Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Media members respond to Trump’s ban of The Washington Post

GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump is again making headlines—and again garnering online derision—this time for putting The Washington Post in an indefinite “timeout.”

On Monday, Trump announced that he was pulling the Post’s press credentials:

On Monday night, Trump issued a full statement:

The Washington Post unfortunately covers Mr. Trump very inaccurately. Today’s headline, “Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting” is a perfect example. We no longer feel compelled to work with a publication which has put its need for “clicks” above journalistic integrity.

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.

The Post’s Terrence McCoy shared the story that led to Trump’s announcement. The headline, which originally read, “Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting” was changed to: “Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting”:

The Post’s executive editor, Martin Baron, tweeted his response, calling the move “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press”:

“We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it,” Baron said.

[RELATED: Think like a journalist to get your story covered at our PR Writing Conference.]

The Post’s Chris Cillizza also wrote a response to its ban and told readers “this should worry you.” He continued:

… [R]eporting on what Trump says and does is extremely important to people making an informed decision about the choice before them this fall. Same goes for Hillary Clinton, of course. The job of journalists—at The Post and everywhere else—is to give voters the fullest and most accurate picture of the two people who want to represent all of us as president.

… It’s how things work. It’s how things have always worked. The media’s job isn’t to simply write down whatever the candidate says and regurgitate it. The candidate’s job isn’t to kowtow to the media or do and say things the way he or she thinks the media wants to hear.

The problem with what Trump is doing is that he is revoking access because he disagrees with the coverage. Not because we have the facts wrong. It’s because he doesn’t like how the facts are being presented.

If you believe in a free press, you should also believe it’s not his right to do that. Trump can complain. He can not grant interviews with The Post (or the other organizations he has banned). He can call them out in speeches as being “dishonest.” But barring reporters from public events because you disagree with what they write is a dangerous precedent.

Both Trump and Clinton — through her continued refusal to conduct a formal press conference for months—are pushing the boundaries of acceptable conduct in regards to the media. Why? Because they know that the public’s confidence in the media is at record lows.

The move also sparked discussion on Twitter and other social platforms:

The Post’s Karen Tumulty tweeted:

MSNBC political reporter Alex Seitz-Wald pointed out that even President Richard Nixon didn’t revoke the publication’s press credentials:

Others responded with snark:

The Washington Post isn’t the only publication at which journalists have been barred from attending Trump’s press conferences and other events in the past year. Univision, Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post, Politico and The Des Moines Register have been blacklisted as well.

Politico editor Susan Glasser said Trump has “repeatedly tried to control” his news coverage by not giving media outlets access but that the tactic wouldn’t work:

Trump in his campaign has repeatedly tried to control the coverage of news organizations by denying their journalists access to his campaign events. We believe that is a violation of the basic right of a free press to report—and if the goal is to squelch independent journalism about Trump it certainly won’t work.

Cillizza agreed, saying media outlets are a “necessary” element of the democratic process:

You don’t have to like the media. You can even hate us. But you should recognize that we are necessary for the functioning democracy that we all want.

What do you think about Trump’s move, Raganreaders? Would you have responded differently from the Post—and if so, how?

(Image via)



from Ragan.com http://ift.tt/1Q2mAFr via web video marketing
from Tumblr http://ift.tt/1Q2nrWp
Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)