A federal court in Washington, D.C. ruled last week that the Pentagon violated the First Amendment when reporters were required to sign an agreement favoring the Department of Defense in exchange for credentials to cover the government’s largest agency.
As a staunch advocate of responsible press freedom, I celebrated the judgment. Officials being covered cannot dictate the rules of coverage. The fourth estate exists to report on the three branches of government without fear or hesitation, provided the coverage remains fair and balanced.
Fair and balanced. What constitutes fair coverage?
When President Trump first ran for office, he characterized the media as “fake news,” a term that has since gained global significance. Trump has a serial tendency of exaggerating and stretching facts, compensated by always being present in front of the cameras and answering reporters’ questions.
Trump, of course, was commenting on the disproportionately negative portrayal of stories involving his campaign and administration. During his first term, press accounts became so overwhelmingly negative that most Americans could see the pattern: legitimate positive stories were suppressed. In contrast, negative stories were amplified and repeated, even when underlying details proved false.
For example, President Trump was misquoted as saying that violence had occurred “on both sides” following the Charlottesville rally, a caricature that stuck. When the George Floyd riots erupted, the entire media establishment held President Trump responsible, although his administration bore no connection to what happened in Minneapolis on that fateful day.
The Biden administration was not far behind. When Ketanji Brown Jackson, President Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court on March 22, 2022, appeared for her Senate confirmation hearing, she famously stated that she could not define the word “woman”: “I can’t... I’m not a biologist”. Today, Jackson sits on the Supreme Court and the liberal media, to this day, never faulted her for her stance.
Biden’s White House went to extreme lengths to control public discourse under the guise of combating misinformation. Working closely with federal agencies, the administration demanded that Big Tech companies remove posts that contradicted government messaging on vaccinations during the COVID pandemic, democracy, human rights, and DEI.
As citizens, we should oppose biased reporting regardless of which side engages in it. We should equally condemn recent actions and statements by FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who threatened to revoke licenses from public media outlets unless the organizations served the “country’s interests”. Carr posted on X: “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.”
We understand the FCC chairman’s point about media serving the country’s interests, but what exactly does that mean? If this requires only reporting the official line from the Trump Pentagon or the Biden Centers for Disease Control, we should reject it entirely.
In a thriving democracy, the press serves as both the first and last line of defense for Americans seeking truth. When the press functions as an independent arbiter, reporting fearlessly about events as they unfold, most of us will stand with the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and other media establishments that filed the First Amendment case against the Pentagon last year and prevailed.
However, the media deserves this First Amendment protection only when it delivers on its promise of independence. The media forfeits protection when it deliberately publishes stories that are plainly untrue.
Consider the New York Times story this week about a Guatemalan woman and her nine-year-old child detained at San Francisco International Airport.
For years, the liberal media maintained that everyone who violates the law must face appropriate punishment. “No one is above the law,” became the liberal mantra for years.
Yet this story ignored the fact that the Guatemalan woman plainly disobeyed the law.
The Border Patrol apprehended her during the first Trump administration in April 2018 as she illegally attempted to cross the border. Illegal entry is a crime unless one submits to border authorities to file asylum paperwork. She did file and was processed, released, and instructed to appear before a court to have her asylum case heard. Everything up to this point was legal.
The Times reported that she missed several court dates without providing details about which hearings she attended and which she skipped. Meanwhile, she was presumably working illegally in the United States, as people released pending asylum decisions receive no work permits.
An immigration judge heard her case in absentia and ruled against her. American law generously permits due process even for those who entered illegally, but failing to appear demonstrates scant regard for our justice system.
The judge’s ruling meant that a United States court had issued a warrant for her arrest and removal. The woman never approached any US government official after the warrant was issued. Even if she had, removal warrants cannot be appealed.
This woman was in clear violation of the law. Responsible reporting should have emphasized this repeatedly.
Eight years later, authorities apprehended her at the airport when she used her Guatemalan passport to board a flight to Miami. Honest reporting would have acknowledged how TSA agents properly informed ICE about her impending flight. Here was a fugitive from justice being apprehended by the government: a textbook case of law enforcement.
