Press freedom is your freedom

About two weeks ago, Trump announced that he was banning reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House grounds, limiting their coverage of his administration as he accused them of publishing “fake news.” While a court order has temporarily allowed the reporters access to the White House once more, this move by a sitting U.S. president to limit what he views as unflattering coverage of his administration is not one to look past.

The Riverdale Press has, of late, published a flurry of editorials keeping readers abreast of developments in this fraught media landscape and sharing our stances on these matters. The phrase “unprecedented times” seems to hang in the air over much of modern life today, and the world of journalism is certainly no exception. This recent move by the president occurs amid concerning increases in animosity toward the free press not only from public officials across the globe, but from the public as well.

The ban of these White House press pool members led to a great deal of pushback, and a great deal of headlines. Even members of the White House press pool who were not subject to the ban suspended pool coverage in solidarity with their fellow journalists. The moment created a rare instance where news outlets of varying kinds banded together, and members of the public expressed distress online on these journalists’ behalf.

What many of these journalists and other individuals were really rallying behind, though, was the First Amendment. And while this moment of solidarity and attention on the importance of the media is in some ways hopeful, it was brought about by an action that has dangerous implications for the right of the American public to remain informed on what their government is doing.

The First Amendment of our country’s constitution is often something American citizens read once, usually when prompted to do so in a classroom. Revisiting the constitution is a good practice however — especially when political powers continue to run up against, or through, the guardrails it put in place. The First Amendment protects five foundational freedoms: freedom of speech, religion, assembly, petition, and, of course, press.

News outlets and commentators alike have noted that it appears the president banned only outlets whose coverage he believes paints him and his administration in an unflattering light. Outlets whose coverage he often criticized and called “fake” or “lies.” Though the administration cited national security justifications for the ban, critics have pointed to the flimsiness of those justifications.

The fight for the right of these news outlets to cover the Trump administration from the White House grounds is not over. And this fight is just one symptom of a larger, national and global trend of discrediting and stifling the press.

It is important to remain painfully aware that these battles are not only important for journalists seeking access. They are important for the everyday people to whom political officials are accountable. No matter which end of the political spectrum one falls toward, any move by any official to limit press access to their operations should be regarded with a great deal of not only scrutiny, but alarm.

Each news outlet that loses inside access to a political space is a point of view, a perspective that is lost to the public they serve. Whether one consumes news from the outlets in question or not, it must be acknowledged that these outlets provide essential information about the inner workings of American government. They are staffed by journalists — individuals who are typically called to pick up the pen or microphone because they are passionate about transparency and justice, because they take the truth seriously.

A sudden ban of such journalists has worrying implications. It limits the number of voices who are able to tell the stories that shape people’s lives. That is a dangerous game for our country to play.