S1: Welcome in San Diego. It's Jade Hindman on this episode of KPBS Midday Edition. Three news outlets barred from the white House. What the move means for press freedom. This is KPBS Midday Edition. Connecting our communities through conversation. On Friday , President Donald Trump banned three news outlets from white House pool coverage. The outlets CNN , MSNBC and Politico have now filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration , saying the ban is unconstitutional in response to the Trump administration's move. Major news networks have announced they will no longer cover white House pool activities going forward. Well , today , less than two months away from the midterm election , we wanted to talk more about the relationship between the media and the government. Joining me with that angle is David Lloyd. He is the legal director at the First Amendment Coalition. David , welcome back to the show.
S2: Great to be here. Thank you.
S1: Great to have you here. So what was your initial reaction to the news Friday? Soon after Trump announced he was banning white House access for certain news organizations.
S2: This is perhaps the most transparent and blatant First Amendment violation I've seen from this administration , which is , you know , no friend to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
S1: So what is the white House press pool and what role does it play? Let's establish that for for listeners who may not be familiar.
S2: White House Press Pool is a consortium of networks that provide , as I understand , you know , pool coverage of events involving the president where there's not enough room for every newsroom or every network to bring a camera into the room or into the location. So one of the major networks will rotate and provide video coverage that other news outlets may use. The problem here is not just that the president banned people from the pool. The president actually banned CNN , MSNBC , and Politico from the white House entirely , including the briefing room where the press gets regular press briefings from the press secretary and where press conferences are held. So this is not just saying who can participate in the pool , which would be bad enough. It is saying that these three newsrooms or networks cannot receive information directly from the white House in the press briefing room , cannot access the white House grounds at all under any circumstances. And the president was crystal clear that this is solely because he does not like what they say , and nothing is more basic to the First Amendment than the principle that the government may not discriminate against the press or anyone because of what they say.
S1: A term that's been used and meant , what many have pointed to is that this is a clear case of viewpoint discrimination. Can you explain that?
S2: Yes , it is absolutely the clearest possible case. The president banned these outlets because he said they report , quote , fake news , unquote. That is saying I don't like what they say because of how what they say. I don't like their coverage because I don't like the viewpoint that it represents. I object to it. Therefore I ban them from the white House. That is what tyrants do. That is what autocrats do. That is not what elected officials are allowed to do in the United States under the First Amendment. And President Trump is not the first elected official to ban a reporter or a network , but he is the highest elected official in the country and obviously is trampling on the core principles of the First Amendment.
S1: When we started this conversation , you said your reaction to this is that , you know , this is unprecedented , but does it surprise you?
S2: Nothing surprises me about this administration , which has shown a remarkable contempt for the rule of law and the First Amendment across the board again. Not the first administration , Democratic or Republican , to to have First Amendment problems. This administration simply opened notorious. And this president is open notorious about saying the quiet part out loud on social media. I banned these networks from the white House as a whole simply because I don't like what they say.
S1: Well , now the major TV networks have stopped white House pool coverage in response to The Trump administration's ban. Talk about the significance of that move.
S2: It is immensely significant because what you have is five major networks who are business competitors and also have significant disagreements in their editorial viewpoints , are banding together in solidarity for a principle that is far more important than the scoop of the day , or the story of the day , which is the principle of freedom of the press and rule of law , which is foundational to our democracy and these networks. I cannot commend them highly enough for standing together in that kind of solidarity , not simply to , you know , wave their fingers around or or wring their hands , but to stand up in a gesture of solidarity that has real teeth , to say to this president , we will not cover your activities. We will not participate in coverage of what you do until you restore access to our colleagues in the interest of protecting freedom of the press and the First Amendment for everyone.
S1: Do we run the risk of missing coverage?
S2: The president's activities will still be covered by wire and print and still photography. The pool coverage is video coverage , and , you know , the public will still be fully informed. But these networks are standing together and saying , we're going to put our money where our mouth is , and we're not going to allow ourselves to be divided and conquered. When the issue is as fundamental as the right to report the news itself , whatever their other disagreements may be , or their other business competition may be. They are , I think , quite correctly , standing together in solidarity to protect the principle of the First Amendment , which is that the government does not get to pick who covers the government.
S1: Do you think this move like this , this , this type of solidarity should have come sooner.
S2: I won't speak to their internal judgments , internal decisions , I will say in general , and I whenever this administration has crossed a line of , you know , for example , in Trump , President Trump's first term , he banned 1 or 2 individual reporters , not entire networks. And to their credit , as far as I know , at that time , all of the major news publications and networks , whatever their ideology or business interests , all joined together in expressing support for , you know , that journalist and objecting to the administration trampling on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. So I don't I don't think this kind of solidarity is new. I think what they've done now , by escalating to to shutting down pool coverage , is simply they've raised the stakes. They've recognized the administration has raised the stakes by banning entire networks. And the networks themselves have understood that they're responding to this highly dangerous escalation from the president.
