Feedback from February 27 and Beyond | Letters | Salt Lake City Weekly
Support the Free Press | Facts matter. Truth matters. Journalism matters
Salt Lake City Weekly has been Utah's source of independent news and in-depth journalism since 1984. Donate today to ensure the legacy continues.

News » Letters

Feedback from February 27 and Beyond

By

comment
news_soapbox1-1.png

Mightier than the Sword
In mid-February, the White House barred Associated Press journalists from presidential events for refusing to change the name of a body of water from "the Gulf of Mexico" to "the Gulf of America" in its reporting.

AP sued on various grounds, including due process (citing a court ruling that press access to the White House "undoubtedly qualifies as liberty which may not be denied without due process of law under the fifth amendment") and First Amendment protections (citing the same ruling).

On February 24, a federal judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order restoring AP's access while the suit awaits resolution. AP reporters and photographers still possess White House press passes and can attend White House briefings; it's the Oval Office and Trump's personal preference they're excluded from.

Court precedent aside, I don't see anything in the Constitution requiring the president to speak to, or the White House to "brief," reporters at all, or specifying which particular agencies, publications, and journalists are part of a special protected class entitled to that kind of access.

In fact, I suspect that many Americans wish that the president (not just this one — I'm speaking of the office, not the man) acted a lot less like Dr. Phil (loud, annoying, omnipresent) and more like Punxsutawney Phil (silent, cute, and only very occasionally demanding our attention).

That said, if the press wants to cover the presidency, I suggest that the agencies, publications, and journalists get together and turn the tables.

Just as there's no constitutional requirement for the president or the White House to host, humor, and answer to journalists, there's no constitutional requirement for the press to cover the president or the White House at all.

Why don't the major newspapers, television networks, etc., get together and set up the White House "press pool" on their own terms instead of subjecting themselves to the president's terms?

They could rent, buy, or build a small studio/auditorium facility, handle their own journalist credentialing, and let the White House and the president know when they'll be hosting briefings.

The president and/or press secretary could show up or not. If they showed, maybe they'd get some coverage.

If not, there's always other news to report, right?

In anything resembling a free society, an independent press is far more important than any functionary in any fancy office. America's journalists should take that truth to heart and act on it.
THOMAS L. KNAPP
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism

"Get Off My Lane" Feb. 28 Online
Is there going to be a law that requires cyclists to be in bike lanes and out of vehicle lanes?

If bicyclists can't pedal the speed limit and obey the same laws, traffic signs and turn signal requirements as a driver, stay out of traffic.
SAMANTHA.MITCHELL.750
Via Instagram

Care to sound off on a feature in our pages or about a local concern? Write to comments@cityweekly.net or post your thoughts on our social media. We want to hear from you!

Tags