It is easy to defend freedom of the press when we agree with what journalists are reporting. The harder, and more important, test comes when the reporting challenges the people we support, exposes the flaws in institutions we trust or asks questions we would rather remain unanswered. But that is precisely when the First Amendment matters most.
On the cusp of First Amendment Day, it is worth remembering what the amendment actually protects. The First Amendment provides that the government may not abridge freedom of speech or of the press. The Constitution does not condition that protection on whether journalism is flattering, comfortable or politically agreeable.
That principle is at the center of the current dispute over White House press access. On Sept. 19, reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were denied entry to the White House after President Donald Trump announced that the outlets would be banned from the White House grounds. Their press credentials were deactivated or confiscated. The administration has defended the decision by arguing that White House access is a privilege and that the First Amendment protects the outlets’ ability to publish, not access to a particular government facility or press credential.
According to The New York Times, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office last week that the ban was enforced because he felt the outlets’ coverage painted his administration in a poor light.
“There’s something wrong with a country that can allow people to write purposely negative stories,” Trump said.
No, Mr. President. There is something wrong when the people in power begin treating criticism as something that should be punished.
In a post to Truth Social, Trump wrote: “media outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America.”
Now, we are not arguing that publishing false information is permissible. We do, however, raise concerns that truthfulness is not the motivation behind Trump’s ban. Instead, it seems that he aims to censor news outlets that do not portray him as he would prefer—although the administration masks this with claims of “propaganda.”
This is further evident in recent remarks by Vice President JD Vance at Joint Base Andrews on Monday.
Vance told reporters, “If you’re going to engage in what is effectively far-left propaganda, why would a Republican White House give you special access?”
We contend with Vance’s proclamation for a number of reasons. Firstly, although attending White House events is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, the government cannot take it away as a punishment. As ruled by the Supreme Court in 1966, public employment cannot be denied on the basis of viewpoint. The Supreme Court also ruled in 2013 that a discretionary government grant cannot be denied because the applicant expresses a perspective different from the government's.
To that end, any government action intended to punish or deter a speaker for unwanted speech can violate the Constitution. Journalists have the right not to be retaliated against.
As we see it, forbidding news outlets from attending governmental proceedings because you do not favor the content they produce is retaliation and, frankly, censorship.
We should not need to agree with a journalist to believe they have the right to ask the question. We should not need to like a story to believe it deserves to be published.
That is not a reason to silence journalism. In fact, it is a reason to have more journalism.
This incident is, unfortunately, not isolated but rather the latest battle in Trump’s “war on the press.” He has restricted the Associated Press’s White House access and, following directives from Trump, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered early reviews of ABC stations’ broadcast licenses, the first early review ordered in fifty years.
Trump’s attempts to chip away at press freedom are incredibly obvious. By labeling critical reporting as disinformation, he positions himself as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
But that is not what the Bill of Rights calls for.
The First Amendment protects freedom of the press because a functioning democracy depends on the public having access to information about its government. The role of journalists is not to repeat what government officials say, but to ask questions, investigate claims, provide context and report information that those in power may not always want emphasized.
This is what makes journalism uncomfortable—and necessary.
As student journalists, we understand the importance of that role on a much smaller scale. We ask questions of administrators, professors and students. Sometimes the answers make for a positive story. Sometimes they do not. Sometimes the people we interview may disagree with how a story is framed. Sometimes they may wish we had asked a different question.
That disagreement does not mean the story should not be reported.
We believe the same principle applies at the highest levels of government.
We do not write this to suggest that journalists are incapable of making mistakes. We are all human. News organizations might publish incomplete or inaccurate stories, and readers have every right to challenge reporting they believe is unfair.
But accountability and censorship are two very different things.
Readers can criticize a story. They can seek out another source. They can stop reading an outlet they do not trust. Those disagreements are part of having a free and independent press.
What concerns us is the idea that access to government happenings could become dependent on whether officials approve of the coverage they receive.
Journalists empower citizens with the ability to make informed decisions by reporting and contextualizing current events that affect our lives. People cannot make informed decisions about their government, as they should in a democracy, if the information available to them is limited to what those in power are willing to share.
No matter your political beliefs, no one should be censored for providing truthful reporting on the inner workings of elected officials. Just because a president is not flattered by a journalist’s reporting does not mean that reporting should not be heard.
The government should not be the institution that decides which narrative the public gets to see. Government officials have enormous power over the lives of ordinary people. Journalism provides a way for the public to see that power being exercised and to question it when necessary.
American history demonstrates why that matters. Before the First Amendment was adopted in 1791, colonial Americans had already experienced conflicts over government power to punish critical publications. In 1734, printer John Peter Zenger was arrested for seditious libel after his newspaper published criticism of New York Gov. William Cosby. Zenger’s lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, argued to the jury that the accuracy of the printed critiques mattered. Zenger was acquitted. Although Zenger’s case did not directly result in the creation of the First Amendment, it set the precedent that citizens have the right to express themselves, question those in power and disagree with their government.
Since Zenger, journalists have investigated countless government actions and exposed information that powerful institutions would have preferred to keep out of the public eye. The Pentagon Papers and Watergate scandal are among the most recognizable examples. Those stories mattered not because they made government officials comfortable, but because they gave the public information to evaluate its government.
The corruption and wrongdoing we learn about today in political science courses were exposed by journalists. To that end, we must remember that a government that is never questioned is a government that is never held accountable.
As an editorial board, we believe the standard should remain the same regardless of who occupies the White House, which political party holds power or which news organization is being criticized.
Defending freedom of the press is more than a journalist's selfish desire to keep reporting. It is about protecting and informing the people of our nation, who deserve to know what is truly going on in the White House and beyond. It is about giving citizens the information they need to form their own opinions rather than allowing those in power to decide which opinions are acceptable.
The people deserve to know. Journalists deserve to ask. And those in power must be willing to be questioned.
The Voice is intended to best represent the collective opinion of The Setonian’s Editorial Board. It is written by The Setonian’s Editor-in-Chief.
