The White House press corps has not exactly been a haven for inspirational adversarial journalism over the years. Made up almost exclusively of corporate media outlets, it is largely known for a ridiculous correspondents dinner and its failure to hold presidents to account (FAIR.org, 5/4/13). But however timid these reporters have been over the years, it is clear the Trump administration is going to great lengths to marginalize them.
John King (Reliable Sources, 3/26/17)
“Pay no attention to the man at that podium,” CNN’s normally timid John King said of Trump’s press secretary, in a segment headlined “How Sean Spicer Lost His Credibility” (Reliable Sources, 3/26/17). This dismissal came not long after the White House barred major media outlets such as the New York Times, CNN and the BBC from an informal press briefing (“We’re going to aggressively push back,” Spicer told the non-excluded journalists; “We’re just not going to sit back and let, you know, false narratives, false stories, inaccurate facts get out there”—New York Times, 2/24/17), though it routinely and happily grants access to such regal journalistic institutions as Breitbart, the Daily Signal and the One America Radio News Network, among a slew of other far-right outlets, many of which spout crazed conspiracy theories and utter nonsense.
Had the New York Times et al. been invited to Spicer’s briefing, there’s no guarantee they would have been called on. Numerous reporters have complained that Trump and Spicer are stacking the White House press corps with pro-Trump outlets, many from the alt-right (FAIR.org, 8/25/16). They assert he is calling on these and other conservatives with an alarming frequency, thereby avoiding questions about unwanted subjects, such as the resignation of his national security advisor Michael Flynn (Politico, 2/13/17; CNN, 2/15/17). “By handpicking reporters, Trump manages to get through news conference without being asked about Flynn,” tweeted New York Times reporter Peter Baker (2/13/17).
“There’s no other way to describe it but ‘the fix is in,” argued CNN’s Jim Acosta in an interview with co-worker Wolf Blitzer (2/15/17).
Analysis: Spicer’s Call-Ons Nearly Half Conservative
Asterisks denote a conservative outlet. These outlets were called on one time each: Associated Press, Axios (Australia), Channel 10 (Israel), Channel 7 News (Boston), Christian Broadcasting Network*, Conservative Radio*, Daily Caller*, Daily Mail*, Daily Signal*, Federalist Papers Project*, Fox 8 (Cleveland)*, Fox WKVU (Las Vegas)*, India Times, Kentucky Radio*, WJHL (Virginia), La Opinion, LifeZette*, New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Sirius, TV News Brazil, Talk Media News, Telemundo, WVNN*, Wall Street Journal*, Washington Blade, Washington Post, Washington Times*
FAIR’s research bears out these impressions. FAIR analyzed each instance where Spicer called on a reporter during his first month of briefings, as archived on WhiteHouse.gov. In total, we analyzed seven briefings in which outlets were called on 105 times. (Ten questions were omitted from the analysis since the questioner could not be identified.)
Forty-five percent of the reporters Spicer called on were from conservative outlets—either self-identified as such, or run by overtly conservative publishers and editors. These included the Daily Signal (a project of the Heritage Foundation) and the Daily Mail, whose editor Paul Dacre is one of the most influential conservatives in the United Kingdom (New Statesman, 1/2/14) and a staunch—some have said “shrill“—supporter of Brexit (Guardian, 2/18/17).
Outlets that are part of the Rupert Murdoch empire—including Fox News, which has become one of Trump’s biggest boosters (FAIR.org, 1/13/17), and the Wall Street Journal were also counted as conservative. Fox is a prominent presence at Trump White House briefings, with representatives of the brand—including Fox News, Fox Business Channel and Fox Radio—asking 15 percent of all questions where the questioner could be identified. This is more than the total questions asked by CNN, USA Today, Time, the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press combined.
On principle, there is nothing wrong with inviting smaller, ideologically driven outlets inside the White House briefing room. In fact, if it was done in a way that widened the parameters of debate and included left-leaning outlets, it would be a bold step away from the dominant media’s obsession with unattainable neutrality (FAIR.org, 7/20/12; Intercept, 3/14/16), which serves to narrow parameters of debate. As Howard Zinn often said (e.g., Democracy Now!, 4/27/05), “to be neutral, to be passive,” in the face of injustice “is to collaborate with whatever is going on.”
