Journalism

Over the first six months of this young presidency, President Donald Trump’s approach to the office has been characterized by self-interest, defiance of basic democratic norms, and often incoherent or self-contradictory communications and priorities. In the face of historic lows in public trust in government and an increasingly polarized electorate, we’ve seen a regression to secrecy in both Congress and the White House. The change has not gone unnoticed around the globe, as our nation’s standing to defend democracy and our government’s ability to advocate for anti-corruption efforts has been precipitously eroded.

In this report, we offer a comprehensive but not exhaustive accounting of the Trump administration’s record on open government to date. More than seven months after we first considered what Trump would mean for open government, the questions we sent to the White House were never formally answered. The actions of this administration, however, speak for themselves. Whatever transparency the President of the United States is demonstrating by speaking directly to the public on Twitter is outweighed by his refusal to disclose and divest, undermined by the opacity of their authorship, and weighted down by false claims and misleading assertions. This president publicly accused his predecessor of wiretapping his campaign with no evidence. If that’s transparency, the word itself has been devalued. Our conclusion on the Trump administration’s record on open government at six months is inescapable: this is a secretive administration, allergic to transparency, ethically compromised, and hostile to the essential role that journalism plays in a democracy.

The New York Times has asked that the television show “Fox & Friends” apologize for what a Times spokeswoman described as a “malicious and inaccurate segment” that aired the week of July 17 accusing the paper of publishing a story in 2015 that had hindered the United States military’s attempt to kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.

In response, Fox News late on July 223 published an update to a story on its website and acknowledged the change in a brief “Fox & Friends” segment the morning of July 24. Both the updated article and the TV segment added part of a comment from The Times stating that the paper had described the piece to the Pentagon before publication and “they had no objections.” Neither the article nor the segment acknowledged the paper’s request for an apology nor did they respond directly to the accusations of inaccuracy.

[Commentary] When I was White House communications director for President Barack Obama I would warn the White House press corps that they were living on borrowed time. In a digital age, with the proliferation of communication platforms, the media was eventually going to need a better answer for why 50 or so reporters deserved daily access to the White House — access not available to other outlets and the general public. Now, the clock has run out. The ultimate disrupter, in the form of President Donald Trump, is seeking to change nearly every rule that presidents and the reporters who cover them have lived by. To lose this give and take — either by refusing to turn on the cameras or by putting a showman at the podium — would be a significant blow to an accountable democracy.

[Jennifer Palmieri served as White House communications director from 2013 to 2015 and was communications director for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign]

Following the 2016 election, which had one of the largest gender gaps in history, women are more likely than men to say they are paying increased attention to politics. And while far more Democrats than Republicans say they have attended a political event, rally or protest since the election, Democratic women – especially younger women and those with postgraduate degrees – are among the most likely to have participated in such a political gathering.

The latest national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted June 27 to July 9 among 2,505 adults, finds that 52% of Americans say they are paying more attention to politics since Donald Trump’s election; 33% say they are paying about the same amount of attention, while 13% say they are paying less attention to politics. The new survey also finds that, nearly nine months after the election, most people (59%) say it is “stressful and frustrating” to talk about politics with people who have a different opinion of Trump than they do; just 35% find such conversations “interesting and informative."

President Donald Trump spoke on July 19 with three New York Times reporters — Peter Baker, Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman — in an exclusive interview in the Oval Office.

BAKER: I do want to come out, on the email, now that you have seen that email that said Russia’s government — I mean, how did you — did you interpret it that way?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I thought originally it might have had to do something with the payment by Russia of the DNC. Somewhere I heard that. Like, it was an illegal act done by the DNC, or the Democrats. That’s what I had heard. Now, I don’t know where I heard it, but I had heard that it had to do something with illegal acts with respect to the DNC. Now, you know, when you look at the kind of stuff that came out, that was, that was some pretty horrific things came out of that. But that’s what I had heard. But I don’t know what it means. All I know is this: When somebody calls up and they say, “We have infor—” Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff.

[Later On.]
BAKER: This is why I want to come back to that email, because, like — does it concern you? Let’s say that the election didn’t change because of anything Russia did, which has been your point, right? You point —
TRUMP: By the way, it’s everybody.
BAKER: Right, your point is that Democrats are trying to use this as an excuse, fine. But did that email concern you, that the Russian government was trying something to compromise——
TRUMP: You know, Peter, I didn’t look into it very closely, to be honest with you.
BAKER: O.K.
TRUMP: I just heard there was an email requesting a meeting or something — yeah, requesting a meeting. That they have information on Hillary Clinton, and I said — I mean, this was standard political stuff.

