A question raised in the editor’s email group: why did organizations like the South Asian Journalists Association (SAJA), which defended the press against the White House’s attempt to ban selected news outlets, not criticize channels like CNN for their own coverage decisions about President Trump?
The question is a common one, and it results from conflating several angles instead of taking each separately. “Freedom of the press” often serves as a catch-all phrase that lumps distinct issues together. Examined in detail, the dispute involves five separate questions, each with a different legal or ethical footing, plus a sixth about the journalism organizations that rallied to the outlets’ defense.
Part 1: Five distinct questions
1. The press has no affirmative right to be at the White House. The First Amendment expressly protects “the freedom… of the press,” but courts have not read it to give journalists rights of access beyond those of the public (Pell v. Procunier, 1974; Houchins v. KQED, 1978). The White House is not a public forum; the government could close it to all media outlets. On this narrow point, the administration’s claim that access is a “privilege” is correct, provided it acts for proper reasons, which it did not (see below).
2. Revoking credentials abruptly violates due process. Press passes, once issued, cannot be revoked without clear standards, proper notice and an opportunity to respond (Sherrill v. Knight, D.C. Cir. 1977). The administration’s abrupt decision failed that test under the Fifth Amendment. This is the ground on which Judge Timothy Kelly ordered access restored on September 24. It is a procedural remedy: in principle, the government could cure the defect with proper procedures.
3. Excluding outlets because of their coverage would violate the First Amendment. This is the deeper objection, and proper procedures cannot cure it. The government may not grant or deny access based on viewpoint or to retaliate for reporting. The court has not yet ruled on this claim, but the president’s own stated reason for the ban, “fake news,” makes it the government’s greatest vulnerability. The White House also cited a vague national-security justification, but that must be tested against the stated motive, which was discrimination.
The next two points concern the criticism of the networks themselves.
4. The press has a broad legal right to cover, or not cover, what it chooses. Editorial discretion is constitutionally protected (Miami Herald v. Tornillo, 1974). CNN’s decision not to air the president’s July 16 prime-time address live, a decision ABC and NBC also made, and its decision to air only excerpts of his September 22 UN speech raise no legal question. The First Amendment constrains the government, not the press; this point and point 3 are not symmetrical and should not be treated as mirror images.
Critics generally accept that CNN had the legal right, but argue that its decision was unfair or unethical. That is the next question.
5. Whether those editorial choices were fair is a separate, ethical question. A right to do something does not make it wise. CNN’s own Michael Smerconish criticized the networks, arguing that a speech newsworthy enough to rebut is newsworthy enough to air, and that viewers can judge for themselves. That is a serious argument about journalistic practice. The counterargument, that live coverage amplifies known falsehoods before correction can catch up, is also serious. Reasonable journalists disagree, and the dispute belongs to press ethics, not constitutional law. In any case, CNN reported on, excerpted and fact-checked both speeches. It declined live airtime; it did not refuse to cover the president.
The conflation to avoid. Points 2 and 3 make the case against the ban, but they do not depend on defending CNN’s editorial choices. Criticizing CNN’s editorial judgment (point 5) does nothing to justify the ban. Each side weakens its position by merging these questions.
Part 2: Journalism organizations and the charge of selective silence
Two 501(c)(3) journalism organizations issued statements on the ban: the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) on September 21 and the South Asian Journalists Association on September 22. AAJA condemned the decision, urged the administration to “restore full, equal access,” and placed the ban alongside other actions it considers threats to the press, including arrests of journalists, searches of their homes and subpoenas. SAJA’s statement was more measured: it expressed deep concern, urged the president to reconsider, and asked that White House access be provided “on an equitable basis, without retaliation for the content of legitimate news coverage.”
Critics ask why these organizations said nothing when CNN, ABC and NBC declined to air the president’s July 16 address live.
Were the statements by AAJA and SAJA permissible? Yes. As 501(c)(3) organizations, they are absolutely prohibited from intervening in political campaigns for or against candidates, and limited in lobbying on legislation. General advocacy on issues within an organization’s mission is permitted. Both statements address a specific government action, ground their objection in the First Amendment, and make no reference to candidates or the coming midterm elections. They are well within the permitted range.
What the statements argue, and what they omit. AAJA and SAJA based their statements on the retaliation argument in point 3. Neither mentioned due process, the ground on which the court has so far ruled for the outlets. Both frame the remedy as “equal” or “equitable” access, which is a sound policy goal but not quite the legal basis. Their instincts appear correct, although their articulation is looser than the legal points involved.
Is the silence on CNN inconsistent? Only if the two situations are equivalent, and they are not. The ban is government action against the press, which is what press-freedom advocacy exists to oppose. The decision not to carry a speech live was an editorial judgment by private news organizations, contested among journalists themselves. An organization that defends press freedom would be on uncertain ground criticizing news outlets for exercising it. To that extent, the criticism depends on conflating points 3 and 4.
Is there a conflict of interest? Yes. CNN has been a significant sponsor of SAJA for many years, as SAJA has acknowledged publicly in its brochures and on its website. AAJA’s website lists NBCUniversal, Disney and ViacomCBS among its partners: the parent companies of NBC and ABC, which also declined to air the July 16 speech live, and of CBS. Both organizations draw members from these newsrooms. Organizations financially supported by outlets whose conduct is in question cannot claim to be neutral judges of that conduct, and they should disclose that dependence whenever they speak on matters involving their sponsors.
Still, the existence of a conflict does not establish that it caused the silence. The fair test is consistency: do these organizations criticize sponsoring outlets on matters within their mission? AAJA runs a MediaWatch program for exactly that purpose with respect to coverage of Asian American and Pacific Islander communities, and it tagged its White House statement under that program. SAJA’s stated mission includes improving coverage of South Asia and its diaspora. A record of criticizing CNN and other sponsors on those issues would undercut the “hand that feeds” charge; the absence of such a record would strengthen it. Organizations like AAJA and SAJA would do well to make prominent disclosures on this matter.
In summary
The journalism organizations were right to defend the banned outlets, and they were entitled to do so as 501(c)(3)s. Their silence on CNN’s editorial choices is defensible on principle. But their financial ties to the outlets they defend are real. Those ties require full disclosure whenever these organizations speak on matters involving their sponsors, and they must never become a reason for silence when a sponsor’s conduct falls within the organization’s mission. A careful balance is required. In some situations no comment may be better; in others, comment with disclosure is the right course.
The larger point is this: controversies like the White House ban, and how journalism organizations react to them, involve multiple angles beyond “freedom of the press.” Where there are multiple angles, each one is clearer and stronger when kept separate.
— John Laxmi
Disclosure: The editor served on SAJA’s board for nearly 25 years, including as Treasurer, and is familiar with its governance and sponsorship arrangements. He now serves as an adviser to the SAJA board. He was not consulted on, and did not take part in, SAJA’s September 22 statement on the White House ban. The views here are his own and have no connection to SAJA. The NewSA-USA email group, once affiliated with SAJA, has been fully separate from it for several years.
