When the White House punishes journalists for coverage it doesn’t like, it does more than raise First Amendment concerns. It also creates a chilling effect that reaches far beyond Washington, D.C., including into student newsrooms.
On Sept. 18, President Donald Trump announced that he was banning CNN, MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) and Politico from the White House, citing coverage he characterized as false and negative. Reporters from those outlets were later turned away from the White House grounds.
In response, the three outlets sued the Trump administration on Sept. 21, arguing the ban violated their First and Fifth Amendment rights.
This is not the first time Trump has tried to punish journalists for coverage he didn’t like. The pattern, however, continues to set an anti-press tone across the nation, and student journalists are among those who feel it most.
Press credentials cannot become rewards for favorable coverage
The First Amendment does not grant journalists — or anyone else — an unlimited right to enter every government building or question every official. The president may, for example, choose which reporters get interviews or close certain events to all reporters.
But once the government opens the door to journalists, the First and Fifth Amendments require that it not later deny access arbitrarily or because of the content of the journalist’s speech.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has said this is true even in highly secure places like the White House, which has long offered press facilities and issued security credentials to journalists covering the president.
That’s why, in their newly filed lawsuit, CNN, MS NOW and Politico emphasize that Trump made it clear this decision was based on the news organization’s reporting.
That is viewpoint discrimination, which the Supreme Court called “egregious” under the First Amendment in Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, a 1995 case involving funding of a student-run magazine.
As Freedom Forum writes, “Viewpoint discrimination puts a thumb on the scale of public opinion…” Here, the thumb presses toward favorable coverage, signaling to other journalists that any critical coverage could cost them their access too.
Taken further, if these actions were permitted, officials could effectively select the watchdogs who cover them, and the public would lose access to independent witnesses to the president’s daily actions and statements.
Below: Katie Fallow, deputy litigation director at the Knight First Amendment Institute, speaks with Democracy Now about why all of this matters. Fallow is a member of the SPLC Board of Directors.
The chilling effect spreads
For student journalists, this script is familiar.
Call the reporting false. Attack the journalist’s credibility. Restrict access. Find ways to punish the journalist through financial, legal or disciplinary means.
Just last week in the Student Press Report, four college journalists wrote about how their administrators went after them because of reporting that shook up their campuses. At Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, for example, officials publicly attacked the student newspaper, restricted communication and reported its editor to police for harassment.
These incidents predate the latest White House ban, but they reveal a climate where officials are emboldened to treat scrutiny as misconduct and access as a favor.
We must all reject that model.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are fighting back in court. Student journalists, too, regularly stand up when their press freedom rights are threatened, and the Student Press Law Center is here to stand alongside them.
If you’re a student journalist facing retaliation for your coverage, contact the Student Press Law Center’s Legal Hotline.