The mainstream media is offering a tepid response to President Donald Trump’s decision to ban the Associated Press from covering official White House events.
AP has been barred from reporting on at least two White House events because the wire service has said they will be using the term “Gulf of Mexico” in reference to the Gulf of Mexico. Trump signed an executive order ordering that the body of water’s name should be changed—a decision that has not been recognized by any other nation and was recently mocked by the Mexican president.
After Trump’s order, the AP noted in its style guide, “The Gulf of Mexico has carried that name for more than 400 years. The Associated Press will refer to it by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.”
President Donald Trump holds up a signed proclamation declaring Feb. 9 Gulf of America Day, as Interior Secretary Doug Burgum watches aboard Air Force One.
Corporate news outlets have been muted in response to the Trump administration’s extreme reaction to AP.
On Friday, only one reporter even bothered to ask White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt about the AP ban. In response to a question from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Leavitt said, “If we feel that there are lies being pushed by outlets in this room, we are going to hold those lies accountable. And it is a fact that the body of water off the coast of Louisiana is called the ‘Gulf of America.’”
It isn’t a fact.
Several news outlets have released statements in support of AP. The New York Times said they “stand by the Associated Press in objecting to governmental retribution for editorial decisions that the government disagrees with.” Reuters said they backed AP and they believe “journalists should be free to report the news reliably, independently, and without harassment or harm, wherever they are, including in the United States.”
But neither outlet indicated they would take any action beyond their statements, like boycotting White House events in solidarity with AP.
The White House Correspondents Association condemned the ban but made no statement about actions the members would take to pressure the administration to reverse its position.
The inside-the-beltway tip sheet Axios explained in a statement, “Our standard is to use ‘Gulf of America (renamed by U.S. from Gulf of Mexico)’ in our reporting because our audience is mostly U.S.-based compared to other publishers with international audiences.” They added, “the government should never dictate how any news organization makes editorial decisions. The AP and all news organizations should be free to report as they see fit. This is a bedrock of a free press and durable democracy.”
Bending to Trump’s will while voicing support for the Associated Press would seem to be in complete contradiction.
The weak response stands in considerable contrast to the media firestorm that occurred in 2009 when the Obama administration showed slight hostility to the nakedly partisan Fox News.
After the administration chose not to grant Fox permission to interview Kenneth R. Feinberg, who was working as the “executive pay czar” as part of the administration’s financial rescue efforts, the press was outraged. Jake Tapper, then at ABC News, fumed to then-White House press secretary Robert Gibbs that one of the mainstream media’s “sister organizations” was being excluded.
By contrast, while Tapper criticized Trump’s decision to bar AP in a recent broadcast of his CNN show, he couched it in terms of asking what the Republican reaction would be if a Democrat did the same thing.
“This can swing both ways,” Tapper said. But Democrats have not gone this far in punishing media outlets they have disagreed with and there is little indication the party would ever go this far.
The mainstream media has again and again demonstrated an unwillingness to challenge Trump, and since he was sworn in the press has even paid him off after he threatened them. Instead of opposing him when he prevents their colleagues from doing their jobs and operating as watchdogs of democracy, there have been toothless condemnations without any concrete follow-up—demonstrating true complicity.
Campaign Action
