There is something revealingly small about a President of the United States keeping score of which newspapers, networks and journalists are sufficiently flattering him in order to deserve access to the White House. Donald Trump’s latest move barring CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House after denouncing their reporting as “fake news”, should therefore concern Americans well beyond the newsrooms directly affected. The issue is not whether these organizations produce flawless journalism.

They do not, and no serious defense of press freedom requires pretending otherwise. The issue is whether the government gets to punish a news organization because the president dislikes what it publishes. That distinction is the whole point of the First Amendment. The White House has argued that access to the building is a privilege rather than a constitutional right. But that argument dodges the central question. Once government establishes a press-access system, can it selectively exclude journalists because of the viewpoint or content of their reporting?

A 1977 federal appeals-court decision, Sherrill v. Knight, held that the White House could not deny established press access on the basis of the content of a journalist’s coverage. And this week, a federal judge temporarily ordered the administration to restore CNN, Politico and MS NOW’s access. That judicial intervention matters. But the deeper problem is cultural, not merely legal. America’s First Amendment was not written to protect journalism that makes presidents comfortable. It was written precisely because government power is most dangerous when it becomes impatient with scrutiny.

A press that can publish only what those in power approve is not an independent press. It is a public-relations department with better stationery. Trump’s defenders point out that previous administrations have fought with hostile journalists and restricted access. The White House has produced a lengthy catalogue of alleged mistreatment of conservative media by Democratic administrations. Indeed, some of those grievances deserve scrutiny on their own........

© The Statesman