Take out your Donald Trump’s Cautionary Tales exercise book and turn to the next blank page. At the top write the word ‘Accreditation’. Today we are going to talk about ways this process has been weaponised to silence journalists who might say nasty things about the American president.
Like other entries in your exercise book – yes, I know there aren’t many empty pages left – it will serve as yet another warning about the ways the levers of government and democracy can be manipulated to serve the ends of unscrupulous leaders. You may remember that, previously, we talked about the lessons for other democracies that have been coming out of the White House and referred to the application of these lessons as ‘The Trump Filter’. It applies a simple question: “Could this be misused or abused by a future government or leader, the nature of which we do not yet know?”
Today we are going to talk about the ability of governments to grant or withhold access for journalists to the agencies of state. One way or another, it is accreditation. I say ‘one way or another’ because granting it can be direct or indirect, and it may be used not only to silence journalists but to manipulate what the public gets to see and hear.
Accreditation has a long history. In England in 1557, the Company of Stationers received a charter (the 16th century equivalent of accreditation) conferring on its members the exclusive right to own a press. It not only confined printing to London but also conferred powers of search and seizure to confiscate unauthorised books and pamphlets – monopoly in exchange for censorship. Although he almost certainly is ignorant of that history, Mr Trump is currently employing updated forms of licensing and coercion in pursuit of a ‘tame’ media.
Write in your exercise book: “Accreditation is a form of licensing”. You might add a footnote that licensing of the presses ended in England in 1695 but that other forms of accreditation have endured there and elsewhere ever since.
The Trump Administration’s latest use of the device has taken shape in Arlington, Virginia, at the Pentagon.
In order to tread the corridors of the Pentagon and attend its media conferences, journalists require accreditation. Earlier this month, the Pentagon began restricting access to the building, allowing in only journalists who had signed a 21-page document governing everything from banning the soliciting of news tips to only publishing approved material. Those who didn’t sign were given a short period in which to clear their workspaces in Pentagon’s two media rooms.
Major media outlets including the New York Times, Washington post, Wall Street Journal and CNN refused to sign, and their staff were forced to forfeit their Pentagon badges.
Last week, the Department of Defense (or Department of War as the president renamed it with the stroke of a pen), announced that a ‘next generation’ press corps was now present in the Pentagon, with dozens of new reporters signing the new rules. Numerous right-wing, pro-Trump online outlets are among the new 86-strong Pentagon Press Corps. Only 26 were previously accredited outlets that had decided to sign the new agreement.
As a result, official access to the Pentagon, and what goes on within it, will now be in the hands of a group of journalists (I use the term loosely) and media outlets that are demonstrably supporters of the Trump Administration. Write in your exercise book: ‘The new Pentagon press corps is an example of weaponised accreditation’.
Of course, this will not stop reporting of military matters by those organisations whose principles would not allow them to bow to obvious pressure to control the narrative. However, it will be more difficult for the likes of the New York Times and CNN to access information and, equally importantly, to gain access to military facilities and operations.
All this has happened as the White House orders the US Navy’s ‘most lethal combat platform’– the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Gerald Ford – to the Caribbean in a significant escalation of military pressure on Venezuela over alleged drug trafficking. Now the non-accredited will have to rely more on unofficial sources to get the story.
They have already demonstrated they will not stop reporting as a result of the ban. Reuters subsequently broke the news about survivors of a U.S. attack on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean – a day before Trump confirmed it. The New York Times broke news of the sudden retirement of the head of the U.S. Navy’s Southern Command, which oversees operations in Central and South America, including use of the military in the administration’s drug-fighting efforts.
The Pentagon is the latest space to which President Trump has attempted to restrict reporter access. Earlier this year he banned Associated Press from the Oval Office and Air Force One. After a temporary reprieve, appeal court judges upheld the presidential ban. Only the US Supreme Court can now restore AP’s rights. That court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
Could accreditation restrictions be applied in New Zealand? The short answer is ‘yes’. Write that in your exercise book.
Although journalists are accredited to report Parliament through the self-governing Press Gallery, those accreditations are subject to final approval by the Speaker of the House – appointed by the governing majority. Journalists’ applications for membership of the Gallery (and the right to report proceedings and attend media events within the precincts of Parliament) have been vetoed in the past.
There were two example last year. The first was an application by Victoria University’s Salient student magazine to have its associate gallery membership renewed. It was refused by the Speaker Gerry Brownlee, who maintained the refusal related to swipe card security and not media access. It was eventually renewed.
Later in the year, the Speaker barred investigative reporter Aaron Smale from attending the official Crown apology to victims of abuse in state care after ministers cited concerns over the style and manner of his questioning during the abuse inquiry (which he had covered diligently). The decision was reversed after a significant backlash from survivors.
The episodes illustrate potential for weaponised accreditation, if nothing else. You may wish to put references in your exercise book.
Credentialling is not limited to the political arena.
The Criminal Procedures Act states that, in order to report our courts and tribunals, journalists must be subject to oversight by either the Broadcasting Standards Authority or the Media Council.
Earlier this month veteran journalist Jenny Ruth was excluded from a Human Rights Review Tribunal hearing because she was not deemed to be an accredited journalist. She is one of New Zealand’s most experienced business journalists, and has worked for the NZ Herald, NBR and BusinessDesk in a career spanning more than 40 years. She is now an independent journalist who publishes articles on her subscriber-supported Substack platform. She is not, however, a member of the Media Council or BSA. Such is the power of accreditation.
Could other laws be introduced or changed to control journalistic access elsewhere? If we apply the Trump Filter, the answer you may wish to note down in your exercise book is: “Potentially, yes”.
These are the direct forms of accreditation. However, there is a more subtle form in Trump’s America which may be characterised as “membership of the club”. The ‘club’ is made up of those who are prepared to kowtow in order to avoid sanctions and restrictions being placed on their businesses or activities.
The club is by no means limited to media. Universities have joined it in order to gain preference for federal funding. The compact they have signed contains, among other things, provisions that restrict free speech. A fortnight ago, MIT refused to sign up, saying it was “inconsistent with our core beliefs”.
Sadly, however, media organisations are also in the club. The media advocacy group Free Press has compiled a Media Capitulation Index of the 35 largest media companies In the United States. It rates (on a scale of one to five) the degree to which each media company has compromised its commitment to independent news and information.
Sixteen of the 35 online, broadcast, cable, and publishing companies scored three or higher. Unsurprisingly, the most compromised were Trump Media and Elon Musk’s X. However, Amazon, Meta, Fox, Paramount, and the Los Angeles Times rated scores of four. These are powerful media entities with the ability to project a particular worldview to vast audiences.
The index shows that media organisations may be induced to join the club – to gain accreditation – in exchange for political favours and higher profits, or simply to get an aggressive government off their back.
Make a note: Journalism is vulnerable when it sits within an organisation that is unprincipled, avaricious, or weakened to the point where it can be coerced by Trump-like influences. It illustrates that not all forms of accreditation are either positive or principled.
We are in the fortunate position in New Zealand that the events unfolding in the United States stand only as cautionary tales. We can take comfort from history that shows suppression sparks a countervailing determination to be heard. Mr Trump will, no doubt, ultimately feel the fury of journalists scorned.
Do not, however, discard your exercise book. Just as nothing in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights foresaw the likes of Donald John Trump, we cannot discount the possibility that somewhere in our future may lurk a would-be dictator.
As the old proverb says: Forewarned is forearmed. Write that on the cover.