4 ms·

When the media stops holding people in power accountable, they are no different than idiots with megaphones. The press has special rights because accountability

by titzer 1y ago

When the media stops holding people in power accountable, they are no different than idiots with megaphones. The press has special rights because accountability and informing the public was supposed to be their job.

wwweston 1y ago
Might be worth asking: Why would “the media” do this? Over thousands of outlets?
- mulmen 1y ago
  Because it’s a moral obligation. The fourth estate is critical to the sustainable operation of our system of government and society. The electorate need to make informed decisions at the polls. In the same way lobbyists inform representatives the media inform the electorate.
- kulahan 1y ago
  I think you could reduce the profession of journalism to “forced transparency”, which can be a form of accountability unto itself. In short: because it’s simply who they are by definition
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Interpreting as "why would the media stop holding people in power accountable"... Because it's cheaper and lets it survive. The unspoken undercurrent is that Google and Facebook ate the ad spending that used to fund journalism, without replacing its function. Google and Facebook don't fund journalism at scale -- that's why their profit margins stay at 23% & 40%. Without revenue, reporters don't get paid, high quality reporting doesn't get done, and newsrooms grovel for any source of margin. Which currently seems to be {minimal cost "journalism"} + {catering to power in exchange for access}.
srean 1y ago
Do they have special rights ? Perhaps an expectation or a duty. From the number of press people jailed or killed it does not seem they enjoy any special rights of they speak truth to power.
- jacobgkau 1y ago
  As an example, courts ordered the Associated Press allowed back into the White House press pool after the Trump administration attempted to remove them. You or I would not be allowed to just show up at the president's events to watch/listen in person. That is a special right.
  - ejstronge 1y ago
    > As an example, courts ordered the Associated Press allowed back into the White House press pool after the Trump administration attempted to remove them. You or I would not be allowed to just show up at the president's events to watch/listen in person. That is a special right. This was overturned. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-court-associated-press-restrictions-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-co...
    - jacobgkau 1y ago
      You got me on language at least, but it's not that simple. It was overturned for specific "private" spaces-- e.g. the Oval Office-- but the most recent Court of Appeals panel from June 6th did find that the East Room is not private like that and kept in place the prior ruling that the AP's allowed in the East Room. (The NYT article you linked doesn't mention this, but it's really only talking about a July 22nd denial of the AP's emergency petition challenging the partial overturning, not any change to the situation on the ground.) Regarding the East Room, according to the White House Correspondents' Association website (https://whca.press/covering-the-white-house/ https://whca.press/covering-the-white-house/), reporters either need to have a hard pass or a temporary pass from the White House Press Office to enter. The Press Office generally only gives press passes to the press. That's why even if we restrict the conversation to the East Room, it's still a "special right" (or special privilege). Regarding the Oval Office et al. (which admittedly is what the term "press pool" actually refers to), the Trump administration's entire argument was that press access to those spaces is a "privilege, not a right." So keeping in mind the courts affirmed an actual right to the East Room, the White House itself still grants other journalists a special privilege (because they're journalists). You can make an argument if you'd like that the guy earlier in the thread should've said, "The press has special privileges because accountability and informing the public was supposed to be their job." (This ignores that it's still a "right" in other cases, like the East Room.) Squabbling over that word choice doesn't do a lot for the topic of this thread, which was journalists no longer serving the interest that justified giving them those privileges/rights.

by titzer 1y ago

wwweston 1y ago

Might be worth asking: Why would “the media” do this? Over thousands of outlets?

mulmen 1y ago
Because it’s a moral obligation. The fourth estate is critical to the sustainable operation of our system of government and society. The electorate need to make informed decisions at the polls. In the same way lobbyists inform representatives the media inform the electorate.
kulahan 1y ago
I think you could reduce the profession of journalism to “forced transparency”, which can be a form of accountability unto itself. In short: because it’s simply who they are by definition
ethbr1 1y ago
Interpreting as "why would the media stop holding people in power accountable"... Because it's cheaper and lets it survive. The unspoken undercurrent is that Google and Facebook ate the ad spending that used to fund journalism, without replacing its function. Google and Facebook don't fund journalism at scale -- that's why their profit margins stay at 23% & 40%. Without revenue, reporters don't get paid, high quality reporting doesn't get done, and newsrooms grovel for any source of margin. Which currently seems to be {minimal cost "journalism"} + {catering to power in exchange for access}.

srean 1y ago

Do they have special rights ? Perhaps an expectation or a duty. From the number of press people jailed or killed it does not seem they enjoy any special rights of they speak truth to power.

jacobgkau 1y ago
As an example, courts ordered the Associated Press allowed back into the White House press pool after the Trump administration attempted to remove them. You or I would not be allowed to just show up at the president's events to watch/listen in person. That is a special right.
- ejstronge 1y ago
  > As an example, courts ordered the Associated Press allowed back into the White House press pool after the Trump administration attempted to remove them. You or I would not be allowed to just show up at the president's events to watch/listen in person. That is a special right. This was overturned. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-court-associated-press-restrictions-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/business/media/appeals-co...
  - jacobgkau 1y ago
    You got me on language at least, but it's not that simple. It was overturned for specific "private" spaces-- e.g. the Oval Office-- but the most recent Court of Appeals panel from June 6th did find that the East Room is not private like that and kept in place the prior ruling that the AP's allowed in the East Room. (The NYT article you linked doesn't mention this, but it's really only talking about a July 22nd denial of the AP's emergency petition challenging the partial overturning, not any change to the situation on the ground.) Regarding the East Room, according to the White House Correspondents' Association website (https://whca.press/covering-the-white-house/ https://whca.press/covering-the-white-house/), reporters either need to have a hard pass or a temporary pass from the White House Press Office to enter. The Press Office generally only gives press passes to the press. That's why even if we restrict the conversation to the East Room, it's still a "special right" (or special privilege). Regarding the Oval Office et al. (which admittedly is what the term "press pool" actually refers to), the Trump administration's entire argument was that press access to those spaces is a "privilege, not a right." So keeping in mind the courts affirmed an actual right to the East Room, the White House itself still grants other journalists a special privilege (because they're journalists). You can make an argument if you'd like that the guy earlier in the thread should've said, "The press has special privileges because accountability and informing the public was supposed to be their job." (This ignores that it's still a "right" in other cases, like the East Room.) Squabbling over that word choice doesn't do a lot for the topic of this thread, which was journalists no longer serving the interest that justified giving them those privileges/rights.