President Donald Trump’s decision to bar CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO from the White House has drawn condemnation across journalism, with professional associations, press freedom advocates and competing news organizations defending the affected outlets. Some voices are urging the industry to go further and withdraw from White House events in solidarity.
Journalism professor Jeff Jarvis made that case on Friday, Sept. 18, on CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip, calling on other news organizations to stand beside their excluded colleagues.
“Walk out in solidarity, not just with CNN, MS NOW and POLITICO, walk out in solidarity with the Constitution and a free press,” Jarvis said.
Jarvis named The New York Times, The Washington Post, Associated Press and Reuters in his appeal. He argued that journalists could continue monitoring presidential statements while directing more reporting toward people outside Washington. His comments framed the dispute as a test of collective action across competing newsrooms.
The consequences became tangible Saturday, Sept. 19. According to AP, CNN’s Betsy Klein, MS NOW’s Akayla Gardner and POLITICO’s Cheyenne Haslett were denied entry. Their organizations pledged to defend their First Amendment rights while continuing to cover the administration.
Trump said he was excluding the organizations because of coverage he considered false and warned that other outlets could follow. Press organizations responding to the announcement argued that disagreement with coverage cannot justify government retaliation against journalists.
The White House Correspondents’ Association, led by its president Jacqui Heinrich, defended the three organizations in a Sept. 18 statement emphasizing the public’s stake in independent reporting.
“The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference,” the association said. This past July, the WHCA hosted the president at its annual White House Correspondents Dinner.
The Society of Professional Journalists likewise urged the White House to reverse its decision and allow credentialed reporters to continue working regardless of whether their coverage was favorable.
“A free press must be able to question those in power,” SPJ said.
The organization warned against using access to influence journalism and cited legal protections against arbitrary exclusion and restrictions based on the content of reporting.
Investigative Reporters and Editors (IRE) expressed an explicit appeal for solidarity. Executive Director Jonathan Kealing urged journalists nationwide to support colleagues affected by the restrictions. Kealing described the action as part of a broader pattern of efforts to marginalize journalists scrutinizing the administration.
Broadcast journalists also weighed in. Radio Television Digital News Association President and CEO Tara Puckey offered a pointed description of the stakes.
“A press room you get to curate isn’t a press room. It’s a stage,” Puckey said in RTDNA’s Sept. 18 statement.
She said transparency requires access for journalists asking difficult questions.
National Press Club President Mark Schoeff Jr. also called for immediate reversal, warning that the exclusion could pressure other news organizations to soften questions or coverage.
“A government confident in its actions should never fear independent scrutiny,” Schoeff said.
The Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the ban as a violation of First Amendment rights. Américas Regional Director José Zamora said journalists must be able to work without retaliation and criticized the administration’s weaponization of government access.
The National Association of Black Journalists also objected. President Errin Haines said officials cannot reward favorable reporting with access while punishing journalists who scrutinize them, according to TheGrio’s account of the organization’s statement.
The response extended beyond professional associations. AP expressed solidarity with organizations whose access had been restricted. The Washington Post condemned the ban as intimidation, while The New York Times also issued a statement opposing it, according to the Times’ reporting.
Fox News contributors Ari Fleischer and Jonathan Turley separately criticized the decision. Their comments represented individual positions, rather than an announced corporate response from Fox News.
For the news media community, the unresolved question is: what follows these public statements of solidarity?
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here