CrimsonPhantom
CUSA Curator
Posts: 62,799
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 3193
I Root For: NM State
Location: |
RE: WH Correspondents' Association will no longer control who can gain access to briefing
Breaking the White House Media Cartel
Quote:They call it the Fourth Estate for a reason. Our Founders, wary of state overreach, relied upon a free and heterogeneous press to keep government in check. But when a small, self-appointed clique presides over which journalists may or may not enter the White House briefing room, we are left with something that resembles a guild more than a free press. The White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) plays precisely that gatekeeper’s role. Under the guise of tradition, it has commandeered the power to grant—or deny—journalists the right to cover the President of the United States. Now, as the Trump administration challenges this exclusive club, the debate over who truly speaks for the American public has been thrown wide open.
In Federalist No. 84, Alexander Hamilton warned against creating artificial barriers to constitutional freedoms. He might not have envisioned the modern press corps, but his point about safeguarding liberty applies. The WHCA operates much like an old boys’ club—a private association that keeps critics outside the gates while favoring those who already hold power within. Its defenders assure us that it is merely a professional society, yet it wields potent authority over who receives credentials, whose questions get asked, and which narratives dominate daily headlines.
The membership filters begin with the Congressional Standing Committee of Correspondents, a five-member group that declares which reporters may cover Capitol Hill. If these five individuals who work for outlets including The Washington Post, NPR, and Axios decide you don’t qualify, you can’t even apply for WHCA membership. Such an arrangement defies the spirit of open inquiry—stifling competition, curbing fresh voices, and precluding entire swaths of alternative and independent media from stepping into the press room. The circle is small, homogenous, and sustained by ideological uniformity. While modern sensibilities bristle at the idea of a “private club,” the concept remains alive and well in Washington, underscoring how power can hide behind procedural veneer.
The modern mainstream press often declares itself the guardian of democracy. Yet its posture here is far from democratic. Keeping independent journalists out of the White House briefing room not only undercuts the country’s thirst for varied viewpoints but also runs counter to the demands of a robust constitutional republic. Imagine if a handful of politicians, rather than the voters, decided which candidates could appear on the ballot. We would call that system rigged—if not outright authoritarian. The WHCA’s gatekeeping achieves a similar result: it narrows the field of acceptable perspectives and allows established outlets—often funded by corporate or government interests—to define the contours of public debate.
The historical record stands as a cautionary tale about just how capricious this arrangement can be. Mark Twain once noted that “the only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin.” Likewise, many of these legacy media outlets have skinned their rivals of credibility, resources, and crucially, access. We need not dig too deep to find glaring examples: for 30 years, black journalists were barred from presidential press conferences—an outrage that perpetrated by the very press corps now championing “fairness.” Those same gatekeepers, all white and all male in those days, prized their exclusivity and enforced unwritten bans in the name of rules they casually bent for themselves.
Such a system leads to an obvious question: Who benefits from restricting coverage to a small group of like-minded reporters? Thomas Sowell once wrote, “Policies are judged by their consequences, but crusades are judged by how good they make the crusaders feel.” In this context, the mainstream press has long crusaded for its own entitlements under the banner of “protecting the public’s right to know.” Yet the consequences speak louder: a dangerously narrow band of reporting and an insularity that blinds them to genuine shifts in public sentiment.
The Trump administration’s decision to loosen the WHCA’s grip on the press pool triggered predictable cries of “assault on press freedom.” But consider the irony: the most vociferous objections come from outlets like the Associated Press, Bloomberg, and Reuters—goliaths that have enjoyed decades of unchallenged dominance in press pool rotations. Their privileged positions were a sort of press monopoly, akin to a regulatory capture that froze emerging outlets out of the most valuable vantage point in politics.
By revoking the automatic seat guaranteed to the Associated Press, the White House has not suppressed any voice—it has merely insisted that large, legacy media conglomerates stand on level ground with newer and often more popular competitors. Shouldn’t the free market of ideas flourish in the one place that shapes daily headlines? And if a behemoth like the AP is truly indispensable, it should prove its worth without relying on cozy, decades-old entitlements.
Look further, and you see more contradictions. When the WHCA ignored social media influencers, podcasters, local newspapers, and upstart digital platforms, you heard not a peep about “curtailing press freedom.” Only when the White House circumvented these gatekeepers—letting additional voices into the conversation—did the establishment recoil in horror. Suddenly, the loudest protectors of the old system discovered their conscience for “fairness.” But as James Madison implied in his arguments for a free press, no single group should be in a position to decide which Americans get a seat at the table.
