By Fazil Dawoodani
On September 18, an extraordinary confrontation unfolded between the White House and the American press. President Donald Trump barred CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House, accusing the outlets of publishing “fake news.” Reporters from the three organizations were then denied access to the White House grounds, and the outlets challenged the administration’s action in federal court.
Then came an equally unusual response. The other television networks in the White House press pool, including the conservative-leaning Fox News, along with ABC, CBS, and NBC, suspended pool coverage of the president’s events. The pool exists partly because no single network can practically cover every presidential appearance on its own, so participating organizations take turns and share footage. With the pool refusing to provide coverage, Trump’s trip to the United Nations went ahead without the customary pooled television feed.
The White House had another answer: its own television operation. On September 21, it launched “Trump TV: The Essentials Station,” a 24/7 livestream on YouTube and the White House website. So far, it has consisted largely of administration-selected speeches, events, and other presidential footage rather than functioning like a conventional news network. The White House describes it as a way to show what it believes the traditional media fail to cover fairly.
This is where the implications become larger than one dispute over press credentials. There is an important distinction between a government making its own communications available to the public and a government attempting to replace an independent press. Presidents have always had official means of communicating directly with Americans. The White House website, presidential speeches, official videos, and social media accounts all serve that purpose. Trump TV, at least in its present form, is not itself proof that the United States has established state media.
But the combination of events is worth watching. When a president excludes particular news organizations from government access because of their coverage, the immediate question is not whether those organizations are perfect. They are not. News organizations make mistakes, pursue different editorial philosophies and sometimes publish stories that provoke legitimate criticism. The deeper question is whether access to government is being conditioned on whether journalists or outlets are sufficiently favorable to the government.
That distinction matters because the First Amendment specifically protects freedom of the press. Congress.gov’s Constitution Annotated notes that while the First Amendment does not give journalists an unlimited right to demand government access, laws or government actions targeting particular media outlets can raise serious First Amendment questions.
The dispute is now being tested in court. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued the administration, arguing that the ban is viewpoint discrimination that violates the First Amendment. On Sept. 24, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a temporary order requiring the White House to immediately restore the outlets’ access for at least 14 days, ruling that the ban likely violated their right to due process. Some of their reporters were turned away that morning, but they were allowed back onto the grounds later that day. That evening, some were still kept out of the arrivals for a state dinner.
But whatever the courts ultimately decide, Americans should pay attention to the broader principle at stake: Who gets to tell the public what its government is doing?
A healthy democracy does not require citizens to trust every journalist. In fact, the opposite is closer to the truth. Citizens should be able to hear competing accounts, examine evidence, and decide for themselves. A government’s own communications can tell people what the government says it is doing. Independent journalism can investigate whether that account is complete, accurate, or missing something important. That is precisely why an official government video stream and an independent news organization serve fundamentally different purposes.
This brings me to a journalist whose final words remain remarkably relevant today. Jim Gardner might be best known to people who watch the news in Philadelphia, but Buffalo has a small piece of his story. Gardner began his television career at WKBW in 1974. Two years later, he joined WPVI in Philadelphia, where he became the longtime face of its newscast, Action News, and remained there for more than four decades. He anchored his final broadcast on Dec. 21, 2022, ending a 46-year run at the station. Gardner used that farewell not just to say goodbye, but to make a final argument for journalism.
“The American free press has been under attack, not by forces from other countries, but from elements embedded in our own society, and even our own government. It worries me deeply. And it both feeds into and exploits people’s lack of understanding of what the founders intended by the kind of democracy that the U.S. and only a handful of other nations aspire to.”
He then invoked Thomas Jefferson’s 1786 statement to John Jay, “Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it,” before delivering perhaps the most important line of the speech: “We are not the enemy of the people.”
Gardner’s final message was not that journalists should be beyond criticism. Quite the opposite: “And if we falter, you damn well better let us know, for your benefit and for ours.”
That is what a free press is supposed to look like: not an institution beyond criticism, and not an institution controlled by the government, but an institution that can question those in power and be questioned by the public in return. Almost four years after Gardner delivered that farewell, his words have taken on renewed relevance. The current dispute between the White House and the press is still unfolding, and its ultimate legal and institutional consequences remain uncertain. But the principle Gardner defended is not complicated.
The government has a voice. The press has a voice. And in a democracy, they are not supposed to be the same voice.