Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump vs. Washington Post
Donald Trump took to Facebook Monday to announce that he’s revoking the Washington Post’s press access at his campaign events. “Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign,” he said, “we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.”
Trump apparently made the decision based on a Monday WaPo story originally headlined “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting.”
“Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind,” Trump said in a lengthy interview on Fox News early Monday morning. “And the something else in mind — you know, people can’t believe it. People cannot, they cannot believe that President Obama is acting the way he acts and can’t even mention the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism.’ There’s something going on. It’s inconceivable. There’s something going on.”
In that same interview, Trump was asked to explain why he called for Obama to resign in light of the shooting and he answered, in part: “He doesn’t get it or he gets it better than anybody understands — it’s one or the other, and either one is unacceptable.”
For months, Trump has slyly suggested that the president is not Christian and has questioned his compassion toward Muslims. Years ago, Trump was a major force in calls for the president to release his birth certificate and prove that he was born in the United States. On the campaign trail, Trump has repeatedly stated as fact conspiracy theories about the president, his rivals and Muslims, often refusing to back down from his assertions even when they are proven to be false.
The Washington Post’s executive editor Marty Baron responded to Trump:
Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.
The Trump campaign shot back with a press release that quickly turned conspiratorial:
They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest. The fact is, The Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they don’t have to pay taxes and don’t get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry.
Trump has repeatedly refused to credential major news outlets when he disagrees with their coverage. Past targets have included BuzzFeed, The Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, Politico, and Univision.
Many media outlets and journalistic associations were quick to condemn Trump’s latest move, saying it chilled speech and was authoritarian in nature. What do you think: Is revoking a reporters’ credentials fair play or does it threaten the First Amendment?
Published in General
It seems that both are, as Trump is threatening to take Obama tactics to the next level. Only Paul Ryan counseling Trump is keeping Trump from doubling down on Obama’s power grab.
Any candidate who defends government funding for public radio and public television is not a friend of the First Amendment.
Try again, but the rhetorical point is understood and well-taken.
I care enough to read it. It says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I don’t see where you get that it is prohibiting a private citizen from anything at all. BTW, Costa is great and he has had fantastic access to Trump–many, many long interviews. I hope Trump grants him a dispensation.
This is my shocked face…
As I recall it, he was on a probation whose terms enjoined him from doing what he did, so they revoked the probation. Nasty payback, but not imprisoning an innocent artist. But she lied, without any doubt. She lied.
Sure, he has the right to do what he wants. He’s not president yet. But he’s not a mattress salesman, he’s a candidate for President.
The reason this matters now is because it gives us an insight into the man’s thinking and what he might do as President. And judged that way, this is really disturbing. Not only does the man have an extremely thin skin, but he’s willing to play power games to try to manipulate the press. This (and other actions and words) are a warning to the press not to step out of line.
The whole point here isn’t the individual action of yanking one paper’s press credentials, it’s about the chilling effect this may have on critical press converge.
Our republic requires a free press to function properly. Yes, that includes critical and, yes, even partisan and biased press. This man is seeking the highest office in the land, with enormous power, more than any emperor or czar. Of course this is a threat to the First Amendment.
What Fred said.
I’d hate to think conservatives are blithe about someone who seems inclined to abridge an amendment because some people aren’t doing the proper thing with their rights. They all mean something, or none of them mean anything.
What involvement did Hillary have in stealing and lying, the reason for parole and jail?
The question asked in the original post is whether Trump’s action threatens the First Amendment not whether it violates the First Amendment. There is a world of difference between threatening a freedom and violating a freedom
The First Amendment restricts government, not private citizens.
Obama was government attacking the press and individual members of the press. Trump is a private citizen attacking a particular paper while he disparages the press generally.
Trump also wasn’t attacking a publication over its viewpoints, he was attacking a publication over its outright lies about what he said.
He won’t be government doing this unless and until he’s elected.
Eric Hines
Citizens United was a case about banning a movie critical of Hillary Clinton within 60 days of an election.
Hillary Clinton has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn the Citizens United ruling and allow Hillary Clinton to ban movies critical of Hillary Clinton.
But yeah, Trump is a threat to the 1st amendment.
I’m not a lawyer, which will be obvious by what I’m about to ask: libel laws . . . is that federal? Why it would be certainly isn’t obvious to me, but hey I’m still fighting (in my own mind) Wickard v Filburn, so what do I know?
My point would be neither Clinton nor Trump can change libel laws, either b/c it’s not even a federal issue or b/c they can’t pass laws all by their onesie . . . oh wait, I forgot Obama already amended that part of the Constitution . . . never mind.
Trump’s threat to “open up the libel laws” scares me far more than his verbal abuse and revoking credentials of reporters. My previous comment that “neither party cares about press access to their side” was a statement of fact, but not an endorsement of the sentiment. If candidates aren’t open to media, it’s up to voters to reject them. Trump does plenty of interviews, and many are hostile. Clinton does no interviews, and the press actively campaigns for her.
It is long past time when a GOP candidate should give one paper a reason to pause before publishing deceitful accounts of his remarks. It is long past time for a Republican to take an action that results in a chilling effect on dishonest press coverage.
This description fits Obama and this Administration to a tee. It fits Hillary to a tee, and one must presume it would fit a Hillary Administration too.
