Editor's note: All opinions, columns and letters reflect the views of the individual writer and not necessarily those of the IDS or its staffers.
Recently, the press have come under fire at the White House. Reporters from CNN, MS NOW and Politico were banned from the White House press pool. While a federal judge ruled Thursday the ban was unconstitutional, there were times throughout the week when there was no media coverage of Trump because the five news outlets that make up the press pool had suspended coverage in solidarity in response to the ban. The dispute over the press pool is ongoing, with CNN reporters barred from Air Force One ahead of Trump’s visit to Tennessee on Saturday.
To replace these reporters, Trump promoted the “White House App” and “Trump TV,” which act as a direct link between citizens and the White House. The website for the “White House App” advertises it as a way to “stay up to date on policy initiatives, key victories, and major developments — no filter, no spin.” This statement begets a distinct possibility for government-produced media that borders on political propaganda.
Before the birth of social media, news from the government had to be spread through daily press releases and newspapers. Now, we can be instantly notified of major events that occur in the White House. Or, we can be subjected to incoherent, AI-generated memes that are posted by our president in late-night sprees. A recent batch included images of trash bags laid outside the White House, with the CNN, MSNBC and Politico logos on each bag.
In another example of egregious overreaches on social media, the San Francisco city attorney sued Trump Media, the parent company of Trump’s Truth Social platform, for allowing insider stock trading by selling early access to posts.
Historically, different presidents have expanded the ways in which information is relayed to citizens based on the technology of the era. During the Great Depression and World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt used radio to directly communicate with the American public in his famous fireside chats. More recently, former President Barack Obama used social media during his first presidential campaign to mobilize voters.
These are instances of the expansion of the bully pulpit, a term coined by Theodore Roosevelt, who used the word “bully” to mean “excellent” or “very good” in a way to describe how presidents or people in power have the ability to greatly wield public attention.
Campaigning politicians and government officials using media as a means to communicate with the public is nothing new. In most cases, this direct access was often beneficial: in FDR’s case, citizens were informed about what was going on overseas in the war. For presidents like Obama, citizens could more easily engage in the democratic process.
However, what we are seeing under Trump goes beyond what any president has ever done with the bully pulpit. Trump is bypassing traditional methods of information dissemination in ways that are detrimental to our democracy. If only the White House gets to decide what information is shared — especially in the forum of social media — misinformation, AI-doctored images and a lack of credibility will result in an uninformed public that is already struggling with an overload of information online.
By using these tactics citizens will lose trust in official White House press releases and the journalism surrounding the government, leaving citizens with few options for reliable information and furthering the process of mistrust.
The way the White House and the press release information is not dictated by law but is assumed through norms that govern behavior. The existence of the press pool, the small group of rotating journalists that travels with the president, is not directly mandated through law. It is through the First Amendment’s freedom of the press that the press pool can exist, but the operations and activities of the pool are based on tradition, going back to the presidency of James A. Garfield in 1881.
Presidential social media is governed through norms as well. The thing about norms, though, is that anyone can break them. Currently, the relationship between the White House and the press is in a precarious situation. If as citizens, we allow government overreach to continue, our norms may shift beyond reparation.
In the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy’s "Authoritarian Playbook," spreading disinformation and quashing dissent are listed as two markers of democratic backsliding into authoritarianism. Clearly, we need to reevaluate the extent to which government officials, and especially Trump, should be able to use social media as a political tool.
When government media channels are used respectfully, and when governments respect the press, citizens gain awareness of major events and leaders are held accountable. Currently, the White House is using its media irresponsibly, spreading misinformation and insulting imagery.
We need to elect leaders who have a commitment to transparency, free press and respectful language. We cannot go back to the days before social media, but we can demand that our leaders adhere to the standards that our democracy deserves.
Rebekah Arnold (she/her) is a freshman studying Global Media.