White House correspondents were complicit in the failure to expose the George W. Bush administration’s dishonest case for war in Iraq (FAIR.org, 5/4/13), which led to unspeakable carnage. It is the White House press corps that got scooped by two metro reporters during Watergate (FAIR.org, 6/1/12) and generally ignores human rights violations by US presidents (FAIR.org, 1/21/11).
But the data show Trump’s goal is not to widen the debate, but to plant as many friendly reporters in the press corps as possible. There is no left equivalent to LifeZette or Breitbart with a seat in Spicer’s press room. The journalists tasked with holding the White House to account now come almost exclusively from either corporate or right-wing, Trump-supporting outlets.
Press secretary Sean Spicer calls on a reporter
In analyzing more 105 questions (not including follow-ups) from White House reporters, it is hard not to notice how docile the queries are. There were very few, if any, pressing questions about policies on poverty, hunger or inequality. Nobody asked Spicer or Trump why we are the only developed nation on the planet without universal healthcare. Or how current and former students shackled by student debt can be helped. Or if we will cease to lock up humans at a higher rate than any other nation. These kind of questions weren’t just ignored by conservative outlets, but by the entire press corps, including revered institutions such as the New York Times or Washington Post.
So many of the questions, from conservative outlets and otherwise, are generic or even friendly, fitting neatly into the Trump narrative. “He’s an extremely loyal person, General Flynn. Was it a difficult decision for the president to let General Flynn go?” asked John Decker of Fox Radio in a February 14 briefing.
“Can you talk about [former New Hampshire Sen.] Kelly Ayotte’s role shepherding Justice Gorsuch around Capitol Hill?” asked a reporter from a Boston NBC News affiliate (2/7/17).
“I was hoping you were going to ask about the Patriots,” Spicer quipped, before giving a nothing answer about how Ayotte “understands the judicial process very well.”
Trump Calls on Conservatives Almost Exclusively
It’s harder to study the outlets Trump himself calls on; he often takes only a couple of questions at press events. The memorable February 16 press conference is an exception, but reporters, unfortunately, were not using microphones at that event, so the identity of most could not be confirmed. The event still featured some remarkable exchanges, as when a pro-Trump reporter from a magazine serving the Orthodox Jewish community asked mildly how best to combat antisemitism. Trump inexplicably blew up: “Sit down,” he scolded (New York Times, 2/17/17). “I am the least antisemitic person you have ever seen in your life.” The reporter declared that he remains supportive of Trump, despite the president’s overt hostility.
At joint press events with other state leaders, Trump calls on right-leaning publications almost exclusively. Appearing with heads of state from Israel, Canada and Japan, the only questions from US reporters came from the Christian Broadcasting Network, New York Post, TownHall, Fox News, Daily Caller and a local affiliate of Sinclair Broadcasting—all known for their conservative bent. Many in the press corps were aghast when none of the questions at the event with Canada’s Justin Trudeau addressed the Flynn controversy (Politico, 2/13/17), which had been dominating headlines at the time.
What is alarming about the White House’s reliance on right-wing outlets is not only the unlikelihood of their voicing any challenge to Trump policies that concern a great many Americans, but that so many of them are on the far-right fringe, publishing hateful, hyperbolic stories and conspiracy theories with little regard for accuracy. (These publications often take part in press conferences remotely via Skype, making for what Salon described—2/15/17—as “a bad comedy sketch” that has “further empowered right-wing loons.”)
Federalist Papers Project (11/5/16)
In a February 14 briefing, the White House called on Jason Stevens, contributor to the Federalist Papers Project, who asked why “unaccountable bureaucrats” spend government money. The outlet—with 8,300 twitter followers—is best known for its liberal use of CAPS LOCK, and for publishing headlines like “Hillary Joins Bill Clinton on Trips to ‘Sex Slave Island,’ FBI Docs Show,” “How the Best Tweet Of ALL TIME Explains the Clinton Kill List,” and “What Democrats and Slave Holders Have in Common BRUTALLY Summed Up” (Media Matters, 2/14/17).
