Trump bans the press

I have reached a point where I can expect almost anything from President Donald Trump.
One day, he announces that CNN, MS NOW and Politico are being banned from the White House. The next day, the ban could be lifted. Or perhaps next week. Or next month. With Trump, political certainty has become something of a luxury.
The announcement, made on Truth Social, was accompanied by the familiar accusation: these media organisations, Trump said, publish what he called “false stories” and “myths” about his administration. He offered no specific examples.

What caught my attention, however, was not simply Trump’s latest attack on the media. It was the question that came immediately to my mind: What will the rest of the American media do?

Will journalists walk away from the White House in protest? Will news organisations collectively say that if one outlet is excluded, all of them should reconsider their participation? Or will the reporters simply carry on, entering the White House, attending briefings and covering the president as they always have?

I am genuinely interested in the answer.

The reported ban itself raises serious questions about press freedom. CNN has described any such move as an unlawful attack on freedom of the press, while Politico has said it will defend its constitutional rights. The White House Correspondents’ Association has also criticised targeting journalists for doing their jobs.

All of that is understandable. And necessary.

But there is a larger question here, one that concerns journalists themselves.

How long can we keep condemning attacks on journalism while continuing business as usual?

History offers plenty of examples. The Associated Press faced restrictions after refusing to adopt Trump’s preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico. In Trump’s first presidency, CNN reporter Jim Acosta temporarily lost his White House press credentials. Each episode produced strong criticism, legal arguments and statements defending press freedom.

Then, in time, the machinery of journalism continued.

Reporters went back to the briefings. Cameras went back to the White House gates. Questions were asked. Stories were filed. And the next confrontation arrived.

I understand why journalists continue. The White House is news. A president’s decisions matter. Citizens have a right to know what their government is doing. A journalist cannot simply stop covering the president because the president dislikes the coverage.

But there is also a danger in treating every attack as just another day at work.

If one newsroom is excluded and everyone else simply fills the gap, the exclusion may become normal. If a reporter loses access and the rest of us shrug and carry on, access itself can become a tool of political pressure.

I am not arguing that journalists should stop reporting the White House. Far from it. I am asking whether the media can find a collective response that protects access without allowing access to become a weapon.

That distinction matters.

Trump may lift this particular ban tomorrow. He may modify it next week. He may announce another restriction next month. I would not be surprised by any of those possibilities.

The bigger test is not what Trump does next.

The bigger test is what journalists do next.
Frankly, we the journalists cannot do much. We can only write.
A free press cannot depend on the goodwill of any president. It depends on journalists being willing to defend the principle that they are there to question those in power, not to receive permission from them.