When I worked in newspapers, we had a saying: Just report what’s happening; the newspaper should not become part of the story. In filing periodic open records requests, we would sometimes have to mention the name of the newspaper in stories or editorials in order to let readers know how challenging it was, in certain cases, to get information that should have been made readily available to anyone off the street. If it is difficult for a newspaper to obtain information, how much more challenging is it for members of the public? Elected officials often take the position that information is somehow privileged or protected and needlessly require the media and residents to navigate a labyrinthine process before handing over public documents. Information that is not sensitive or part of a criminal investigation is and should always be freely available to anyone for any reason. When it is not and when public officials redact information that doesn’t need to be redacted or causes egregious delays in handing over information, the public has a right to know. It is in these rare times that newspaper editors and publishers are justified in mentioning the newspaper as part of the story, but even then, articles should remain focused on what information was uncovered and not get bogged down in the plight of the newspaper or reporter. While it may make for some interesting reading, how media outlets struggle to get information is, perhaps, worth mentioning, but shouldn’t be the main focus of a story. The point is to reveal how elected officials are managing or mismanaging public resources.
During most typical presidencies — the current one is far from typical — members of the press get to ask the president or the press secretary questions about how the administration is managing taxpayer resources. While no one is deluded enough to think that every word uttered at a press conference is true or that the administration is going to freely offer information that runs counter to whatever narrative it wants to put forward, press conferences are important in holding presidents accountable for how they handle those resources. As we have now seen, Trump, during rare times when he actually holds a press conference — once going for more than a year without one — often has a caustic relationship with journalists who make him angry or do not toe the line. CNN and The New York Times have been two of Trump’s main targets, going back to before Trump took office.
The stage was set, then, for CNN and Trump’s most recent spat when, clearly frustrated about how GOP losses during the midterms potentially served as an indictment on his presidency, Trump attempted to shut down questions from CNN’s Jim Acosta, and when Acosta refused to give up his microphone to an aide, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders erroneously claimed, using doctored video footage to “prove” her case, that Acosta inappropriately put his hands on the intern. The administration then revoked Acosta’s press pass, and CNN proceeded to file a lawsuit, seeking “emergency relief” to restore the reporter’s access to the White House and claiming Trump violated the First and Fifth amendments. Federal judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee no less, ordered the administration to temporarily restore Acosta’s press pass on Friday, but did not rule on the main part of the case. A final decision is apparently coming at a later time. Commentators on CNN have called the ruling a “win for CNN” and for the First Amendment.
All of this is unprecedented, of course, and certainly warranted news coverage, but I am uncomfortable with how CNN has blanketed this story, its own story, on their network and all over its website. I don’t know how a more traditional news outlet like The New York Times would have handled a similar situation, but my hunch is that the newspaper would simply have had one story and updated it accordingly as new information came in. In other words, a media outlet can’t exactly ignore the fact that a sitting president of the United States took away a reporter’s press pass, but to feature at least seven articles on its website related to various angles of the lawsuit, as CNN did earlier this week, and to give the story prominent air time is a bit overboard, especially given that supposedly objective anchors like Brooke Baldwin, among others, could be seen on the air nodding in agreement as CNN lawyer Ted Olson talked about Trump’s overreach in the case.
In a joint statement, USA Today, Fox News and other media outlets have voiced their support for CNN and the First Amendment in the case. It will be interesting to see how Brian Stelter, CNN chief media correspondent, covers the case on his show, “Reliable Sources,” which investigates how the media covers the news. Is Stelter going to analyze how CNN covered its own story or focus on other matters? CNN will probably not be able to help itself and once again mention the case, along with its much-heralded win, on Stelter’s show.
Make no mistake. This was, indeed, an important case for the preservation of the First Amendment against the misuse of presidential power, but that CNN and Acosta were the alleged “victims” is of little consequence. Any other reporter in the room could have just as well taken the brunt of Trump’s ire, so CNN’s specific role in this is unimportant and irrelevant. The important point is the First Amendment must be upheld and that the president can’t capriciously and without cause take away a reporter’s press pass. The media, and by extension, the public, needs to have access to the White House.
I would hope that from here on out CNN treads lightly on trumpeting its own cause and focus, instead, on exposing the administration’s hypocrisies, lies and half-truths. God knows there’s plenty to talk about.