The Need for Bipartisan Support to Protect Press Freedom

President Trump’s ongoing conflict with the American news media requires a broader response. The recent exclusion of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico by the White House, labeled as spreading ‘fake news,’ and the decision by major networks like ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News to refuse to step in for CNN in the presidential TV pool, has intensified the urgency for action.

A federal judge intervened, temporarily restoring these organizations’ credentials after determining they were revoked without due process. Despite this ruling, entry denial continued the following day, prompting another urgent appeal to the court. By Friday, the presidential TV pool resumed, and the legal issue was mostly resolved, but the broader concern lingered.

The recurring conflicts over press credentials and government influence over media have led to a central question: How much control should a president exercise over the institutions that cover them independently? This matter now requires input beyond the courts and news organizations. It’s vital for political leaders to draft a bipartisan statement on presidential press freedom, shared among all members of Congress, governors, Cabinet members, and former Cabinet members. Such a statement would stand as a consistent test, irrespective of current political dynamics.

While Republicans might perceive CNN as biased against Trump, they can still support the principle that no president should retaliate against CNN’s journalism. Democrats may dislike Fox News, yet understand a Democratic president should not exclude it in the future. True press freedom is upheld when its proponents apply it even to disagreeable journalism.

The TV networks set an example by supporting CNN during its exclusion from pool coverage. Rather than taking CNN’s place, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox declined, thus transforming a Trump-CNN issue into a broader dispute over press independence. Fox News’s presence illustrates the principle, as demonstrated in 2009 when the Obama administration tried to exclude Fox from an interview pool, only to relent under pressure from other networks. Such united stances highlight the unwavering institutional interest, notwithstanding political shifts.

This solidarity presents a challenge: the president needs constant independent coverage. Limited space prohibits the entire press corps from attending every presidential event, necessitating a select group of journalists representing the broader media. Extended interruptions in this system pose risks, with the White House potentially dominating presidential imagery and sound bites. Journalists must guard their independence while remaining objective witnesses.

News organizations should utilize accessible avenues to continue covering Trump, enhance video-sharing and reporting, and form a consortium across varying media outlets. When necessary, official White House footage can be identified as government-produced material. This approach gains strength if outlets like Fox and Newsmax participate, reinforcing the collective aim without endorsing CNN’s journalism. The shared interest revolves around keeping journalistic decisions independent of presidential influence.

For years, warning signs have emerged: Trump’s ‘fake news’ fixation, the Associated Press’s ‘Gulf of America’ access dispute, new Pentagon restrictions on reporters, and legal battles with media companies facing federal scrutiny. Though individually these incidents might seem idiosyncratic, they cumulatively indicate a troubling trend of using governmental power to determine media access and coverage conditions.

The response must transcend journalism, aiming to craft a concise and unifying statement attractive to individuals with diverse views. This proposal is not to judge CNN or Fox News, Trump or specific stories, but rather to define presidential authority boundaries with respect to press freedom. Regardless of the party in control, the president should honor established news organizations’ independence and the mechanisms through which they report on the presidency. Officials disputing reports should address them with factual corrections and logical arguments.

Republican endorsements are crucial now, as Democratic support would be in a similar scenario involving conservative media under future Democratic leadership. The statement’s power lies in gathering a bipartisan coalition willing to uphold these fundamental principles. It should challenge any official to justify why a president should penalize established media due to unfavorable coverage.

Presidential power over the press concerns the served audience: the public. As Trump eventually exits office, setting precedents of presidential authority should endure beyond any court cases. The principle of preserving press freedom must outlast temporal conflicts and political transitions.