Where’s the Boycott? Trump’s AP Ban Spurs Calls for Media Solidarity

Rather than spur boycotts and walkouts, Donald Trump’s indefinite ban of the Associated Press from the Oval Office has mustered little more than a collective shrug from the rest of the White House press corps. And that lack of journalistic solidarity has been conspicuous — and concerning — to those who follow the media for a living.

Although former CNN anchor Jim Acosta has called for reporters to protest the punitive action against AP by boycotting the White House via his Substack, there have been few signs of the press banding together from major news organizations.

“If we can’t stand up to the silly stuff, what guts do we have to stand up to the important things?” Jeff Jarvis, former associate publisher of the New York Daily News and a current visiting professor at Stony Brook University, told TheWrap.

Jarvis said there is an “infantile silliness” to what the president is doing — but that it should have still served as a rallying cry to fellow journalists. Instead, there has been little pushback among the mainstream press.

“We’re seeing no resistance,” Jarvis said. “Shouldn’t journalists stand up for each other? I think the strongest action would be for the entire decent press corps to walk out of the press room.”

The AP-Trump conflict started Feb. 11, when the White House press team banned the outlet from a press conference that included the president and Elon Musk. The reason? The AP has declined to use the term “Gulf of America” following President Trump’s executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico on government contracts, maps and other documents. Days later, the AP was indefinitely banned for not acquiescing to the gulf’s new government name.

Politico’s Eugene Daniels, who is the president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, called the ban “unacceptable” last week, adding that it was a “textbook violation of the First Amendment.” The WHCA and Daniels did not respond to TheWrap’s request for comment.

A few voices have individually spoken out. CNN’s Abby Phillip publicly backed the AP, saying the outlet “can do whatever they want,” and Acosta proposed “refusing to cover” the president until he stands down from his decision.

Current White House reporters, though, have not had much to say in support of the AP. Some are privately saying it does not concern them.

“I don’t care that much,” one White House reporter, who works for a smaller, non-legacy outlet — told TheWrap when asked about the ban. “This beat is dog eat dog.”

Others are voicing their opinion publicly. Perhaps not surprisingly, Natalie Winters, one of the “new media” faces ushered into the White House briefing room and an outspoken Trump supporter, is not sad to see the AP go. “Good riddance,” she told TheWrap.

“Associated Press, like so many other outlets in that room, parade [around] as nonpartisan. But they’re hardcore left-wing activists looking for every opportunity to snub Trump,” Winters said. “Since Democrats got horrifically destroyed last election, their only hope for resistance is through the mainstream media, and it’s quite apparent in how desperately they’re attacking President Trump. It’s the primal scream of a dying regime.”

Jim Friedlich, CEO of The Lenfest Institute, the nonprofit owner of The Philadelphia Inquirer, has a different view. Friedlich has been calling for a “NATO of News,” where news organizations “have one another’s back.” But that has not been the case here, he told TheWrap.

“It’s been disappointing that most major news organizations have been slow to publicly take up the cause of such a respected colleague,” Friedlich said.

Jarvis echoed Friedlich — and called on White House reporters to take a stand against the president.

Walking out would reveal “what an empty institution” the press briefings are, said Jarvis. “Maybe it is the best thing to do — to demonstrably devalue this institution, because the press conference was invented to manipulate us.”

Looking ahead, it remains uncertain what the AP’s next move is. The outlet is currently in limbo at the White House, where its reporters and photographers still have credentials to the complex. Reps for the AP did not respond to TheWrap’s request for comment on what the outlet’s plan is for covering Trump press conferences moving forward.

Notably, a number of other outlets besides the AP, including Bloomberg and The New York Times, have said they will continue to refer to it as the “Gulf of Mexico.” Axios, meanwhile, issued a statement saying it would adopt Trump’s new designation.

For Trump, the focus on the AP comes down to more than just this particular phrase of contention; it is about the AP being a symbol for what he believes is bogus politically correct language.

The president, during a Tuesday press conference, pointed to the AP using phrases like “undocumented immigrant” instead of illegal immigrant — a switch the AP made to its style guide in 2013, and that many other news outlets follow. At the time, the AP said it made the switch because “a person may have plenty of documents, just not the ones required for legal residence.” That made “undocumented” a more precise term than saying someone is “illegal,” the AP said.

“Some of the phrases they want to use are ridiculous, and I think, frankly, they’ve become obsolete — especially the last three weeks. Because many things have happened in the last three weeks,” he said.

He added that because the AP “refuses” to go with the gulf’s new name, “They’re doing us no favors — and I guess I’m not doing them any favors.”

With no pressure from other outlets for the White House to reverse its ban, could the AP opt to blink and use Gulf of America? Friedlich, for one, is not betting on it.

“I certainly hope they hold firm and fully expect they will. The AP has long-established standards determined by their standards editors, not by the governments they covers. This is as it should be,” Friedlich said.

He added: “There is a separation of powers between government and a free and independent press. That’s what makes the news media free and independent in the first place and essential to the democracy we serve.”

Another possibility is that the AP sues the Trump administration for limiting its access. AP executive editor Julie Pace said last week the ban “is a plain violation of the First Amendment.”

Such a response would make for a fascinating legal battle, according to one First Amendment expert. Lee C. Bollinger, president emeritus at Columbia University, told TheWrap a potential AP-Trump lawsuit would be a monumental case, representing a free speech issue that would enter “unchartered waters,” with both sides having strong arguments in their favor.

“The press does have, as a practical matter, special access rights to the government,” Bollinger said. “The question [becomes], however, ‘Does the First Amendment protect the press in that context?’ — where the government makes choices about who can be in the room. Because obviously not everybody can be in the room. That’s really undeveloped. It’s unclear.”

That has been the Trump administration’s argument in favor of the ban. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt last week said, “Nobody has the right to go into the Oval Office and ask the president of the United States questions. That is an invitation that is given.”

A few days later, Taylor Budowich, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, echoed Leavitt while explaining the ban.

“While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces, like the Oval Office and Air Force One,” Budowich said.

If he had to put money on it, Bollinger said, he would lean slightly towards the AP winning a case, saying the outlet has “more than a 50-50” shot of getting the ban reversed.

“It’s true that the government doesn’t have any special obligations to allow access under the First Amendment to government activities. However, if the government does choose to have press briefings — and there is a long tradition of that — it should not be able to punish particular members of the press, especially established members like the AP, from being present, based upon their viewpoints,” Bollinger explained. “That would be a new First Amendment case, drawing on classic First Amendment principles.”

Based on the scant support of its competitors and its unwillingness to change its style guide to align with the administration, a lawsuit may be the AP’s next move.

The post Where’s the Boycott? Trump’s AP Ban Spurs Calls for Media Solidarity appeared first on TheWrap.