Skip to content
Bramble

US

CNN, MS NOW and Politico ask judge to extend order restoring White House access

Three news outlets banned from White House grounds on Sept. 19 asked a federal judge for a preliminary injunction to keep their access until their case is resolved. The administration says access is a privilege, not a right.

3 outlets · 1L · 0C · 2R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 2). Rewritten with the latest reporting.

Image: Breitbart
Image: CBS News

1 / 2

The story, neutrally told

CNN, MS NOW and Politico asked a federal court late Monday to block President Trump's ban on them from White House grounds until their case is resolved. The outlets say the administration has "persisted in unpredictably and inconsistently implementing its ban" despite a judge's restraining order, including by barring CNN from pool duties. Their 42-page filing calls the ban an unlawful assault on First Amendment freedoms and says the White House would immediately reinstate a complete ban if it could.

The ban began Sept. 19. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly issued a two-week temporary restraining order last week that restored access but expires Oct. 8. Attorney General Todd Blanche said on ABC that the White House is "the people's house" and that being there is "a privilege, and not a right." CBS reports that Blanche also defended barring CNN from Air Force One, said the president can decide who flies on his plane, and called "misinformation" a national security problem.

CBS reports that Kelly wrote he was skeptical that national security was the actual motivation, and had said at a hearing that the outlets were not given due process. The administration has until Oct. 2 to respond, the outlets are expected to file a final brief by Oct. 5, and Kelly said he would schedule a hearing and rule expeditiously.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on.

Left1 outlet

Framing
Detailed news report centred on the outlets' filing, the administration's pushback and the pool standoff, with legal experts on the dilemma facing networks.
Emphasis
First Amendment and due process arguments, the Air Force One exclusion, the networks' solidarity, judge's skepticism.
Leaves out or plays down
Does not present the legal argument that the Oval Office is the president's own turf.
Charged language
“abruptly banished”“blatant violation”
For example
“The president and his administration have continued to make clear that this ban has only one purpose: to punish reporting he doesn't like,” — CBS News

Centre0 outlets

No centre outlet in our sources has covered this story yet.

Right2 outlets

Framing
Breitbart gives a short wire-style account that describes the outlets as elite, legacy organisations; Reason treats it as a legal explainer on the limits of press access.
Emphasis
Filing deadlines and Blanche's 'privilege' quote (Breitbart); briefing room versus Oval Office precedent and due process ruling (Reason).
Leaves out or plays down
Breitbart omits the Air Force One exclusion, the judge's skepticism of the national security rationale, and the outlets' lawyer's statement.
Charged language
“three elite, legacy news organisations”“combative saga”
For example
“the three elite, legacy news organisations” — Breitbart
“the due process twist that let a judge sidestep the First Amendment question entirely” — Reason