THE SLICE NEWS OFFICIAL RESPONSE TO THE WHITE HOUSE TAKING CONTROL OF POOL SELECTION
Written by Mona Austin, White House and Congressional Correspondent for The Slice News
A dispute between the AP, the White House Correspondents Association and the White House Press office calls for a formal examination of press freedom/access procedures. As someone who has been and can further be directly affected by the decisions I am weighing in on the matter. The context of my input is regarding who is allowed/qualified to cover 1600 Penn and who is allowed/qualified to be the decision makers following recent changes. The public deserves to understand what is behind the actions on both sides.
BACKGROUND
The AP filed a law suit against the White House alleging a violation of free speech. The White House retaliated by excluding their staffers from events with the president after the independent news organization refused to solely refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America. White House journalists are worried that the AP and potentially anyone covering the White House could be censored or banned at will. Also, the White House Press Secretary announced their office would be selecting pool participants to be more inclusive of independents and new media, a role traditionally held by the White House Correspondents Association.
With respect to the latter, the White House began to welcome new media, which means the WHCA had to make room for a new media pooler. The White House decided to open two seats for new media and independent outlets; some have already been added to the pool rotation. The press secretary expects that changing the make up of who is in the room will change the make up of the news that comes out of the room. She said the changes were designed to give power back to the people, but the widely held perception in the media is that the White House is attempting to usurp control to censor outlets that do not report on Pres. Donald Trump favorably.
Allegedly, the White House press team has made a space for the new media entities to serve in the pool who do not meet the WHCA membership requirement. Some are in a secondary pool and are allegedly not being allowed to be members of the WHCA.
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
Imagine if your right to free speech was taken by the fleecing of your tongue. For journalists, losing press freedoms is a similar excruciating thought.
Without question, we need a free press in America. Particularly, with regard to press management in the White House, fairness should be paramount.
Freedom of the Press was established to prevent censorship and offer checks and balances on the government for accountability purposes. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of the PRESS and I would argue "social media" "movies" and other forms of media are not encompassed in the definition of press in its most acutely authentic form. Freedom of the press relies on free speech, a right that we cherish in America.
There are major differences between "press" and "media" no matter how much the line has been blurred. The Press is distinguished by laws and regulations, a code of ethics and principled guidelines that are not always observed or respected in the "media" at large. Efforts to bring some semblance of "regulation" to the new media space are beginning to manifest. Social media companies, like Facebook and Twitter, have started implementing content monitoring measures and rules to combat misinformation and hate speech, but the extent of their authority in ensuring that applicable federal laws are enforced equally remains dubious. Some argue that excessive regulation can stifle free expression, while others emphasize the need for greater accountability in digital spaces to combat harmful content.
Further, whereas new media is driven by the influence of algorithm engagement, traditional media (also referred to as legacy media) is not. This technological interference, known as algorithmic bias, can give illegitimate news entities an advantage in search engine rankings and possibly increase the spread of misinformation. Popularity or a strong presence does not equate to real relevance, value and credibility. The full time, legitimate press in America is working to restore faith and trust in their work after social media was instrumental in dubbing them "fake news."
Historically, Academicians have defined and established the norms in the field of journalism, as opposed to citizens, who make up the bulk of social media and new media users. The words "press" and "media" are frequently interchanged but the work can differ in scope, outcomes and legal ramifications. It has become increasingly more important to maintain standards in reporting knowing who to trust with news in these rapidly changing times. Moreover, to be fair, the roles must be equal for those who have the privilege of covering the news that impacts the nation and the world. (Of course this applies to regular hard pass holders.) The press has regulatory obligations rendered by the government by which "the media" at large is not typically bound. However, it is important to recognize that new media encompasses both professional digital journalism (e.g., online news websites and social media spaces) and user-generated content platforms (like YouTube). These are obviously platforms that traditional newsmakers are also using to respond more immediately.
Growing the press pool to include influencers and social media personalities may have risks and rewards. The reward is that more people can get the White House insider point-of-view. risk is driven by the power of the numbers. Simultaneously, more information and misinformation can be spread. The risks seemingly out-weigh the rewards, however. Some of the potential pitfalls in mixing the pros with those who aspire to be, with credibility and accuracy being foremost are:
Oversimplification: Influencers often cater to specific audiences, which might result in oversimplified or sensationalized coverage of complex political issues.
Lack of Accountability: Many influencers operate independently and may not adhere to the ethical standards or accountability measures that traditional media outlets follow.
Polarization: Influencers with strong personal opinions might contribute to political polarization by presenting one-sided views.