Critics also allege that a White House reshaping the press pool is a White House controlling the narrative. Yet for years, the WHCA has exercised precisely that sort of control—crafting the narrative by default, since it excluded any voices unapproved by its internal committees. Opening the door to outsiders may unsettle the status quo, but that is hardly the same as stifling free speech. Indeed, it resembles the sort of competitive jolt our Founders believed was essential to keep liberty vibrant.
Insisting that access to the President should be the exclusive domain of a private association offends our founding ideals. When only a narrow set of viewpoints enjoys routine access, the nation is deprived of the raw diversity of opinion that energizes meaningful debate. The White House’s move to bypass the old system is neither an attack on journalism nor a power grab. It is an overdue recalibration, bringing fresh light into a realm long shrouded by privilege and tradition. True press freedom, after all, is measured not by how many corporate mastheads gain entrance but by how many independent, diverse, and incisive voices are allowed to speak. If the WHCA cannot tolerate a more open media market in the very seat of American power, perhaps it was never about freedom in the first place.
WHCA Cartel Is Freaking Out Because It’s Losing Power And Control, Not Press Freedom
Quote:During all the meltdowns about Donald Trump’s election being a “threat to democracy,” someone observantly noted that all the panic made sense once you replaced the word “democracy” with “bureaucracy.” Now, as D.C. journo types panic about the threat to a “free press” posed by Trump’s breakup of the White House Correspondents’ Association monopoly, replacing “free press” with “corporate media’s control of news narratives” provides similar clarity.
On Tuesday, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the White House would have the final say on which reporters have access to President Trump in the “most intimate spaces” such as the Oval Office as part of the 13-member press pool. Gatekeeping this access was previously the purview of the group of “D.C.-based journalists” who make up the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA).
“Legacy media outlets,” including “the five major television networks,” would still be included in the rotation, Leavitt clarified, but so would outlets that have “long been denied the privilege” of close access to the president.
In response, the WHCA — led by the manicured (and often, for some reason, caped) Eugene Daniels of Politico — released a four-paragraph statement claiming the decision “tears at the independence of a free press in the United States.”
Other members of the corporate press quickly joined in to share similar talking points about the “free press.”
The editors of the Associated Press, Bloomberg News, and Reuters co-wrote a statement noting “an independent, free press” is “essential in a democracy,” and declaring that such a “principle” would be “threaten[ed]” by any limitation of the AP’s, Bloomberg’s, or Reuters’ special White House access. Former WHCA President Kelly O’Donnell of NBC News urged readers to “Show your support for a free press.” Axios CEO Jim VandeHei warned “Trump is setting a new precedent for tight, punitive government control over a free press.”
The New York Times, in a story about the change, quoted its own spokesman to call the change “an effort to undermine the public’s access to independent, trustworthy information.” The paper’s chief White House correspondent said the move reminded him of Putin.
Even former “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, whose journalistic credentials include airing a deceptively edited clip of Bill Barr and asking Vivek Ramaswamy if he knew there are two sexes “as a scientist,” emerged from his semi-retirement to join the “free press” panic.
But the corporate press and their representatives who run the WHCA haven’t actually been concerned about the integrity of the fourth estate for some time. They were the ones, after all, who spread the Russia collusion hoax, the character assassination of Brett Kavanaugh, the narrative that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation, propaganda about Covid lockdowns and masks and vaccines and the virus’ origins, etc., etc. And all that special White House access they’ve enjoyed? Despite having more opportunities to observe Biden up close than nearly anyone in America, they helped cover up the cognitive decline of the 46th president for years because he was running for reelection.
In each of those cases, legacy media outlets just so happened to be exactly in line with what Democrats in Washington were saying. That is not how an independent press works.
The WHCA is so “independent,” in fact, that after Courtney Subramanian of the Los Angeles Times was caught asking then-President Joe Biden a question that had been fed to the White House ahead of time, the WHCA rewarded her with a seat on its board. It is so committed to freedom of “access” that it refused to take a position when the Biden White House revoked the “hard passes” of 442 reporters, roughly a third of the journalists who held such credentials.
The media are pearl-clutching about a “free press” because it’s not as empathy-inducing to say, “Donald Trump is a threat to the legacy media cartel’s monopoly over The Narrative.” But that’s exactly what they’re afraid of losing, and why they’re so offended that the Trump administration would stop them from gatekeeping White House access and boxing out alternative media.
Outlets with longstanding privileges like the AP or The New York Times have enjoyed being able to use their power to go after political enemies without fear of repercussions. They were horrified when Trump sued ABC News for falsely alleging he had been found liable for rape — and won, to the tune of $15 million.
Big Media is still licking its wounds from Trump’s election in November, which they rightly took personally. Remember that anonymous TV executive fretting a week before the election that “a Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form”? After declaring Trump public enemy No. 1 for eight years, the media failed their goal of keeping him from returning to the White House.
