Trump, the Media and the Word ‘Censorship’: Hang On, What Exactly Is Going On?

There is a word being thrown around rather casually at the moment.

Censorship.

It is being attached to almost everything involving journalists, politicians and access to government buildings, and I’m starting to wonder whether we’ve completely forgotten what the word actually means.

The first is whether the government should censor journalists.

The answer to that is pretty straightforward: no.

The second is whether a president is obliged to give every media organisation physical access to the White House simply because it is a media organisation.

That is a rather different question.

And pretending the two things are automatically identical doesn't help anyone understand what is happening.

Trump announced on September 18 that CNN, MS NOW and Politico were being banned from the White House, saying the decision followed what he described as years of “FAKE NEWS” reporting. He subsequently suggested that other outlets could be added to the list.

And yes, t

hat sounds dramatic.

It is dramatic.

However, there is something else worth remembering.

That is where this story gets much more complicated.

The White House has historically maintained facilities for credentialled journalists, and the courts have previously dealt with disputes over who can access those facilities.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press has argued that excluding journalists because of their coverage amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The Committee to Protect Journalists has similarly condemned the move.

Whether a court ultimately agrees will be a matter for the courts.

And that's

rather the point.

Let them decide.

Because there is another uncomfortable part of this story that seems to get lost in the shouting.

What if some of the reporting really is rubbish?

There is an enormous difference between saying, “The government must never censor journalists,” and saying, “Every journalist is automatically telling the truth.”

The first principle is essential.

The second is obviously nonsense.

Journalists make mistakes.

Editors make mistakes.

It's one of the reasons we have multiple news organisations in the first place.

If CNN rep

orts something I don't like, I can read Reuters.

If Reuters reports something I don't like, I can read AP.

If I don't trust any of them, there are countless independent journalists, specialist publications, court documents, government records and primary sources available to investigate the claim myself.

That's the beauty of the internet.

The answer to bad journalism should be more journalism, more scrutiny and more competing information.

Not government control of what people are allowed to read.

And certainly not a government deciding which opinions are acceptable.

Trump's supporters will look at this situation and say: finally, someone is standing up to media organisations that have spent years attacking h

During Trump's first term, CNN reporter Jim Acosta had his White House press credentials temporarily revoked following a confrontation with the president. CNN challenged the decision in court and Acosta's access was subsequently restored.

More recently, the Trump administration restricted Associated Press access after the organisation refused to adopt the administration's preferred terminology for the Gulf of Mexico. That dispute has also ended up in litigation.

So this isn't happening in a vacuum.

There is an established argument about whether the executive branch can control access to government facilities while simultaneously operating a press system designed to provide journalists with access to the president.

And that's the part I'd like everyone to concentrate on.

Not “Trump is evil.”

Not “the media is evil.”

Not “everything Trump says is true.”

Not “everything CNN says is true.”

If a president believes a newspaper has lied, he can say so.

He can hold a press conference and rip the reporting apart line by line.

He can publish the documents.

He can release the evidence.

He can make the strongest possible case that the journalist is wrong.

What he shouldn't need is the machinery of government to make inconvenient journalists disappear from the room.

And equally, journalists shouldn't expect the public to accept every report simply because it appeared under a famous masthead.

There is a rather beautiful principle sitting underneath this whole ridiculous mess:

Nobody should get to control the truth.

Not Trump.

Not CNN.

Not MS NOW.

Not Politico.

Not the BBC.

Not the New York Times.

Not some government department.

And certainly not me.

So, is denying a journalist access to a building automatically censorship?

No.

Of course it isn't.

But if access to a government-controlled press facility is deliberately withdrawn because the government dislikes what that journalist publishes, there are serious legal questions about whether that particular restriction is permissible.

And those questions shouldn't be answered by whichever political tribe happens to be cheering the loudest.

They should be answered by evidence, law and, where necessary, the courts.

As for the media?

Perhaps there is a rather simple solution to some of this.

Report the truth.

Not what gets the biggest headline.

Not what gets the most clicks.

Not what makes your political opponents look like monsters.

Not what fits neatly into the story you've already decided to tell.

Just report what happened.

Show us the evidence.

Tell us what you know.

Tell us what you don't know.

And if you get something wrong, admit it.

Because if the press wants the public to defend its independence, the public is perfectly entitled to ask the press to demonstrate that independence is being used responsibly.

Freedom cuts both ways.

And once governments start deciding what journalists are allowed to say, we've got a very serious problem.

But when journalists start assuming that freedom from government interference also means freedom from criticism, scrutiny or consequences for inaccurate reporting, we've got another problem entirely.

Maybe the answer isn't more censorship.

Maybe it's something much simpler.

Better journalism.

And a public that is finally encouraged to question absolutely everyone.

Trust No Single Source, Trust Your Gut and Stay Curious.

Give us the evidence and let people decide.

If the media has got it wrong, prove it.

If the government has got it wrong, prove that too.

That's journalism.

That's accountability.

And that's a hell of a lot healthier than allowing either side to declare itself the official owner of reality.

Because frankly, humans deserve better than that sort of childish nonsense.

Check the claims.

Show me the evidence.

If a journalist gets something wrong, demonstrate where it went wrong.

If the White House makes a claim, demand the evidence.

If a news organisation publishes something false, challenge it.im.

His critics will look at precisely the same event and see a president using government-controlled access to punish organisations whose reporting he dislikes.

Both descriptions capture part of the argument.

The factual question is whether the administration's actions comply with the legal rules governing access to government-controlled press facilities.

That question will now be tested.

And there is already precedent.

News organisations get stories wrong.

Sometimes they correct them.

Sometimes corrections barely get noticed.

Sometimes an initial report spreads around the world in thirty minutes and the correction arrives three days later when everyone has already moved on to the next outrage.

And sometimes, yes, journalists interpret events through their own political or editorial lens.

That's not a conspiracy theory.

In the 1977 case Sherrill v. Knight, a federal appeals court held that although the White House isn't required to open its doors to the press, once it creates press facilities for credentialled journalists it cannot simply exclude someone because it dislikes the content of their reporting.

That distinction matters.

Trump isn't merely saying, “We're changing the security arrangements.”

He has explicitly linked his decision to what he considers inaccurate and negative reporting.

And that is precisely why legal experts and press organisations are raising First Amendment concerns.

A journalist doesn't have an inherent constitutional right to wander into somebody else's building whenever they fancy it.

If I turn up at Buckingham Palace with a notepad and announce that I'm a journalist, I doubt anyone is going to say, “Oh terribly sorry, Sally, do come in. Would you like a cup of tea?”

Access and censorship are not the same thing.

Governments, businesses, sporting organisations and private individuals can place restrictions on physical access for all sorts of reasons.

The interesting bit here is why access is being restricted.

The latest row in America involves Donald Trump announcing that CNN, MS NOW and Politico would be banned from the White House, accusing the organisations of repeatedly producing what he called “fake news”.

Now, before everyone reaches for the outrage button, let’s slow down for thirty seconds.

Because there are actually two separate arguments here.