Limiting free press is a threat to democracy

There’s a quote by former US president Franklin D. Roosevelt that says, “freedom of conscience, of education, of speech, of assembly are among the very fundamentals of democracy and all of them would be nullified should freedom of the press ever be successfully challenged.”

Freedom of the press is enshrined in our country’s constitution for a reason — it is a safeguard against tyranny and a powerful tool for citizens.

The statements and actions coming from the White House in last month towards the press have demonstrated a disregard and disrespect for this critical first amendment right. This has included personal attacks against various journalists on social media from both President Trump and Elon Musk, as well as the termination of long-standing Pentagon residencies for organizations like NBC News and Politico.

Two weeks ago, the White House blocked Associated Press (AP) reporters from multiple White House press events, one being their usual seat on Air Force One for a trip to Mar-a-Lago.

Trump reaffirmed this “ban” last Tuesday, saying he was going to “keep them out” until the AP started using “Gulf of America” to refer to the body of water between the US and Mexico, per his executive order signed in January.

The AP has stated that despite this executive order, they would continue to refer to it as the “Gulf of Mexico” because of the AP’s standing as a global news agency that must use international geography names that are “easily recognizable to all audiences.”

In January, Trump also ordered that Mount Denali be reverted in name to McKinley, a guidance that the AP announced it would follow because the mountain is located only within the United States.

The Gulf of Mexico, however, is part of international waters that the US government does not have complete naming authority over — hence the stylistic choice from the AP to continue to use the original name and simply make note of Trump’s desired change within their journalistic writing as needed.

Trump has characterized this move as a refusal to “follow the law.” Besides his executive order that has limited applications, there is no law, international or domestic, that directly prohibits the AP from using whatever name they find acceptable given their audience and editorial process in this case.

The AP has since brought forward a lawsuit against three Trump administration officials, citing due process and free speech violations and emphasizing the right of all people and press to use whatever informed wording they choose without fear of government retaliation.

The suit was heard by a federal judge on Monday, who ruled that the situation was not urgent enough to warrant an immediate restoration of AP reporter access. However, the judge cautioned the White House against the ban, stating that the legal precedent wouldn’t support the Trump administration’s position and that the ban seemed to be “clearly viewpoint discrimination.” A secondary court hearing is scheduled for March 20.

There’s been no shortage of news coming from the White House in the last month, so you may be wondering why you should care about a few reporters being blocked from certain Presidential events. First, here’s some context:

If you’ve read any piece published in The Record, you’ve read something impacted by the AP. If you’ve tracked the results during or after any election night, you’ve almost certainly depended on the AP. If you’ve ever kept an eye on NCAA rankings as a college sports fan, congratulations, you’ve interacted with the AP.

The AP created the AP Stylebook, the widely accepted guide for journalistic style used in countless newsrooms, which covers everything from grammar to the (tragic) discouragement of the Oxford comma. Every piece you see on this page and throughout The Record has been edited to follow AP style for consistency.

The AP has been calling election results since 1848. Hundreds of news outlets — such as PBS and NPR — rely on them to provide accurate election counts as soon as possible. They’re considered a reliable source for these results, and they’ve got a track record of 99.9% accuracy for the last two centuries to prove it.

And of course, the AP poll gives weekly rankings for the top 25 NCAA teams in football and both women’s and men’s basketball — a practice they started for college football in the 1930s. It’s often supplemented by the similar Coaches Poll that you see on ESPN.

All of this to say, there’s a reason why many were taken aback when the AP was singled out and blocked from certain White House coverage — their newsroom and polling processes are of significant standing in the journalism world and beyond. Regardless of which news organization was banned, my highly critical reaction would have been the same. It could have been Fox News, CNN or a small-town paper that writes for an audience of 50, and it wouldn’t matter. Access is crucial to any news outlet’s success, and a free press relies on multiple varied perspectives on a topic.

This issue goes beyond partisan lines or political agendas. Over 40 news organizations have signed a letter to the White House in support of the AP, including some which typically support Trump like Newsmax and Fox News. Newsmax in particular wrote that they feared the precedent this move would set, making it possible for any future administration to “ban” a news organization that says something the President doesn’t like — a seriously valid concern.

Presidential clashes with the press are not unprecedented (especially for the Trump administration, who withheld press access from certain news organizations during his first campaign and held a press briefing with a hand-picked group of media outlets in 2017), but this blatant act of retribution is significant.

Fact checking is important, but this is not that. The AP has an obligation to global audiences that goes beyond what name the federal government would prefer they use when referring to an international body of water. As a private organization, they have the right to use their judgement and journalistic ethics to make this choice, and they should not be punished for it.

The White House has tried to justify the ban by saying that revoking “special access” for press organizations is up to presidential discretion. It’s worth considering that for the sake of upholding a free American press with many news sources in the field, this discretion should be sparing and justified if used at all. In this situation it is not only unwarranted, but also creates an environment of fear for journalists in the White House.

When you read articles in The Record, you are witnessing the influence of a free and unrestricted press. Part of this is fueled by working relationships with administration and faculty who are willing to interact with student reporters. If this access was revoked, it would seriously hinder The Record’s independent ability to inform the student body.

On a national scale, when any news organization is prevented from being at the center of the action, it cripples our ability to be a functioning electorate.

Banning the press outright is not a show of strength — it is cowardice. This kind of unnecessary retaliation from the government, no matter who is in power, should raise alarm bells for all of us.

Adding insult to injury, the White House Press Secretary announced on Tuesday that the Trump administration would now be hand selecting every reporter allowed in the already limited presidential press pool. This decision has been made independently for decades by the White House Correspondents’ Association, who rotate which reporters and organizations are allowed to attend small White House events in the interest of fairness.

The White House claims this move is intended to allow “new media outlets” like digital sites and podcasts to have increased presidential coverage. However, an announcement of this nature that continues to restrict press access, made public so quickly after banning a reputable news organization, is a red flag. If this is really about diversifying access and transparency, then no president should have absolute control over the media coverage for their administration — it must be independently run.

This is a slippery slope. Today it’s the AP ban from the Oval Office over naming disputes and then severely regulating the press pool, but what will it be tomorrow if this behavior continues?

Every student at this college should be taking advantage of the multitude of free news subscriptions our institution provides and doing additional research about current events to become as media literate as possible, especially now. The pursuit of truth and fair journalism does not stop just because a government leader wants to control access to it.

Democracy dies with the restriction of the press. History has proven this, and it is our responsibility to fight for our right to information, now and always.