Since that stinging defeat, they have been considerably weakened, but they still feel very strongly about holding onto what power they have left. The rejection of the WHCA gatekeepers, who have proven themselves unwilling to use their privileges to serve the public, is another big blow to their monopoly — and a good thing for real press freedom.
Eugene Daniels Encapsulates All The Reasons The WHCA Deserves To Burn Down In Flames
Quote:I’d ask the Washington press corps if they have any idea how ridiculous they look right now, but then I remember that the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) is currently led by Eugene Daniels.
Trump administration spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced this week that the White House would take over responsibility for determining what rotating crew of reporters would cover the president on site and in person, something that was previously controlled by the WHCA. As with every announcement from this administration, it was greeted by Washington with octane-infused hysteria, especially and predictably by area journalists still under the impression that they run things.
The WHCA’s statement on the matter was good fun. “This move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States,” wrote Eugene Daniels, perhaps with a set of freshly painted nails of a coral hue. “It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”
It’s impossible to take this seriously. Not just because Daniels routinely appears in public wearing kinky costumes and soliciting advice on how to use women’s cosmetic products. And not because he makes a point whenever on cable news of holding his hands near his chest so as to visually assault viewers with whatever startling shade he’s colored his fingernails.
While we’re on the subject, though, Daniels and his public presentation are critical to this issue. He’s not built like some lithe ballet dancer; he’s a hulking figure with an afro and beard. Yet he appeared at last year’s annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner event wearing a seizure-inducing sash — yes, I said sash — draped over his shoulder like something out of a drag queen rendition of Star Wars. His social media activity is practically designed to make you say, This guy can’t be for real. “Dear Black women, please help!” Daniels wrote on X in 2022. “I’m looking for a new bonnet to sleep in. Gotta stay on all night and not give me a headache lol.”
This is who the media’s most prestigious organization in Washington chose to represent their interests. It’s as if they’re daring anyone to step to them with reservation. They’re dying to call you a racist homophobe for it.
Daniels was named WHCA president in mid-July 2024, just as Kamala Harris was becoming the de facto Democrat presidential nominee, a curious coincidence given that Daniels had spent the last three years as Team Kamala’s go-to propagandist for virtually everything intended to put Harris in a positive light (which Daniels would dutifully publish in Politico). The media news publication Poynter dubbed Daniels “Politico’s Kamala Harris expert.” I doubt he felt a flicker of embarrassment.
But what makes the broader WHCA episode so patently absurd is the notion that the WHCA is in any way the standard bearer of a “free press.” It’s not. The most generous view of the association is that it’s an exclusive club of creepy nerds who, led by a gleeful gender-bender, hold half the country’s population in contempt for daring to vote against Democrat priorities.
A more practical assessment is that the WHCA is another anti-democratic gate-keeping institution devoted first and foremost to maintaining the status quo in Washington, including the dying media’s influence in dictating the bounds of political discourse. Having Eugene Daniels as its decadent figurehead is the Washington media’s way of signaling its disgust for the rest of the country.
For the uninitiated, the WHCA is the organization that, until Tuesday’s announcement, worked with the White House to manage the limited pool of reporters who keep close proximity to the president each day and publish his activities. It’s theoretically a useful partnership, but the WHCA has long been exceedingly selective in whom it allows to participate in the pools, slow-walking the admission of alternative media outlets, and otherwise implicitly and explicitly enforcing Washington conformity of the publications and TV networks covering the White House.
Breaking up that ruinous conformity is the point behind Trump’s White House taking control of the pools, which will ideally now have a broader range of reporters with alternative perspectives on what’s considered newsworthy. But alternative perspectives and a broader range are the enemy of the permanent Washington regime.
Everything about the “Resistance” is in gate-keeping: the online censorship, the opposition to “unqualified” cabinet appointees, the “fact-checking,” the “experts,” the “science,” and on and on. The through line is Washington’s existing power structure, including the WHCA, selecting who gets any degree of meaningful influence. Gate-keeping is their power and they hate to see it slip.
The retort from WHCA leadership, including from board member Jacqui Heinrich of Fox News (aw, they let Fox News have a seat), is to warn that a future Democrat will stack the pool with friendly journalists. “You would not have trusted the any [sic] Democratic admin to pick its own pool,” Henrich wrote on X of Trump supporters, “but now that door is open. … Just wait til a Dem admin plays that same game. You’ll hate it.”
Hilarious. Democrats have relied on the Washington press corps for friendly coverage for decades. The effect that icing out right-leaning outlets will have covering a Democrat president in person will be negligible.
This has nothing to do with the “free press” and everything to do with the Washington media — so arrogant as to have someone like Eugene Daniels as its mascot — dying a slow death.
|
|
/
[NEWS] WH Correspondents' Association will no longer control who can gain access to briefing
