WHAT’S HAPPENING
President Trump announced last week that he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico reporters from the White House, calling them out for constantly reporting "fake news." The ban's enforcement remains unclear as reporters from the three organizations were still on White House grounds after the announcement was made.
The outlets then declared they would file a lawsuit in federal court alleging First Amendment violations.
THE FACTS
Trump announced that media outlets "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES" when covering the president.
The president stated from the Oval Office, “The ban is because they are fake news; they cannot write the truth. If they had credibility, I wouldn't be sitting here right now.”
Reporters from the three outlets remained on White House grounds Friday evening, though their press badges were deactivated over the weekend.
CNN, MS NOW, and Politico announced yesterday they would file a joint lawsuit in federal court in Washington, DC.
Trump acknowledged the restrictions might not survive legal challenge, saying, "It depends on the judge you get, to be honest with you."
All major TV networks, including Fox News, suspended video-pool coverage of Trump's events and UN trip to New York City in protest.
During Trump's first term, a federal judge ordered credentials restored to CNN reporter Jim Acosta after the White House revoked them in 2018.
Trump singled out The New York Times and The Washington Post as potential future targets, calling their coverage "disgusting" and "fake."
Meanwhile, the White House just launched “Trump TV,” streaming “top past moments, announcements, and the latest and greatest from the Administration.”
OUR TAKE
Vice President Vance defended the move by claiming that 92 percent of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico’s coverage of Trump is negative, and it's fair to deny "propaganda" outlets privileges that, for instance, the Obama or Biden administrations never extended to certain conservative organizations.
The study that produced the “92 percent” figure doesn’t mention those three outlets, so it’s hard to say whether that’s actually true.
Regardless, news organizations generally have an obligation to question and even criticize those in power as a check against them, so negative coverage of the president is neither shocking nor wrong. Whether this is the right move or not, it seems like an unnecessary distraction from the administration's very real accomplishments.
