So, in typical Trumpian fashion, Trump basically banned the White House Press Corp and ended the practice of having the press cover events. This was a clear attempt to punish people for being critical of him, since we know, Trump is a super special snowflake who can't handle any criticism.
Surprisingly, the courts are ruling against him. I say surprisingly because I was under the impression the president doesnt have to give access to media outlets. And let's face it, access to important figures is an important part of Noam Chomsky's propaganda model. Access normally comes with quid pro quo. Media outlets critical of political figures dont have to give them interviews and the like. I thought press access worked like that, with Trump being able to just say "no access" if he felt like it, but apparently the courts (and media outlets) are treating this as a violation of free speech. It seems to be because it's discriminary. it's a lot like labor violations. If you fire someone for trying to unionize, thats illegal. If you fire someone for any other reason, that's legal. So if you wanna fire someone for trying to unionize, you come up with some other excuse to make it happen. Trump's biggest sin might be the fact that he made the understanding that always existed too blunt. He's such a snowflake everyone knows he did it due to criticism, and its falling through.
Anyway, I feel mixed on this. On the one hand, i do believe all views should have access to the president, but they obviously dont. Credentialed journalists are credentialed in ways that have biases. No one adds Jacobin to the white house press pool, its always establishment media that has a corporate bias. And, if anything, this is why Ive kinda not cared about this. Like oh boo hoo, you lost access. If youre outside of the "acceptable" spectrum of debate, you never had access. Doesnt matter how valid your views are or aren't. You arent allowed. Youre discriminated against. That's ALWAYS been a thing. ANd if the president wants to make the existing understanding more blunt, so be it.
On the other hand, I dont think that politicians should HAVE TO give media their time. I believe that free speech should guarantee everyone has the freedom to express their views, but no one is owed a politician's time. If a politician wants to dodge an interview with an unfavorable outlet, or ignore questions from them, they should be able to. Let how that looks come off as it is. I dont think presidents should HAVE TO answer questions from hostile media outlets. Even if trump is immature AF about it, I think the implication of the opposing view puts an unrealistic obligation. Should someone with my views have to answer questions from a fundamentalist christian or anarcho capitalist outlet? Should trump have to answer questions from, say, Jacobin? Id say no either way. Let the people decide how that comes off. I got news for you, only the president's die hard supporters sympathize with him, and most people on the left know trump is a snowflake. So who cares?
Just...my view. I see where the argument is being made though, you dont WANT quid pro quo in arrangements like this. Im just pointing out the reality of how the relationships between media and politicians has always worked. And how its always been screwy. ANd yeah Im just like "oh gee, you LOST access? Imagine that!" (I never had it). But hey if the courts wanna rule this way, maybe some anti establishment outlet should sue to gain access or something. Ya know, kinda like how satanists take advantage of rulings in favor of Christians. If they do it why not everyone else? If those are the rules, what are the unintended consequences? And I know, the media will come up with some argument in favor of credentialism, but credentiialism is itself a de facto filter that shapes the views of those who have acess. Pro establishment views get represented, anti establishment ones aren't. And it's BS.
The fact is, this is why i dont care too much about this one. Im glad to see trump get pushed back against, but yeah, i dont really believe american media access to politicians lives up to the legal standards being put forward here.
No comments:
Post a Comment