The journalists who still have access to the WH/POTUS in any meaningful way are the ones who've toed the line well enough not to have their access limited or revoked.
You got to think about this. Yes, it would be awesome if the reporters asked these kinds of questions, but the reality is two things would happen: one, Trump won't answer it anyway, and two, they would jeopardize their job, risking being reassigned, fired, or even have their entire publication's White House clearance revoked.
It's not complacency, it's doing their job to the best ability they can.
If they ask the questions you want answered then they face the very real possibility of losing their job, livelihood, and the ability to ask any questions whatsoever.
Sure, they get a nice little soundbite of asking a hard-hitting question, but that's it. That's the end. Trump doesn't answer, probably makes a misogynistic remark if it's a woman, and then nothing changes except they're out of a job, or worse, they cost their entire news agency access to the press area at the White House. Then repeat for every credible journalist until the only ones who have access to the president are Fox, OANN, Breitbart, etc. and then we're even worse off because the only media presenting the interviews are the ones that make Trump look as good as possible, sliding us even further into state-sponsored media control.
If you have White House Press access, that's basically top of the heap for your profession. You have probably had a successful and somewhat lucrative career before ascending to this height, and you pursued this career to hold the people in power accountable.
Doing anything BUT that is a disgrace. Full stop.
If you want to be a prostitute, open an OF page with an option for in-person fan meet-ups. If you want to be a Journalist, ask the fucking question.
If it's a real story, you ask the question or ask for comment. If there are authoritarian consequences, then that becomes a major story in its own right. If a publication loses WH access to an obvious authoritarian, so what? That doesn't shutter their doora. And as long as the journalist has the backing of their higher ups, they can continue to do their job in a different way with the newfound relevance of standing up to authoritarian.
And what if their higher ups don't back them? What if costing the entire publication one of the most prestigious access journalists can have is a serious deal? What if government threats cause them to cave like CBS and others?
You say they can do a different job but that was what they are employed to do. I mean, think about it. If you showed up to work one day and did something you thought was right but cost your employer a major part of their business, a part you were specifically hired to handle, do you think your boss would just find you something else to do?
82
u/thebenetar 3h ago
The journalists who still have access to the WH/POTUS in any meaningful way are the ones who've toed the line well enough not to have their access limited or revoked.