Washington Post

John Gizzi, the chief political correspondent for the conservative Newsmax Media news group, is enjoying newfound access at the White House. During the first two weeks of the Trump administration, press secretary Sean Spicer has picked him out several times from among the jostling mob of journalists seeking to question the administration. Gizzi’s change of fortune reflects a small but important change in the way Spicer, and the Trump administration generally, has approached the news media.

Once relegated to a secondary role under President Barack Obama and President George W. Bush’s press secretaries, smaller, primarily-conservative news outfits — Newsmax, Townhall, the Blaze, the Daily Caller and Breitbart, among them — are now first among equals in Spicer’s daily encounters with the press. Reporters from once-favored mainstream news outlets haven’t exactly been shut out by Spicer. But at some briefings, he’s ignored the entreaties of journalists from The Washington Post, CNN and the New York Times — all of which President Trump has singled out for criticism — to call on reporters for outlets that used to be an afterthought. The White House also appears to have steered Trump’s TV interviews to favorable outlets, too.

Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway may have broken a key ethics rule when she told TV audiences to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff.” Federal law bans employees from using their public office to endorse products. Conway, speaking to “Fox & Friends” viewers from the White House briefing room, was responding to boycotts of Ivanka Trump merchandise and Nordstrom’s discontinuation of stocking her clothing and shoe lines, which the retailer said was in response to low sales and which the President assailed as unfair. “I’m going to give it a free commercial here,” Conway said of the president’s daughter’s merchandise brand. “Go buy it today.” White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that Conway “has been counseled,” but offered no other comment.

[Commentary] If public relations pros don't want to be White House communications director maybe it's because President Donald Trump doesn't really want any of them to be White House communications director, either. The truth is, Trump would rather just do the job himself. Anyone who has witnessed Sean Spicer's first few weeks as White House press secretary might be reluctant to join the Trump media shop. But communications director is more of a behind-the-scenes role. It does not require the person who fills it to go through the gauntlet of the daily press briefing, which means you will not get mocked on "Saturday Night Live" and may be subject to fewer withering critiques from the President himself. The real problem is that it is hard to imagine any communications director feeling empowered to do what the gig typically entails: creating a strategic messaging plan for the White House.

[Commentary] Trump's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, criticized the chief executive's attacks on the federal judge who put his travel ban on hold. Judge Gorsuch reportedly called those attacks “disheartening” and “demoralizing.” On its face, this is a remarkable story. But dig a little deeper and the conspiracy theories begin to seem, well, not so conspiratorial.

Judge Gorsuch approved of Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) publicizing the comments; Gorsuch spokesman Ron Bonjean, an old Washington communications pro, confirmed quickly that Judge Gorsuch had used the words; and Kelly Ayotte, the former Republican senator from New Hampshire who is shepherding Gorsuch's nomination, confirmed the truth of the leak. White House counselor Kellyanne Conway seemed to suggest that the episode was an example of Trump's hands-off approach to his court and Cabinet picks. You can see why people might raise an eyebrow. After all, what better way for Judge Gorsuch to overcome Democratic senators' skepticism about him than to show some independence from President Trump? What better signal that he recognizes the clear separation between the executive branch and the judicial branch? Even if you don't believe in conspiracy theories, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better scenario to help establish Judge Gorsuch as his own man, not beholden to the President.

Once upon a time (like, three months ago), “fake news” had a precise meaning. It referred to total fabrications — made-up stories about Donald Trump suffering a heart attack or earning the pope's endorsement — and the phrase burst into the political lexicon as Facebook and Google vowed to clean up some of the garbage that had polluted the Internet during the presidential election. Since then, conservatives — led by President Trump — have hijacked the term and sought to redefine it as, basically, any reporting they don't like.

