Trump and the media ban – why silencing the press won’t silence the story
If a tree falls in a forest and there’s no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Maybe that’s a riddle that Trump is one step closer to answering after he banned three news outlets – CNN, Politico and MS NOW – from the White House, accusing them of spreading “fake news” and “fictions and lies” about his team.
In solidarity, the other major US TV networks – including Fox News – pulled out of White House pool duties, meaning there was no usual live television pool coverage of presidential events.
But by limiting his press coverage, did he score an own goal when his presidential activities went uncovered. Like the proverbial tree in the forest, without camera crews ready to beam his every move across the globe, did it actually happen?
Certainly, US broadcast coverage of the first day of Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s visit to the White House, was somewhat lacking as the ban was in full swing. Trump may have been able to rustle up military bands, a fly over and a red-carpet welcome – but he couldn’t deliver the US broadcast coverage that would typically document this historic meeting for millions of Americans – much to the consternation of Chinese officials.
The situation changed, after a federal judge ruled that the ban was likely unlawful and ordered the administration to restore their access – at least for the next 14 days. However, some journalists have still found themselves denied access with Trump’s attorney general arguing “it is a privilege and not a right to be there”.
When the news outlets filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to “defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports”, they said: “Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”
And this really gets to the heart of the issue.
The press is often called the Fourth Estate for its critical role in holding power to account. It needs to be free to report facts fairly and accurately, transparently and honestly. Freedom of speech and of the press is even written into the US’s First Amendment.
The rare show of solidarity among news outlets, who are usually ideologically opposed, shows just how fundamental their belief in delivering journalism to the public is, no matter their individual views.
By muzzling the press, Trump is seeking to exert greater control over the narrative about how he is portrayed. And it’s not a new trick. It’s in the playbook of authoritarian regimes the world over. Trump then leapt to plug the information gap he helped create by pumping out content from his newly launched, 24/7 video channel, Trump TV.
But what he has potentially failed to understand is that just because you ban the press, it doesn’t make bad news go away. The war in Iran. Rising diesel prices. The spat with Canada. It still exists.
One of the news outlets banned, MS NOW, sums it up best when they said in a recent opinion piece that “shooting the messenger never works” and that “unfortunately for Trump, journalists can keep reporting on all those things, whether standing in the Oval Office or safely outside the Secret Service perimeter.”
And what is true for Trump is equally true, on a smaller scale, for any person or organisation. Refusing to talk to the media or saying “no comment” doesn’t make difficult issues go away. It is far better to develop a strategy for handling bad news to try to prevent inaccuracies, provide context and get your point of view across.
Being caught in a media storm can sometimes be a nightmare, but it is far better to deal with it than to pretend no trees have been blown over.
This column appeared in the Western Mail on 5 October 2026 and was written by our Director, Carolyn Pugsley.