Diminishing Stature: The White House has always been perceived as the pinnacle of greatness in journalism. Lowering standards will diminish the sacredness of serving in the White House Press Corps.
It is imperative that those being approved to face the public are top-notch and experienced. If there is a place for the meritocracy that Pres. Donald Trump embraces to be implemented, the White House Press Corp is it.
MOVING FORWARD WITH BALANCED REPRESENTATION
The responsibility for who should control who has access to the president should be shared between people who have experience in the field and on the White House beat and the press team. There should be an effort to normalize apolitical reporting rather than agenda focuse, activist journalism. This issue is not only about who controls access but about also about who is reporting, the intent of what is being produced and whether it adheres to news standards. Is the public receiving activist tropes, publicity or propaganda from the White House? The answer must always be no. Regardless of the liberal or conservative bend of owners, the reporters have a professional obligation to be objective. In the midst of the current changes the to press these fundamental expectations appear to be ignored.
WHY THIS MATTERS TO THE SLICE NEWS
The Slice News has defended the presence of specialty media and modern press, having been using a cell phone in the White House to gather and report news for a decade. We are an expression of progressive media working from knowledge rooted in traditional norms while fully embracing modern technology to deliver news swiftly. The digital and radio outlet was blocked from pool coverage by various representatives in the WHCA who do not understand who The Slice News is, our impact or our cumulative reach. Representatives of the Association claim they have expanded access yet we have not been on the receiving end of the change. The Slice News has experienced blatant discriminatiin, rudeness and unprofessional treatment multiple times by fellow members of the press.
At the start of the second Trump term we were not receiving the daily guidance because we were not members of the WHCA. Peers who may not be fully qaulified to do so or are petty, are making decisions about who gets to engage. Unless they know the news brand and/or your outlet has a strong Web presence, they are not prone to accept or approve you. Getting visibility at the White House is ultimately an unfair popularity contest.
This is precisely why intervention from the White House is necessary. The White House Press office has a right to assess the value of the outlets in the room. But they too must be fair, unbiased and consistent in the logic they apply to the process.
There is room for improvement on both sides of this issue. Pres. Trump and his team appear to prefer "citizen journalism," which is often partisan and biased. Every Administration is different and should have a say in how the process is run but government-approved discrimination must be rooted out. The reason the WHCA has historically been in charge of pool selection, is to ensure that a president does not choose entities that represent one side and so that reporters are present to hold he/she accountable. Ironically, there does not appear to be anyone holding WHCA accountable for some of their leaders and members' sometimes entitled and elitist conduct.
On the part of the WHCA, empowering peers to select members can also come with bias. The WHCA has operated with preference and prejudice that "outside-of-Washington" entities face. The process is clearly flawed and requires better management and evaluation by a neutral party. The fight for power is justified on both sides in my view.
AP and the White House Chief of Staff had several meeting I was told and ended up in court, nonetheless. Press freedoms secure free speech for journalists and that is a right that I cherish along with the AP. There must be a meeting of the minds internally with the proper assortment of experts involved to establish a new way forward given the changes in the media landscape broadly.
For improving access with U.S. and foreign press entities, the following considerations are essential:
- Reserve hard pass approval for members of the press reaching national or international audiences and general access for local reporters
- Give outlets that have been waiting to be involved in the pool or for a seat in the room priority over newcomers.
-Further recognize specialty media to reflect the population
- Require that outlets are established for a designated number of years rather than using the White House as a launchpad.
- Weed out "wolves in sheeps clothing." NO PUNDITS AND OPENLY BIASED OUTLETS SHOULD OCCUPY SPACE FOR PRESIDENTIAL COVERAGE OR SEATS IN THE BRADY BRIEFING ROOM under the auspices of being press or media.
COMPETENCE, EXPERIENCE AND INTEGRITY
Press freedom is a pillar of a democratically run society and I will always support it and simultaneously welcome improvements. Standards and ethics must be followed. Cronyism and nepotism has already been detected among some of the new participants under the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration worked to restore decorum and seriousness in the press room by weeding out entities that are now being allowed to return. Everyone present in the White House press corps should display competence, experience and integrity. This call for effective improvements must also apply to the White House Correspondents Association leaders. The WHCA has excluded some entities that were not members and accepted others and ignored emails. This inconsistency alone is reason enough for the White House to be in a position to hold them accountable.
Protecting and promoting press freedom inside the White House has always and will continue to take both the press office and WHCA working together to serve the interests of the press and the people. Ultimately, power and control are what both sides are looking for but the debacle is playing out to be divisive and unfair and the American people may suffer from it.
#pressfreedom #whca