Editorial: The White House Must Not Turn Press Access Into a Political Weapon

The confrontation between the White House and major news organizations has reached a point that should concern Americans across the political spectrum.

The issue is not whether journalists deserve immunity from criticism. They do not.The issue is whether government officials should be able to restrict press access because they disapprove of how those journalists report the news.

That distinction is fundamental.The White House has defended its decision to exclude CNN, MS NOW and Politico, arguing that the organizations remain free to publish whatever they wish. President Donald Trump has sharply criticized their coverage and accused them of unfair reporting.

The affected organizations contend that their access was revoked because of their journalism and have taken the dispute to federal court.

The courts will have to determine the constitutional questions.But the principle at stake is clear enough: Government access should not become a reward for favorable coverage or a punishment for unfavorable coverage.

A free press is not supposed to exist at the pleasure of the government.That does not mean every reporter deserves unlimited access to every government facility under every circumstance. Security matters. Space is limited. Presidential movements require logistical decisions.

But there is an enormous difference between legitimate logistical restrictions and excluding journalists because officials object to their reporting.That difference must be taken seriously.

The White House press corps exists to scrutinize presidential power. That is its job. Reporters are not employees of the administration. They are not public-relations representatives for the president. Their responsibility is to the public.

Sometimes that responsibility produces reporting the White House welcomes.Sometimes it produces reporting the White House despises. Both are inevitable in a functioning democracy.

The television pool makes this confrontation particularly consequential. Major networks routinely cooperate to provide footage of presidential events, allowing the public to see the president at work even when every newsroom cannot send its own crew.

When one organization is prevented from carrying out its assigned role, the consequences can extend beyond that organization.That is why the decision by the major networks to suspend the shared pool should not be dismissed as a quarrel between competing media institutions. It is a dispute over the rules governing access to the presidency.Those rules matter.

Presidents are powerful. The White House controls enormous amounts of information, commands vast federal agencies and makes decisions affecting the lives of millions of Americans.The press is one of the institutions charged with watching that power. It must therefore be able to ask uncomfortable questions without wondering whether access to the government will disappear as a consequence.That principle should not depend on which party occupies the White House. It should not depend on whether a particular journalist is popular.And it should not depend on whether Americans personally trust a particular news organization.

The answer to journalism that is inaccurate or unfair is more journalism: scrutiny, criticism, competing reporting, corrections and public accountability.The answer should not be a government deciding which newsrooms are worthy of access based on whether their coverage is sufficiently flattering.The press, for its part, has obligations as well. Journalists must report accurately, correct mistakes and distinguish facts from opinion. Independence does not excuse sloppy journalism.

But demanding responsible journalism is very different from demanding agreeable journalism.That line must remain intact. The courts will now confront the legal questions raised by this dispute. Their decisions will help define the limits of executive authority and the constitutional protections surrounding the press.

But regardless of how the litigation unfolds, one principle deserves to remain beyond partisan convenience:The government should never become the editor of the press.

Americans do not need a press corps that agrees with the president. Nor do they need one that reflexively opposes him.

They need journalists who can report, question and investigate without first asking whether the government approves of what they intend to publish.That is not a privilege granted by the White House. It is part of the architecture of a free society.

And once that principle begins to erode, rebuilding it can be far harder than defending it in the first place.