Dem
52
Ties
3
GOP
45
Previously, Donald Trump tried to ban the Associated Press from the White House (and from associated venues). Yesterday, he ostensibly expanded the list, blackballing CNN, MS NOW and Politico. Here is the announcement, from his own lips (well, his own fingertips):
I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW (who recently changed their name from MSNBC due to lack of viewership and credibility!), and Politico (The recipients of an illegal and ridiculous $8 Million Dollar subscription, an All Time Record, directly from the United States Government, under Crooked Joe Biden, in order to keep them "alive." Seems like corruption to me!), from the White House as a result of their constant "reporting" FAKE NEWS! Media Outlets shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DONALD J. TRUMP
We write "ostensibly" because the announcement does not specify what exactly the nature of the "ban" is. Further, even several hours after the announcement, CNN's staffers were still working in the office space they use in the White House.
If Trump does try to move forward with this, beyond just thumping his chest on his social media platform for baboons, is it legal? The answer is... it's complicated. On one hand, not every outlet can have access to the White House, and in particular, it's acceptable for the administration to control access more strictly when dealing with highly secure, non-public areas like the Oval Office and Air Force One. On the other hand, as the administration decides who does, and does not, get access, it cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination. Access can be parceled out based on the size of the outlets, or some sort of lottery/rotation scheme, but it cannot be awarded based on coverage. The AP has a lawsuit right now, in fact, seeking clarity on this point. Thanks to the injunctions that have been granted, in advance of the pending trial, that agency still has White House access, but not Oval Office/Air Force One access.
The other obvious question here: Is the "new" policy politic? We can certainly say, because we checked, that the outspoken MAGA types are hailing Trump for his bravery in finally standing up to the "lamestream media." Of course, these same people would pitch a fit if a Democrat banned Fox from the White House, but MAGA has never been known for being intellectually consistent. All of this said, we don't know if we're entirely persuaded that MAGAworld is as excited as it pretends to be. They kind of have to back Trump's moves at all times, since that's how this works. However, one wonders if they're not quite as enthusiastic as they pretend to be.
Meanwhile, to anyone who is not MAGA, this is a bad look. It is, first of all, undemocratic and authoritarian. On top of that, it's pathetic and weak. One way to try to counter critical voices is to govern better. Another way is to try to silence those critical voices. Only one of those two approaches counts as "leadership," and it's not the one that Trump chose. Since the problem the GOP has in the midterms is attracting at least some voters who are not MAGA, we'd say that yesterday's lesson in Fascism 101 did more harm than good to the Party's November prospects. Meanwhile, if Trump is forced to back down, it will disappoint those folks who legitimately thought this was a "strong" move, while underscoring to everyone else that he's a wounded, cornered beast, screaming into the void. (Z)