At every White House news briefing since June 29 — and many before, too — President Donald Trump's spokesmen have ordered a room full of smartphone-toting journalists not to film the session or even broadcast live audio. On July 19, one reporter defied the White House by streaming live sound of the briefing online. Ksenija Pavlovic, a former political science teaching fellow at Yale who founded a news site called Pavlovic Today, used the Periscope app to stream audio of July 19's briefing. She tweeted a link to the feed. The sound quality was poor, but deputy White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders could be heard introducing Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short, who addressed reporters before Sanders took questions. Pavlovic's feed cut out after about 17 minutes, while Short was still talking, but she quickly resumed streaming and tweeted a new link that carried another 31 minutes.

On July 19, 2017, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing to examine the nominations of Ajit Pai, Jessica Rosenworcel, and Brendan Carr for seats on the Federal Communications Commission.

On March 7, President Donald Trump nominated Pai, the FCC’s current chairman, for a second five-year term ending June 30, 2021. Rosenworcel is nominated for a term that would end June 30, 2020. Carr, the current general counsel at the FCC, has actually been nominated for two terms, one expiring June 30, 2018 and the second ending June 30, 2023. Carr served as legal adviser to then-FCC Commissioner Pai for three years before Pai was named chairman and appointed Carr as general counsel.

Committee Chairman John Thune (R-SD) characterized the hearing as both an examination of the nominees and a FCC oversight hearing, “fulfilling a commitment I’ve made to hold regular, biannual oversight hearings of the Commission.” His opinions of the nominees: “In my view, the FCC will be in very good hands when all three of these nominees are confirmed.” He noted Chairman Pai’s efforts around transparency and FCC processes, network neutrality, and robocall prevention.

Sen Bill Nelson (D-FL), the committee’s ranking member, raised issues around all three nominations. Concerning Rosenworcel, he noted that she should not have been forced to step down from the FCC at the end of 2016 when the Senate failed to reconfirm her.

Sen. Nelson identified two concerns about Brendon Carr: 1) “two consecutive terms to which the Senate is being asked to confirm you would provide you with the longest single, initial period of service of any nominee to the FCC” and 2) “it is hard to recall a similar situation where someone was nominated to serve at the commission alongside, rather than to follow, their current boss.” He stressed that it is important to have commissioners who have independent voices and “ones who will fight for consumers and the public interest.” He later asked Carr to cite an issue that he and Chairman Pai disagree on – Carr failed to answer on more than one occasion. “Going forward, I’ll make my own decisions; I’ll call it the way I see it,” Carr said. “I think my record shows that I’m not a shrinking violet.” Sen. Nelson called that response “not confidence-building.”

Finally, Sen. Nelson congratulated Chairman Pai on some recent pro-consumer actions, but said, “[M]any view these most recent consumer protection actions as mere icing on what is otherwise an unpalatable cake. A cake constructed out of actions that eliminate competitive protections, that threaten dangerous industry consolidation, that make the Internet less free and less open, and that weaken critical consumer protections for those most vulnerable.”

Net Neutrality

Network neutrality and the FCC’s 2015 decision to classify broadband internet access service providers as telecommunications providers under Title II of the Communications Act were key issues for the hearing. In his opening remarks, Chairman Thune said,

“I am pleased that Chairman Pai has sought to hit the reset button on the 2015 Title II Order, because, as I have previously said, the FCC should do what is necessary to rebalance the agency’s regulatory posture under current law. I continue to believe, however, that the best way to provide long-term protections for the Internet is for Congress to pass bipartisan legislation. Two and a half years ago I put forward legislative principles and a draft bill to begin the conversation, and I stand ready and willing today to work toward finding a lasting legislative solution that will resolve the dispute over net neutrality once and for all.”

Two senators questioned the nominees about the impact of the Title II decision on broadband investment in the US. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) cited stats, offered by broadband providers, that investment has gone down. He took issue with a New York Times story that said investment had gone up since the 2015 order. He said that increase included foreign investment, some of which he said was spurred by the Title II disincentive to invest in the US, and that there was evidence that US infrastructure investment had declined precipitously.

On the other side was Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) who said that almost half of the venture capital funds, or about $25 billion, invested since 2015 was in Internet-related businesses, with broadband providers investing $87 billion, the highest rate in a decade. Sen Markey said investment and job creation are high, so there is no problem that rolling back Title II or reviewing net neutrality rules would fix.

Both senators asked Chairman Pai for his take on their respective views, but the chairman's answer was cautious given that he has an open proceeding before him and comments on his proposal to roll back Title II and review the rules are still coming in. He said that evidence of decreased investment was one of his concerns, but that the FCC was testing that theory, as well as the opposite, as part of its due diligence.

E-Rate

While Rosenworcel, Carr and Chairman Pai all generally agreed on the importance of the FCC's E-rate program -- which makes broadband services more affordable for schools and libraries -- they initially refrained from an outright promise not to cut its funding. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) had to ask Rosenworcel a second time before she explicitly said she would not reduce the funding for E-rate. Neither Pai nor Carr would make that commitment.

