Much has been said about the blatant unconstitutionality of the Trump administration’s retaliation against The Associated Press and White House Correspondents’ Association. It’s un-American for presidents to claim the right to put words in journalists’ mouths, and a press pool that is handpicked by the government is by definition not a free press.
But the egregiousness of Trump’s power play has taken attention away from its practical implications. Specifically, the exclusion of the AP and Reuters — two of the three wire services previously included in the White House press pool — is guaranteed to harm local news outlets nationwide and the Americans who rely on them to stay informed. Outlets that serve Trump supporters won’t be exempt from the consequences.
To unpack the recent changes and discuss the impact of Trump’s recent antics, the deputy director of audience for Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), Ahmed Zidan, sat down on Feb. 26 with Kirstin McCudden, the managing editor of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, a project of FPF. McCudden knows the importance of wire services to the media ecosystem firsthand from her career working for local papers all over the United States.
Can you get us up to speed? What’s going on?
During a briefing on Feb. 25, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that the Trump administration would now decide which media outlets get to participate in the “presidential reporting pool,” a group of reporters who cover the president and White House.
That night, following the announcement, the White House replaced the Huffington Post and Reuters, a news wire agency. This follows the Trump administration’s ban earlier this month of The Associated Press, another news wire agency, from White House events, because it would not refer to the Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America, and the Associated Press’s lawsuit in response to that ban, which legal experts everywhere say violated the First Amendment.
What is a pool reporter exactly?
A pool reporter serves the public, historically, not the president. Not every outlet in the world can be at the White House at once. One, many many outlets can’t afford to have a Washington, D.C., bureau, and two, there are logistical realities — the Oval Office, Air Force One, and the press briefing room aren’t that large.
For decades, the White House Correspondents’ Association and its members have determined who is part of the pool rotation — to sit in one of the 13 seats on Air Force One, for example. And that pool reporter has an obligation to share — even before publishing for their own outlet — the historical record of whatever event or important discussion they witnessed.
How significant is it for two news wire agencies — The Associated Press and Reuters — to be absent from the pool?
There’s a lot about this change that’s disconcerting. The president is now choosing who is covering him. But as a journalist who has worked in newspapers and outlets from Texas to Florida to Missouri, I can tell you that the loss of the AP and Reuters from the pool will fundamentally change what news we’re all getting on a day-to-day basis. The AP and Reuters are news wire services, two of the three wire services that were part of the pool. Bloomberg News is the third. Wire agencies act like a subscription service for news — they’re responsible for gathering news and distributing it.
Media outlets of all sizes — from The New York Times to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times -– where I once worked — can rely on wire services to help round out their content. To drive that point home, AP, Reuters, and Bloomberg released a joint statement today underlying this fact: “Much of the White House coverage people see in their local news outlets, wherever they are in the world, comes from the wires.”
This loss “harms the spread of reliable information.” And reliable information is key here.
Kirstin McCudden, managing editor of the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker"People across the country, of all political interests, are going to very soon find themselves less informed as a result of the absence of AP and Reuters from the presidential pool."
Some would rather their favorite news outlet step into AP’s shoes — is that possible?
It’s understandable but simply, no, not overnight. These news wire services have a distribution system and long-standing contractual agreements with tens of thousands of media outlets globally. Even if you prefer that your local outlet picks from Breitbart rather than Reuters, there is no distribution system in place today.
Much of the White House coverage people see in their local news outlets, wherever they are in the world, comes from the wires. Excluding the AP, Reuters, and others from the pool will make it harder for local papers to operate. It could lead to even more closures and news deserts.
What do you say to people who say “Why should I care about The Associated Press or Reuters, as long as I just get my national news from X or other social media platforms?”
Social media may be a good place to find hot takes and commentary, but we all need the facts to originate from a trusted source. Even Trump isn’t suggesting news outlets shouldn’t have a role in informing the public about the White House — he just wants to choose which ones, and his choices don’t include leading wire services.
I think it’s important to pause and understand the role the AP and Reuters, these wire agencies, play in the media ecosystem. The loss — that we now have a president dictating who can ask him questions — can’t be overstated. People across the country, of all political interests, are going to very soon find themselves less informed as a result of this.
Do you have anything else to add?
People should take the time to understand what the press pool is. It’s OK to not have thought about it before this week because it is a system that has worked. Look at your local outlets and see where that news is coming from and think about the impact that this change will have on your own media ecosystem.
