The James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 21.
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images
A federal judge restored White House access to CNN, MS NOW and Politico for 14 days. But the ruling leaves one question unanswered: Could the administration simply try again, this time following the proper process?
Gabe Rottman, vice president of policy at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, says that would not necessarily settle the larger constitutional issue.
The Reporters Committee, a nonprofit that provides free legal services and advocacy to journalists and news organizations, joined the White House Correspondents’ Association and dozens of news organizations, including NPR, in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the three outlets.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly focused largely on due process, finding that the outlets were likely denied adequate notice and a chance to respond before their credentials were revoked.
Rottman said the White House has broad discretion to manage access, including for legitimate security reasons. But that authority, he said, cannot be used to exclude outlets because officials dislike their coverage.
“The White House facility doesn’t need to let journalists in,” Rottman told NPR. “But once it does … it cannot exclude journalists or news organizations because it doesn’t like what they report.”
This broader question regarding viewpoint discrimination could remain even if the White House fixes the procedural problem.
Rottman had a simple assessment of whether these access restrictions have been effective: “Journalists are resilient,” he said. “They’ll keep doing their jobs. They’ll keep getting the news to the public.”
Listen to the interview by clicking the blue button above.
The digital story was written by Majd Al-Waheidi and edited by Suzanne Nuyen.