At the extreme end of absurdity, Trump actually asserted that “any negative polls are fake news.” All but Trump's most lemming-like followers will recognize the logical fallacy of such a statement. The risk that voters, on the whole, will accept the idea that “negative equals fake” is probably very low. More insidious is the notion that a report qualifies as fake news if it requires a correction. Such an overly broad definition unfairly attaches malicious intent to the kinds of mistakes that inevitably appear in good-faith journalism.

NBC News correspondent Kristen Welker cited a disputed report that Yemen had withdrawn permission to the United States to conduct anti-terrorism ground missions in that country — a result of a raid that resulted in civilian casualties as well as the death of Chief Petty Officer William “Ryan” Owens of the Navy’s SEAL Team 6. Despite reports and commentary insisting that the operation failed, Spicer has insisted that it was a success. Welker asked him, “Does that not undercut the administration’s ability to fight terrorism in that region, and do you stand by your assessment that it’s a success?” There would be no policy change coming from the podium. “It’s absolutely a success,” said Spicer, whose boss has shown a fondness for labeling his own ventures “successful.” “And I think that anyone who would suggest it’s not a success does disservice to the life of Chief … Owens. He fought knowing what was at stake in that mission, and anybody who would suggest otherwise doesn’t fully appreciate how successful that mission was — what the information that they were able to retrieve was and how that will help prevent future terrorist attacks.”

The message? Uh, media outlets — and anyone else, for that matter — had better not undermine “the success of that” raid — as if questioning the raid after the fact could possibly alter anything about the action.

Only rarely is the Web recognized for helping advance the cause of civic education and government transparency. But for a little over an hour on Feb 7, it did an amazing thing.

The Internet brought an enormous number of people together to hear a federal appeals court deliberate over President Trump's entry ban. We're talking about oral argument. In a federal court. Where there wasn't much to see besides a black background and the court's logo. Considering how complex the discussion quickly became, it's all the more stunning how the feed kept attracting new viewers rather than losing them as time went on. At its peak, more than 135,000 people had tuned in to the audio-only proceeding on YouTube — and that's before you count those who were watching the court's live stream from other sources, such as cable TV and Facebook. That's pretty extraordinary — and another sign that in today's digitally connected world, the best technologies make accessible what was previously inaccessible.

Mark Zuckerberg should give up some of his control over Facebook by relinquishing his position as chairman of the board, according to a new proposal by a consumer watchdog group and a few shareholders. The proposal, led by SumOfUs, claims that Facebook's future success requires “a balance of power between the CEO and the board,” and that without a chairman who is independent of the company, Facebook could act without repercussions against investors. “An independent board chair is a necessary first step to put Facebook’s board on the path to effective representation of the interests of all shareholders,” reads the proposal, which goes on to highlight the need for greater accountability amid controversies over fake news, harassment and hate speech. The proposal was received by Facebook on Feb 3.

President Trump’s Twitter assault on the “so-called judge” who put a nationwide hold on the president’s executive order on immigration has motivated Democrats to challenge Trump’s choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, on an important but elusive issue. Is Judge Gorsuch independent enough, they ask, to stand up to the president who picked him?

As the legal battle over Trump’s immigration directive shows, Gorsuch’s nomination lands at a time when the Supreme Court is likely to be called upon to review what Trump already has shown to be a broad reliance on executive power. It is difficult for appeals court judges such as Gorsuch to point to past decisions to demonstrate independence, and few are called upon to make definitive rulings on a president’s powers.

Silicon Valley is stepping up its confrontation with the Trump administration.

Technology giants Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Netflix, Twitter, Uber and many others filed a legal brief opposing the administration’s contentious entry ban. The move represents a rare coordinated action across a broad swath of the industry — 97 companies in total— and demonstrates the depth of animosity toward the Trump ban. The amicus brief was filed with the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is expected to rule within a few days on an appeal by the administration after a federal judge in Seattle issued late Feb 3 a temporary restraining order putting the entry ban on hold. The brief comes at the end of a week of nationwide protests against the plan — as well as a flurry of activity in Silicon Valley, a region that sees immigration as central to its identity as an innovation hub.