It is telling that many of these articles lean heavily on Breitbart for stories. The site, formerly run by White House chief strategist Steven Bannon, has become the de facto house organ of the Trump White House (FAIR.org, 8/25/16), much in the way the neoconservative Weekly Standard reflected thinking during the George W. Bush Administration (Extra!, 10/09). While a frequent contributor of White House questions—the site was called on more than the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press combined—Breitbart has so far been unable to get permanent press credentials on Capitol Hill; its colleagues in the Senate Press Gallery are unconvinced that Bannon has really cut ties to his old soapbox, and asking about allegations that the site has been promoting the interests of Egyptian politician Moustafa El-Gindy, from whom it rents office space (Daily Beast, 3/27/17, 3/29/17).
Another right-wing source called on frequently by Spicer is One America News Network (OAN). Launched at CPAC 2013, the network was originally a partnership between the Unification Church-owned Washington Times and Herring Broadcasting (Washington Times, 3/13/13; Daily Beast, 3/14/13), though its current relationship to the Times is unclear (Huffington Post, 1/5/15). The goal, according to Herring, was to fill what he saw as a vacuum for more conservative news. “All we have is Fox,” he said.
The channel is not aired on many of the major cable providers, but has expanded its reach by making deals with streaming platforms such as AT&T U-Verse (Multichannel, 4/23/14). In the study, only five outlets were called on more frequently than OAN.
One America Network‘s Liz Wheeler
OAN’s Tipping Point, with Liz Wheeler, provides a glimpse at the network’s content. In one of her “politically incorrect” segments (2/21/17), she referred to protests at Berkeley as “riots,” part of a “systematic campaign to radicalize students, instill fear in Republicans and destroy our Republic.” Her guest was the xenophobic conspiracist David Horowitz, who explained to OAN’s audience that the protesters were “bigoted” members of the “fascist left.” Wheeler nodded approvingly as Horowitz called Jeff Sessions a “champion of civil rights.”
Another recent segment (2/24/27) broadcast Wheeler’s baseless claim that in places where transgender people are allowed to use the appropriate bathroom, “we have seen a lot of sexual predators.”
Transgender rights are a major issue at Newsmax, another outlet called on frequently by Spicer; one day’s big story was Caitlyn Jenner’s views on Trump’s transgender policy, with the most popular comment calling her a “disaster.”
Newsmax comments on a story about Caitlyn Jenner (2/23/17).
Newsmax CEO Chris Ruddy is probably best known for his book suggesting that the Clintons murdered Vince Foster. That Ruddy’s Newsmax is embraced by Trump (Washington Post, 2/21/17 ) is not surprising. Ruddy was an early donor to Trump’s campaign, and to many other Republicans. In fact, he is listed on the Center for Responsive Politics’ list of largest individual donors of hard money, with $138,000 in donations in 2016, all to Republicans. Since then he has earned himself what the Post calls “a seat at the table” at the Trump White House.
From Bad to Worse: Trump’s Influence on the White House Press Corps
It is important to understand that conflicts of interest between media companies and politicians are not unique to Trump; they speak to larger systemic problems with the corporate press and its relationship to those in power. Had Hillary Clinton won the presidency, there would be major concerns over the fact that the parent companies of virtually all major broadcast outlets were Clinton donors in 2016 (FAIR.org, 9/3/16; Truthout, 9/1/16).
This is one of many reasons Trump and Spicer’s efforts to stack the White House press corps with ideological allies, and call on them almost half the time, is so worrying. Trump and Spicer have taken a compliant, deferential press and added to it a sizable army of far-right, pro-Trump outlets, leaving us with a press corps where half of the members are working for multinational conglomerates and the other half are shills for the president.
Michael Corcoran is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for the Boston Globe, The Nation, the Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3.
This piece was reprinted by RINF Alternative News with permission from FAIR.