| Photo of Johnny Clements |
| EDITORIAL By Johnny Clements The Poke Press The Trump administration’s decision to ban certain media outlets from the White House press pool has spurred a debate over whether the administration’s actions were constitutional. That question is relatively simple to answer. Of course, banning specific news outlets infringes upon First Amendment rights. However, the better question is whether or not our country’s media system needs a massive overhaul. Presidents of the United States have frequently feuded with various media outlets regarding the nature of their coverage of acting administrations. Some have even considered banning certain outlets from specific events. The Trump administration, however, is the first administration actually to follow through on the threat when it banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House press pool. Vice President JD Vance defended the administration’s decision to ban the media outlets. “We’re not going to give you special access to the White House if you engage in what is effectively propaganda,” Vance said. Back in 2009, the Obama administration considered excluding Fox News from a specific press event, claiming that the news organization acted as an arm of the Republican Party rather than a legitimate news source. The administration backed down when other networks came together in solidarity and threatened to boycott the event themselves. After this, the Obama administration never attempted to ban Fox News from the White House. Former President Barack Obama recently responded to the Trump administration’s media ban. “I’m trying to think what would have happened if I had said, ‘You know what, Fox News, you’re out of here,’” Obama said. “It’s unimaginable.” On one hand, President Donald Trump’s decision to ban certain media outlets from the White House press pool serves as a form of censorship. An argument could be made that this decision is an example of prior restraint, which the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional. On the other hand, it seems that this is a natural progression of the United States empowering a mass media complex that is more concerned with influencing the populace than informing them. For decades in the United States, it has been virtually impossible to find an unbiased news outlet. Both sides of the political spectrum draw either support or ire from particular outlets, forcing citizens to choose a side simply by deciding what channel to tune in to. Gone are the days of simply reporting facts and allowing individuals to decide what they do or do not support. Now viewers are subjected to long-winded diatribes aimed at influencing their vote. The feud between the press and political administrations is nothing new, and to some degree, the Trump administration’s desire to ban unfavorable outlets is natural. The problem is the administration followed through with that desire, which was a misuse of power. Journalists should have freedom of expression as laid out in the Constitution; however, if members of the media on both sides of the aisle do not start exercising that freedom more responsibly, this type of incident is doomed to repeat itself. |
