r/centrist • u/therosx • 12h ago
Judge extends order restoring White House access for POLITICO, CNN and MS NOW
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/10/14/white-house-media-ban-rulingA good article detailing how U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly restored Whitehouse press access to three major news networks.
The ban from the President likely violated the first amendment while also not following the basic rules of informing the news organizations first that specific behavior or comments would result in them being banned.
The case from the administration is furthered weakened by public comments made by the President and Whitehouse officials that the reason for the ban was unsubstantiated accusations and not an action taken by the networks or their employees.
70
Upvotes
11
u/WeridThinker 11h ago edited 11h ago
Before anyone begins the "but Obama and Fox" line of reasoning, I don't want to go in to the context or details, because that would only derail the principle behind this. My thought is if someone finds Obama's attempt to ban a Fox reporter is considered bad, and an affront to the First Amendment and public trust, I would suppose Trump's attempt to ban multiple outlets is worse, or atleast equally bad?
The biggest issue with Whataboutism is not the fact that it is not a good argument; instead, it shows the bias and double standards people have. Using Whataboutism proactively in an argument is not a good practice, but meta analyzing Whataboutism does offer some valuable insight on someone's preference, values, and likely worldview.
Partisan news outlets proliferate polarization, and Reagan's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine helped to facilitate the partisan divide. But if the Whitehouse is going to ban or restrict news outlets for political reasons, then we have the federal government actively setting the tone for further divide and when we have explicit official endorsement for certain views, any resemblance of independent press will be further chipped away.
Before anyone goes the over analyzing route and starts to point out all the historical precedents of presidents restricting press, just think what are the exact principles being defended; if it is the first amendment, public trust, independent press, reducing polarization and partisanship, and more objective news reporting, then the conclusion should be straightforward, which is "I oppose what Trump is trying to do, just like I oppose all others who tried before him to do what I believe to be comparable to what he is trying to do now". If the conclusion is somehow "Trump isn't too bad, or is justified for this, because others had done it before", then I would seriously consider if there is more support for the man himself, or another set of principles that are opposed to what I listed above.
Intellectual honesty is not dependent solely on how many pieces of evidences a person can find, or how structurally sophisticated their arguments are; it also hinges on genuineness, authenticity, and self awareness to understand what ultimately motivates the type of arguments they support.