Skip to content
Bramble

US

DOJ opens antitrust inquiry into TV networks' suspension of Trump pool coverage

The Justice Department is investigating whether the major TV networks broke antitrust law by briefly suspending pooled coverage of President Trump, per reports citing the New York Times. The pool was suspended after Trump barred CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House.

9 outlets · 4L · 4C · 1R First reported Account updated

Updated (version 2). New coverage since the last version from BBC News, CBS News, Deadline, Hindustan Times, Newsweek, Raw Story, The Hollywood Reporter.

Image: Variety
Image: BBC News
Image: The Straits Times
Image: Deadline
Image: Raw Story
Image: Newsweek
Image: The Hollywood Reporter
Image: CBS News

1 / 8

The story, neutrally told

Mixed · 2The US Justice Department is investigating whether the major television networks violated federal antitrust law when they briefly suspended pooled coverage of President Donald Trump, according to the New York Times, whose report Variety and The Straits Times relay. Mixed · 2The New York Times, citing six people with knowledge of the matter, said Justice Department officials contacted the networks on Oct 9 and demanded communications and materials related to the White House TV pool; Variety cited three people familiar with the matter and said five of the biggest TV-news outlets were told of the plan. Mixed · 2A Justice Department spokesperson (named by the Times as Emily Covington) said in a statement on Saturday: "Members of the television press pool have proudly boycotted covering White House events. Group boycotts among commercial competitors can violate the Sherman Act." The statement added that the Antitrust Division is "simply investigating to determine whether these news organisations have violated the antitrust laws."

Centre · 3Deadline, the BBC and The Hollywood Reporter quote the same statement without the word "proudly", while Hindustan Times and Raw Story, relaying the Times, include it; Hollywood Reporter's source was a network source who said the DOJ reached out on Friday. Right · 1The pool is a long-standing arrangement in which the networks share responsibility for covering the president and distribute the footage to other outlets. Mixed · 2The suspension followed Trump's decision to bar CNN, Politico and MS NOW from the White House on Sept 18; the Times said he cited "purposely negative stories". The networks stopped providing pool footage for several days in protest.

Centre · 2Deadline says the other four pool members jointly announced the suspension on Sept 21 after CNN was also restricted from the pool, saying "No administration should restrict a news organization because it objects to its reporting"; it lasted about four days and coincided with Chinese President Xi Jinping's White House visit, leaving little video of major ceremonies. The BBC says Trump accused the outlets of writing "fiction or lies" about his team. Mixed · 2CNN, MS NOW and Politico sued, arguing the ban violated their First Amendment rights and deprived them of press credentials "on a whim". The administration argued that White House access is a "privilege". A federal judge issued a temporary block on the ban, which the Times said is set to expire on Oct 13; Variety says the matter remains in the courts. Centre · 2Deadline says Judge Timothy Kelly is expected to rule by Tuesday on whether to grant a preliminary injunction, and notes a separate Associated Press case over its exclusion from the pool is on appeal in the D.C. Circuit; the BBC adds that in February the White House took control of the pool from the White House Correspondents' Association.

Mixed · 2Variety says it is in doubt whether the Justice Department has legal standing, noting the networks have coordinated pool coverage for decades without legal challenge, and expects the move to intensify the White House-media conflict. The Times calls the inquiry a "profound escalation" that fits a pattern of the administration using government levers against perceived media foes, citing subpoenas to New York Times reporters and the seizure of a Washington Post journalist's laptop. Left · 2Raw Story, citing the Times, says the White House pool's refusal to cover events left gaps, including a ribbon-cutting recorded in silence, and that activist Laura Loomer had proposed last month that the DOJ file an antitrust suit; Politico's Kyle Cheney said Loomer appeared to be "dictating DOJ policy". The Hollywood Reporter calls the probe "a sharp escalation, regardless of the legal merits". Mixed · 2The networks did not immediately comment; CNN, CBS News, ABC News, NBC News and Fox News declined or did not respond to Variety, and the White House did not immediately respond to the Times.

Centre · 1Deadline reports that ABC confirmed it had not been notified of the investigation but expected to be.

Every sentence links to the reporting it rests on. The pill in front of each says where its sources sit: Left, Centre or Right when one side supplies at least half of them, Mixed when they are evenly split. The number is how many outlets it cites.

Left4 outlets

Framing
Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Raw Story frame it as an escalation in the administration's fight with the press; Raw Story is most pointed, linking the probe to Laura Loomer.
Charged language
“profound escalation”“dictating DOJ policy”
For example
“Trump admin demands documents in ‘profound escalation’ of feud with press” — Raw Story
“a federal antitrust investigation represents a sharp escalation” — The Hollywood Reporter

Centre4 outlets

Framing
BBC, Deadline and Hindustan Times report the probe mostly as an explainer, giving the DOJ's statement and background on the pool and lawsuits.
Emphasis
Pool mechanics, the Sherman Act, court dates and the AP case.
Leaves out or plays down
Do not mention the Loomer link or the pattern of actions against reporters.
For example
“The agency has asked ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and Fox News to hand over communications related to the White House TV pool” — BBC News
“The Antitrust Division is simply investigating to determine whether these news organizations have violated the antitrust laws.” — Deadline

Right1 outlet

Framing
The Straits Times carries the New York Times report, framing it as a Justice Department check on whether the networks' boycott broke antitrust law.
For example
“The department said it is checking whether the networks’ boycott broke antitrust laws.” — The Straits Times