Haberman turns Trump’s media wars into a sweeping case against him

BS BULLETIN:

Maggie Haberman and Jim Rutenberg argue in a major New York Times analysis that Trump’s battles with the media have evolved into a broader effort to “stifle speech.”
The Times points to FCC investigations, Pentagon press restrictions, subpoenas, lawsuits and changes to the White House press pool.
The White House rejects that characterization, saying it is fighting biased and inaccurate reporting and using available tools to hold media organizations accountable.

Maggie Haberman’s latest Trump story is considerably bigger than another round in her long-running feud with the president.

This time, she and New York Times writer Jim Rutenberg are making the case that Donald Trump’s battles with journalists have grown into something much larger: an effort to use presidential power to reshape what Americans see and hear.

The front-page analysis carries the headline, “How Trump Is Wielding Power to Stifle Speech.”

That’s the Times’ conclusion — and the White House strongly disputes it.

Haberman and Rutenberg point to a long list of actions taken during Trump’s second term: FBI agents serving subpoenas on reporters, restrictions on journalists at the Pentagon, regulatory pressure on broadcasters, the elimination of federal funding for public broadcasting, Trump’s personal lawsuits against news organizations and the White House taking greater control over which outlets participate in the presidential press pool.

The Times argues that taken together, the individual battles amount to something unprecedented in scale.

But Trump and his allies describe what’s happening very differently.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told the Times that “biased reporting from the media is a disservice to the American people.”

“We utilize every tool available,” Cheung added, to ensure accurate reporting and hold accountable those who knowingly spread false information.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has also openly celebrated Trump’s disruption of the traditional media establishment, saying the president is “reshaping the media landscape.”

Carr argued that major broadcasters had previously been allowed to “dictate the political narrative.” Trump himself praised Carr recently as the man who is “keeping these crooked networks honest.”

One of the Times’ biggest examples involves ABC.

Trump’s relationship with the network has deteriorated sharply, including his attacks on late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. The FCC began an unusually early review of licenses held by ABC stations, while the agency has also examined the network’s DEI policies and raised questions involving political equal-time requirements.

ABC isn’t merely complaining publicly.

It has gone to court.

The network characterizes the government’s actions as a “retaliatory campaign” and says fear of FCC consequences has already influenced some of its programming decisions.

Kimmel recently accused the administration and FCC of threatening him, his program, ABC and its affiliated stations after an interview with Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico was kept off the broadcast network amid concerns about equal-time requirements.

The White House and FCC reject the suggestion that they are improperly silencing political opponents.

The Times also points to restrictions imposed on reporters covering the Pentagon.

That dispute has already produced a pointed judicial rebuke.

In a March ruling involving the Times’ challenge to Pentagon restrictions, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman wrote that the nation’s founders believed America’s security required “a free press and an informed people.”

The administration subsequently imposed another restriction requiring reporters to have escorts in areas of the Pentagon where journalists previously moved independently. Litigation over those rules continues.

Then there are Trump’s own lawsuits.

The president has sued major media organizations over reporting he says is false or defamatory, while critics contend that even unsuccessful litigation can impose enormous legal expenses on news organizations.

Trump has never exactly hidden his willingness to make litigation painful.

Discussing an unsuccessful libel lawsuit he brought years ago against former Times reporter Timothy O’Brien, Trump once explained his motivation rather colorfully:

“I did it to make his life miserable.”

Free-speech organizations see a pattern.

Clayton Weimers of Reporters Without Borders told the Times there is scarcely “a week that goes by” without another government action affecting press freedom. “There’s not a week that goes by where they’re not taking a new step to curtail press freedom in the country,” Weimers said.

Veteran First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams was similarly alarmed. “We live in a different world under this administration because the threats are so grave,” Abrams told the paper.

But there’s another piece of context worth remembering. Trump didn’t invent presidents fighting with the press or using government power in ways journalists considered threatening.

The Times itself notes Woodrow Wilson’s wartime censorship, Richard Nixon’s enemies list and threats involving the FCC, secrecy under George W. Bush and the Obama administration’s aggressive pursuit of journalists’ sources during leak investigations.

The argument Haberman and Rutenberg make is that Trump differs in the number of tools being deployed simultaneously and in his willingness to personally attack, sue and publicly demand consequences for media figures he believes have treated him unfairly.

And there is some irony in Haberman being one of the reporters making that argument.

Just days ago, Trump launched another blistering attack against her over her reporting about his plans for the 25th anniversary of 9/11.

He demanded a retraction, challenged her sources and called her reporting fabricated. The Times refused.

“We won’t be issuing a retraction,” the newspaper responded, calling Trump’s attack another example of him “lashing out at coverage he doesn’t like.”

Trump’s position was equally unmistakable.

“Fake News is getting worse and worse in the U.S.A.,” he wrote, arguing that it was important for him to respond so Americans understood what he called the dishonesty of certain journalists.