So, should we continue letting the Left play by one set of rules while we play another? Actually, the better question is: should we continue letting the Left play by one set of rules while they tell us what rules we have to play by?
Fire sometimes requires fire to be fought effectively. I think saving the Republic is worth it.
Trump is not just a citizen. He is a candiate for president. What he says now is reasonable to assume will contine when he is in office. Will you opinion of his actions and his talk of expanding libel change as soon as he takes the oath?
I understand what state action is. The thread asked not whether this is a violation, but whether it threatens the 1A. I think it demonstrably threatens the 1A’s protection of free speech and free press for a major party candidate to target press outlets based on the substance of their reporting. The fact that my position is not nearly universally agreed to demonstrates the damage Obama has done to our willingess to protect our most basic freedoms. Obama and Trump are two sides of the same liberty-hating coin.
Yes.
Because we’re better than they are.
(Or we’re supposed to be.)
I’m not a lawyer . . . don’t recall that you are either, James. So perhaps we can get John Yoo or Richard Epstein to weigh in . . . but my understanding is 1A has nothing at all to do with this. 1A restricts the Federal Government from interfering with protected speech. That’s all. It doesn’t mean Trump has to accredit particular journos. Trump is not the federal government. Journos are not covering the federal government when Trump speaks.
What am I missing here . . . I’ve got my Pith helmet pulled down tight in my foxhole, awaiting in-coming rounds. Somebody—please—once and for all school us all on exactly what the hell 1A means!
Then how come we keep losing?
(PS: There’s no such thing as “supposed to be” in politics. You either win or you don’t win.)
No, no, no, no, no.
It is wrong for a candidate (or office holder) to do such a thing. If the press coverage is dishonest, he should call them out, or others should do so, and let the marketplace work.
But it is wildly inappropriate for someone in public office (or seeking it) to bully the press. We’re not just talking about a public figure here, we’re talking about someone who seeks to control the levers of government coercion.
As far as I’m concerned, government coercion should never threaten the press. That’s how important a free press is to our Republic.
Again, the First Amendment expresses prohibitions and it expresses freedoms that we value. The question is not whether Trump violated the 1A (he did not). The question is whether Trump’s actions today threaten the 1A (they arguably do). To my knowledge, no one is arguing that he violated the 1A. Many argue his actions threaten the robust freedom of the press that we now enjoy.
This comment proves the republic is doomed. Too many have given up on the constitution in the name of winning. Please read the bill of rights and ask yourself, does this document allow the president to go after people he doesn’t like because of what they are saying? It used to be unequivocaly no. Now, after Obama’s assault on liberty and limited government, people on the right are ready to give up on freedom.
My advice, freedom is too valuable to give up on it. Don’t do it.
I disagree. It is not like we have the old “American model of journalism” any more. We have conservative niche media and we have Leftist mass media. (Fox News is a singular outlier.) A free press is very important, but I see no problem with serious opposition to a dishonest press. In fact, a lack of opposition to the dishonest Leftist mass media is how we got Obama in the first place.
The danger posed by the possibility of a H.R.Clinton Administration is grave. Battling Leftist mass media will be required if she is to be defeated.
Pulling press access credentials from a dishonest newspaper is a serious measure; in this case I think it is warranted.
Josh is right on this. They would have pinched Nakoula for spitting on the sidewalk if they had needed to, but they didn’t violate his probation for him. He did that all by himself.
So, I guess we have to admit Hillary’s on to something. She never does what some seem to think is unpardonable (‘. . . threatens the First Amendment!!! Sky . . . Falling!!!’) and not accredit a journo. She just never gives an interview. And journos just roll with it.
Trump should have just said: I’m no longer giving interviews . . . except to every media organization but WaPo. No, seriously. WaPo is accredited. I’m giving interviews. WaPo can’t attend. But they ARE accredited. They’re getting the exact same deal from me as the get from Hillary. What’s the problem? It’s always, always about the Art of the Deal . . . and this one’s YUGE.
You’re not missing anything, and you’re right – there is no violation of the 1A here. It’s how some of his actions (or actions of his staff) indicate a less than friendly view of the 1A. Just as Hillary wants to ban critical movies, Trump likes to tie up adversarial reporters with libel lawsuits. It’s the chilling effect, as they call it.
Then there’s this misdirection about Bezos, which just sounds like paranoid drivel.
Dude. Dial back the THC knob on the e-cig. Unless they really think “successful competition” = monopoly. Unless they don’t understand the word “monopoly.” Unless they think that going after successful innovative companies is the role of government, just like some other politicians we know. If they do think Amazon is a monopoly, wouldn’t a Trump administration be obliged to go after them?
Anyone here want to Amazon broken up into several companies?
Most recent WP story on Amazon:
I’m sure that reporter is swinging from the yardarm.
Fred! 10/10!
And you didn’t privatize a single road or legalize heroin anywhere in there either!
And everyone who violates their parole is dragged out of their home at night and two-minute-hate perp-walked before the media.
We’re not going to agree on this.
It’s not a first amendment issue — it’s not the government doing the revoking of the press credentials. End of story.
We need people to stand up to lying journalists. And I hope he continues to use personal attacks against them and by name and publicly and often. Much of the press is not professional — they are shills for the hard left mostly and if not, then most are useful idiots.