more chapters before running the course. Whatever the end result, both the AP and the White House look like losers.
News-consuming citizens may find themselves somewhat amusing by their attitude, but we know that there are far more important things than the Associated Press and the White House fighting over seawater terminology or doing something that has a reporter’s notes on the press secretary’s jokes. This is an unnecessary skirmish that will excite Trump’s hatred and Trump’s followers. Most sane people agree that there is already enough such skirmishes.
Some lawyers make money over the conflict, while partisan critics drone on broader implications as envisaged for democracy, freedom of the press, and more. But this kind of barking does not need to distract the public from more important issues and clutter federal courts.
The White House discrepancy in this issue began when we first streamlined AP targeting. It has led the government to punish news outlets over its content. Federal judges who understand the First Amendment will be on the side of the press on such matters. It is the American way that news organizations can use the terminology of their purpose to gain first corrective protection. The AP could call the moon a big beach ball, which should not be important to the White House.
The White House has a wide latitude to manage press access to the administration, but Judge McFadden pointed out clearly in his order. However, restricting access to a single outlet via content decisions is problematic.
The AP should consider how subtle the part may appear to be due to the qualifying actions. The First Amendment allows free press services, but does not guarantee more access than any other outlet. Certainly, AP is the largest news organization in the United States and one of the largest news organizations in the world. But because of its scope it is not worth an exceptional treatment.
The AP is clearly on the left Rated by the respected Allides Media Bias chart. Perhaps some of the AP’s preferred White House treatments over the past few years should go to more centralist press.
We also need to question how much the AP is suffering from the White House restrictions. The Associated Press continues Report on the Trump Administration. Like other outlets, the AP has access to all filings coming out of the White House press pool system.
Additionally, the AP made a federal fuss over the naming of a particular bay, but there was no problem. Return the name of Mount Denali to Mount McKinley When Trump announced that his name would change. The names of things change all the time, including sports teams, military bases, and even people, and the AP just adapts. The AP should focus on reporting news rather than trying to make it.
It is well known that Trump likes to fight and disregard the press, and sometimes the media needs to stand up and fight. This wasn’t one of those days. The guardrail of democracy is not dependent on this conflict. There are plenty of other media outlets, including anti-Trump outlets, to thoroughly compensate the White House. Therefore, this Trump-AP fight minimizes broader implications in the press world.
This is another brick at the wall of increasing unrelatedness in press-political dialogue that is tireing wise Americans.
Jeffrey M. McCallHe is a media critic and professor of communication at Depauw University. He has worked as a radio news director, newspaper reporter and political media consultant.
