Well, here we go again. The usual suspects – CNN, Politico, and some outfit called MS NOW – are clutching their pearls and running to the courts because the Trump administration isn't giving them the red-carpet treatment. The Justice Department, in its infinite wisdom, pointed out these outlets have a habit of, shall we say, *misrepresenting* things, and cited national security concerns. And just like clockwork, the DC pundit class is up in arms, hollering about the First Amendment and the death of democracy. You'd think they'd never heard a politician say something they didn't like before.
Let's be clear. The First Amendment protects speech, not access. It doesn't guarantee a seat at the press briefing, especially not for outfits that seem more interested in generating outrage than reporting facts. If a newspaper in Omaha, Nebraska, consistently got its stories wrong, or twisted them beyond recognition, do you think the local mayor would be obligated to grant them prime access? Of course not. But when it's the big boys from New York and Washington, suddenly it's a constitutional crisis. It’s almost as if they believe they’re above the very rules they often demand others follow.
This whole kerfuffle really highlights the chasm between the self-important media establishment and everyday Americans. Folks in places like, say, Toledo or Dubuque, are far less concerned with whether Jim Acosta gets his soundbite than they are with the price of gas or whether their kids are getting a decent education. They've watched for years as these "journalists" have adopted an almost adversarial stance, not just to this administration, but often to anyone who doesn't subscribe to their particular brand of coastal liberalism. And then they wonder why trust in media is at an all-time low.
The Justice Department bringing up "falsehoods" isn't some outlandish accusation; it's a reflection of what a good many people have seen with their own eyes. How many retractions have we seen? How many stories breathlessly reported, only to be walked back days later, if at all? These outlets aren't just reporting on the news; they're often *making* it, pushing narratives rather than simply presenting facts. And when those narratives are repeatedly shown to be shaky, or outright wrong, it's not unreasonable for an administration, any administration, to question their credibility.
And then there's the national security angle. Now, I'm a skeptical man. I believe in holding power accountable. But when the Justice Department, or any government entity for that matter, says there are national security implications, it's worth at least a moment's pause. To immediately dismiss it as a cynical ploy is to assume bad faith on every level. Are these outlets truly so naive as to believe that every piece of information they dig up is harmless when splashed across the front page or blared from a TV screen? Or do they perhaps prioritize their scoop above all else, even if it might give our adversaries an edge?
Edmund Burke, a man who understood a thing or two about stable societies, warned against unchecked power, whether it be from the crown or from the popular press. He understood that institutions, if they are to serve the public good, must earn and maintain trust. When media outlets operate with such a clear agenda, when they substitute advocacy for reporting, they erode that trust. And when they then demand special privileges, it comes across not as a defense of the First Amendment, but as an assertion of their own perceived elite status.
What these media outfits are effectively saying is that they, and they alone, get to decide what's news, how it's presented, and who gets to challenge it. They want unfettered access, but seemingly accept no accountability for the quality or veracity of their reporting. It's a one-way street, and frankly, it's getting tiresome. Maybe if they spent less time suing the government and more time rebuilding trust with the American people through fair, unbiased reporting, they wouldn't find themselves in this predicament in the first place. But that, I suppose, would be too much to ask.