The report chose a different emphasis. It stressed that the woman had committed no crimes during her stay in the United States, presumably referring to violent crimes. “According to the congressman for that region, John Garamendi, a Democrat, she had no criminal history, though she entered the country illegally .... It was the latest example of how the Trump administration was rounding up mothers and children instead of focusing its immigration enforcement on dangerous criminals.”
In the Times’ telling, authorities should have allowed the woman to remain in the country despite a judge ordering her deportation. In effect, the New York Times served as a partisan activist for continued illegal immigration without regard to United States law, contradicting the very mantra the Left preaches that no one is above the law.
This version of the New York Times differs sharply from the newspaper that won its court case against the Pentagon. In that case, the Times presented itself as a true fourth estate representative in the mold of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
The press must report fearlessly and truthfully. The government must allow them to do so. When either side abandons its responsibility, democracy suffers.
PS: The woman and her daughter arrived in Guatemala after being deported from Valley International Airport in Harlingen, Texas.
Rajkamal Rao has been a TIPP Insights columnist and member of the Editorial Board for over four years. He also publishes on Substack, with all of his work available for free. Readers may subscribe to get new articles sent straight to their inbox.
Around 2,000 U.S. Paratroopers Sent To Middle East
The Pentagon says it is deploying 2,000 airborne troops to the Middle East, even as U.S. President Donald Trump weighs a new diplomatic initiative with Iran.
The move, combined with some 4,500 Marines already en route, brings the total number of ground forces sent to the region since the conflict began to nearly 7,000, marking a new escalation.
The contingent consists of two battalions of roughly 800 soldiers each, along with the division’s commander, Maj. Gen. Brandon Tegtmeier, and supporting staff, according to The New York Times.
The paratroopers are expected to join several thousand Marines already heading to the region, giving Trump a wider range of military options, including potential operations to secure the Strait of Hormuz or carry out other missions.
Israel Plans To Occupy Southern Lebanon
Israel’s military is to occupy a “security zone” against Hezbollah attack up to the Litani River, having destroyed key bridges linking southern Lebanon to the rest of the country.
Israel previously warned the Lebanese government that if it failed to disarm Hezbollah, Israel would carry out the task and that it could lose territory in the process. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the Litani to become the new border between the two countries.
Lebanese politicians asked for talks to avert the crisis and warned that an Israeli occupation would validate Hezbollah, but received no response from Israel, while Hezbollah has vowed to “confront the aggression and cling to the land”.
Lebanon has ordered the departure of the Iranian ambassador and other Iranian diplomats, although the move does not mean diplomatic ties have been severed, a decision criticized by Hezbollah but praised in Israel.
Catch up on today’s highlights, handpicked by our News Editor at TIPP Insights.
1. Iran Refuses Ceasefire As Conflict With U.S. Continues
2. U.S. Sends 1,000 Troops To Middle East Amid Iran War
3. Iran War Threatens To Deepen U.S. Job Market, Say Experts
4. Trump Ceasefire Push Sends Treasury Yields Lower
5. Energy Giants Warn Of Shortages Amid Iran Conflict
6. Over 1,000 Drones Fired As Russia Escalates War In Ukraine
7. North Korea Cites Iran Conflict To Defend Nuclear Arsenal
8. Trump To Meet Xi In China In May, White House Confirms
9. China Mobile Bets Big On Hong Kong For AI And Data Growth
10. Mortgage Demand Falls As Rates Hit Highest Level Since October
11. Prosecutor Admits No Evidence In Case Against Fed Chair Powell: Report
12. Trump Names Zuckerberg, Huang To Science And Tech Panel
13. Meta Lays Off Workers Across Facebook And Reality Labs
14. Why UK Is Testing Social Media Limits For Teens
15. Meta, YouTube Hit With Jury Verdict Over Social Media Harm
editor-tippinsights@technometrica.com