Broadband Deployment

The three nominees were largely unanimous on measures to expedite rural broadband like “dig once” policies, which require installation of conduits for fiber-optic cable when preparing infrastructure such as roads. The policies aim to reduce cost and limit wait times for installing fiber in different municipalities.

“I think it would be helpful for ‘dig once’ policies and similar policies to be the law of the land,” Chairman Pai told Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN).

“The agency, working with local jurisdictions, should try to come up with a model code — one that includes policies like ‘dig once,’” Rosenworcel said. She added that there should be incentives built in for local communities to adopt the model.

Senators also pressed the three on the need for accurate coverage maps so that subsidies issued to companies to build out their infrastructure are actually targeted to the right places.

“I would hope to get your commitment that the commission will work to ensure that mapping data used at the FCC accurately accounts for on-the-ground mobile coverage,” said Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). The nominees affirmed they are committed to working toward ensuring accurate data coverage moving forward.

First Amendment

Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) pressed all of the nominees on their commitment to the First Amendment in light of the many statements President Trump has made disparaging outlets covering his Administration. Sen. Udall pointed to a story that the White House could use AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner as a way to punish CNN for its stories and suggested the Administration might want to reward Sinclair by approving Sinclair’s purchase of Tribune television stations. Each of the nominees pledged to speak out against violence or intimidation against journalists. Chairman Pai reiterated that the White House had not contacted him about retaliating against negative news stories and said he would not do so if asked. And he promised that the FCC would not be used to punish media companies or reward others and would be troubled by any attempt to pressure it to do so.

"I have not directly had any conversations with anyone in the administration with respect to media regulatory proceedings," Chairman Pai said. "To the best of my knowledge, no one on my staff or in the FCC has indirectly had any such conversations as well."

“I have consistently stated that I believe … that First Amendment freedoms, including the freedom of the press, are critical,” Pai added. “If I were ever asked by anyone in the administration to take retaliatory action, for instance, in a media regulatory proceeding, I would not do so.”

Conclusion

If all of the hearing’s nominees are confirmed by the full Senate, the FCC would have a 3-2 Republican majority. Senators on the committee have until July 21 to submit additional questions for the nominees who will be given time to reply in writing.

“The pen is mightier than the sword.” It’s true. Every day I watch as journalists’ pens cut down Black lives. Last week in Bridgeport (CT), Aaron Tucker skipped the job interview he was traveling to and instead jumped from a city bus to save a stranger from a burning car — only to be referred to as an “ex-con” in a CBS News headline. Did this headline commit any factual errors? No. What it committed was worse: perpetuation of toxic racial bias.

References like “ex-con” reduce Black folks’ humanity in a way that White subjects rarely experience. Aaron Tucker could have been referred to as “resident,” “young father,” “community hero” or simply “man” to the exact same effect. What will it take for journalists to understand that Black lives are greater than a small portion of their deeds, worthy of the same grace and complexity of perception afforded to those who happen to be White? When will journalists take responsibility for the way they wield their swords?

[Commentary] Fakes in the world of print publishing are relatively easy to discredit if not always to spot. Inconsistencies, errors, and—perhaps most importantly—widely accessible originals, make the job of persuasively forging content a significant challenge. In digital publishing, however, even maintaining original content cannot be taken for granted.

Being able to identify genuine digital material is “a huge issue,” says David Schulz, a prominent First Amendment lawyer and director of the Media Freedom & Information Access Clinic at Yale Law School. Given the increasing sophistication of fake digital content, Schulz asks, “How do you prove something was ‘out there’? How do you prove it’s authentic?” If reputable news organizations digitally sign their content, it would increase the difficulty of creating fake news by raising doubts about material that isn’t similarly authenticated. Likewise, developing such a standard would support archives that can withstand attempts to reauthor history. Although the technical challenge is substantial, it’s also one that is important to take on, as new organizations strive to rebuild public trust and set their work apart from that of content mills and fake news factories.

[Susan McGregor is Assistant Director of the Tow Center for Digital Journalism and Assistant Professor at Columbia School of Journalism.]

A majority of American voters trusts major media outlets more than President Trump, according to a new survey from a left-leaning polling firm. Fifty-four percent of Americans told Public Policy Polling they trust CNN more than Trump, while 39 percent said they trust the president more than the cable news network. Seven percent of voters said they were not sure. Majorities also said they trust ABC and NBC more than the commander in chief, at 56 percent apiece, while 38 percent responded to separate questions that they trust the president more than the news networks. Six percent said they were not sure in their responses. Fifty-five percent, meanwhile, said they trust The New York Times more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 7 percent said they were not sure. And 53 percent said they trust The Washington Post more than the president, while 38 percent chose Trump and 9 percent were not sure.