Last week it was announced that President Trump’s administration plans to change the way the White House press corps is constructed, breaking what is a long-standing process and structure created to ensure freedom of press in this country.  It gave me pause as I thought about all of the incredible moments in our country’s history when journalists have been the catalyst for truth: Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward’s investigative reporting for the Washington Post that broke the Watergate scandal; the incredible work of the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team that exposed years of sex abuse within the Catholic Church; Ronan Farrow’s takedown of Harvey Weinstein in The New Yorker. Regardless of political beliefs, all Americans should want to know truth and facts without bias. Does this change move us in that direction or lead us deeper into what is an increasingly murky media landscape? For those not paying attention, let’s recap:

Traditionally, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) plays a significant role in determining which media outlets receive credentials to cover presidential events – the journalists selected are part of the esteemed White House press corps. These are the people crammed into the White House briefing room and who get to roll up their sleeves at laugh at the annual correspondent’s dinner. However, under this new policy, the administration has indicated it will be selecting which journalists and organizations are permitted access. In other words, the Trump administration is selecting who covers the president, not the WHCA.

What This Means for Media Freedom

At its core, this shift raises concerns about the independence of the press. The WHCA has long been viewed as a buffer between the government and the media, ensuring that credentialing decisions are not influenced by political motives. By assuming control of the process, the White House gains greater power to shape the media landscape within the press briefing room.

Critics argue that this move could lead to selective access, favoring outlets that align with the administration’s messaging while restricting those that offer critical coverage. If the government controls who gets to ask questions, there is a risk of diminishing journalistic diversity and undermining the watchdog role of the press.

On the other hand, some argue that this change could streamline the credentialing process and ensure that media professionals with legitimate journalistic intent are given priority over fringe or disruptive entities. In an era of rampant misinformation, the administration may see this as an opportunity to cultivate a press pool that fosters more constructive dialogue.

Opportunities and Challenges for Public Relations

From a public relations perspective, this policy shift presents both opportunities and challenges.

Opportunities:

  1. Message Control: With greater control over media access, the administration can ensure that its key messages reach the public with less distortion.
  2. Streamlined Communication: By managing the press directly, the White House may be able to create a more organized and efficient system for press briefings and interactions.
  3. Enhanced Relationships with Select Media: Favoring certain outlets could lead to stronger partnerships with journalists who present policies in a favorable light.

Challenges:

  1. Perception of Censorship: Limiting press access could be seen as an attempt to stifle dissenting voices, which may lead to accusations of undermining press freedom.
  2. Erosion of Trust: If journalists and the public perceive the administration as cherry-picking its coverage, this could reduce credibility and transparency.
  3. Potential Backlash: Media organizations that feel excluded may increase scrutiny of the administration, leading to more adversarial reporting outside of official White House channels.

The Big Picture

This restructuring of the White House press corps is more than just a logistical change—it reflects a broader conversation about media access, government transparency, and the balance of power between the press and those in authority. All Americans should be paying attention to these moves, but those of us working with the press day in and day out, should be both acutely aware and fascinated at what happens next.