S1: Earlier , we mentioned CNN , MSNBC and Politico have announced a lawsuit against the Trump administration , saying their First Amendment rights have been violated. What are they arguing and asking for? In this particular suit.
S2: The three publications or networks have argued two things. One is that their First Amendment rights were violated , and two , that their due process rights were violated separate and apart from the First Amendment right , not to be subjected to viewpoint discrimination or retaliation for their coverage. The Constitution also guarantees due process , that is , notice and opportunity to be heard before being banned from the white House press room. And what the networks are saying , I think quite correctly , is not only does this violate the First Amendment , it also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because this was unilaterally and arbitrarily done by social media post , not with notice and opportunity to contest any alleged grounds for expulsion. The networks. The publications are asking for immediate restoration of their access rights. I understand they have a hearing scheduled for Wednesday afternoon , East Coast time , and that the government is required to file a response by tomorrow. Um.
S1: Um. Early this morning , Trump doubled down on a post arguing his move is an assault on , quote , fake news and calling it , quote , a threat to our national security. What do you make of that?
S2: This transparent nonsense. The government does not get to pretend who tells the truth or who doesn't in the news. This president seems to say whatever offends him is fake and whatever praises him as truth. That's not the standard. The First Amendment guarantees the press the right to report the news as it sees fit. And the government , you know , President Trump or any president , is certainly free to take the bully pulpit and express their own opinions. And he has a right to his opinion. That does not mean he has a right to exercise the power of the presidency , to punish newspapers or newsrooms or public or other outlets for the content of their coverage. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. Um , I wanted to to talk about this recent study that I saw recently. Pew research released this study that found while most Americans support freedom of the press , a majority also say the government should be able to limit press freedom in certain cases. So what does that tell you about the state of press freedom and the general public's understanding of , of government and and press freedom?
S2: The reason we have a Constitution and the reason we have a Bill of rights , is that certain fundamental rights are not up for a vote. They're not subject to popular approval. The First Amendment , in particular , protects freedom of speech and freedom of the press Precisely because speech may sometimes be unpopular. Press coverage may sometimes be unpopular , and the very purpose of the Bill of rights and the First Amendment in particular , is to say certain fundamental rights are off limits , even if a majority of the people want to violate freedom of speech or freedom of the press , we. That is not allowed precisely because freedom of speech , freedom of the press are the oxygen of civil society. They are what enabled democracy to function in a way that prevents tyranny of the majority. So the purpose of a Constitution and Bill of rights is to prevent tyranny , whether it is tyranny by an autocrat or tyranny by the majority. Hmm.
S1: Hmm. And I wanted to get your your thoughts on this issue that happens here locally , because there are also questions about access here in February , the San Diego Police Department announced it would stop issuing media credentials and parking placards which help journalists cover breaking news. A spokesperson told Daylight San Diego it's increasingly difficult to vet reporters with the rise of freelance and social media journalists. Can you talk about that media landscape and and how it impacts access for journalists and what your thoughts are behind that?
S2: So with the evolution of the media away from the traditional legacy model of , you know , all coverage coming from major networks or major daily newspapers , there has been an evolution toward increasing reporting and coverage by freelancers , by part time reporters. And I respectfully disagree that that is not possible to vet , you know , who is a bona fide reporter. And to be clear , the government does not have the right to decide who gets to cover the news based on whether that person has a business card from KPBS or the Union Tribune or TV network , or is a freelancer. The credentials in question from San Diego Police Department were were granted , as I understand it. You know , as a as a means to support reporters and grant them rights over and above the general public , such as the right to park in certain locations or have access to certain spaces that they might not otherwise. Which is a public good to facilitate the reporting of breaking news and to enable reporters to cover events and streamline their ability to show up for breaking news. Um , there may or may not be a absolute First Amendment right to get those kind of credentials in the first place. But if the government is going to issue them , I think it can and should do so fairly. And I simply respectfully disagree that it's difficult. It is somewhat that It is prohibitively difficult to determine who's a bona fide reporter in these situations. I recognize there is some challenge , but , you know , we all must evolve with the times. You know , the media has to evolve to meet the current economic realities. And I respectfully suggest that the government must also evolve to meet the current media landscape.
S1: You know , in the last 30s we have here , this is all happening with less than two months to go before the midterm elections. That in mind , what does it tell you about the state of our democracy today?
S2: I have confidence our democracy will be resilient. It is being tested as never before. But at the end of the day , I am encouraged that this court , which is hearing this lawsuit by these three publications , is taking it incredibly seriously , scheduling an emergency hearing within 48 hours that is beyond light speed for for the courts to act. It's an extraordinary position for the court to take , because we're going to hear this on 48 hours notice. Um , I'm encouraged that the five major networks have banded together and understood this as an existential threat to freedom of the press that transcends any particular story of the day.
S1: I've been speaking with David Lloyd , legal director of the First Amendment Coalition. David , thank you , as always.
S3: Thank you.
S1: That's our show for today. I'm your host , Jade Hindman. Thanks for tuning in to Midday Edition. Be sure to have a great day on purpose , everyone.
