Fox News Personalities Blast Trump’s Decision To Ban 3 News Outlets From White House — Huffington Post
“If he thinks this will lead to more favorable coverage, I think he’s dreaming,” said Fox News chief political analyst Brit Hume, according to the Huffington Post.
***********
JUST SAYING
BY RAUL HERNANDE
Trump is delusional.
The First Amendment protects more than the final act of publishing a story. It also prevents public officials from manipulating press access to punish critical reporting.
Federal courts have addressed this issue.
A sheriff, district attorney or other public official may adopt reasonable rules that apply equally to all reporters. An official may also refuse to provide nonpublic information to the news media altogether.
What public officials generally may not do is use access as a reward for favorable coverage—or withhold it as punishment for criticism.
That is the principle running through Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Lee and Southwestern Newspapers Corp. v. Curtis: Government officials cannot use the power of their offices to favor friendly news organizations while obstructing critical ones.
“One media is entitled to the same right of access as any other.”
— Southwestern Newspapers Corp. v. Curtis (1979)
Government discrimination aimed at the content or impact of reporting is “presumptively at odds with the First Amendment.”
— Times-Picayune Publishing Corp. v. Lee (1988)
A public official does not have to grant interviews or provide nonpublic information to any reporter. But once an official provides that access to some news organizations, the official generally cannot deny equivalent access to a disfavored newspaper because of its reporting.
That final sentence accurately summarizes the legal principle recognized in these cases, but it is not a direct quotation from either court. The cases and their supporting language are also discussed in Savage v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.