SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
society of professional journalists
As Trump Targets AP, Media Urged to Resist Moves Like 'Gulf of America' Renaming
"It's at times like these that journalists need to put down their pens and advocate for accountable leadership," asserted one campaigner.
Feb 14, 2025
First Amendment defenders are calling on media organizations and journalists to stand up to bullying and intimidation by U.S. President Donald Trump, whose administration on Friday confirmed the indefinite exclusion of one of the world's largest news agencies from White House press briefings and Air Force One flights over its refusal to adopt the Republican leader's new name for the Gulf of Mexico.
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich said that because The Associated Press "continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change" of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, it will be indefinitely banned from White House news conferences and the president's official airplane.
"The level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation."
The New York-based AP, which provides news content to roughly 15,000 media outlets in over 100 countries, has explained that, because the gulf is an international body of water, it will continue to call it the Gulf of Mexico because Mexico—whose president on Thursday threatened to sue Google for adopting Trump's name change—and other countries do not recognize the new name.
In contrast, the AP said it will call Denali, the highest peak in North America, Mt. McKinley following a name change by Trump because the Alaska mountain is located entirely inside the United States.
Budowich said the AP's decision on the Gulf of Mexico exposes the agency's "commitment to misinformation."
"While their right to irresponsible and dishonest reporting is protected by the First Amendment, it does not ensure their privilege of unfettered access to limited spaces," he argued.
But critics said the Trump administration's behavior is about a lot more than just a spat over a name change.
"Of course, this is just more petty behavior by a president seeking to punish any news organization that doesn't follow his dictates, regardless of how ridiculous they may be," Timothy Karr, the senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, told Common Dreams on Friday.
"It's at times like these that journalists need to put down their pens and advocate for accountable leadership," Karr stressed. "They need to advocate for themselves, their colleagues, and for journalism writ large."
"The good news is that more than a dozen of the mass market news outlets have refused to adopt Trump's name change for the Gulf of Mexico," he added. "That's a start. They now need to speak out against his First Amendment threats, despite the consequences. There is much more at stake now than just having access to the White House."
"By defying Trump, the AP has created a rallying point for other organizations and individuals to find their spines and defy him as well."
Writing for Public Notice Friday, Noah Berlatsky commended the AP for "not changing their style to suit the whims of a would-be tin-pot dictator."
"And by defying Trump, the AP has created a rallying point for other organizations and individuals to find their spines and defy him as well," Berlatsky added.
Those include the heads of the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) and Reporters Without Borders (RSF), as well as groups like the Committee to Protect Journalists, National Press Club, PEN America, and Society of Professional Journalists.
"The White House cannot dictate how news organizations report the news, nor should it penalize working journalists because it is unhappy with their editors' decisions," WHCA president Eugene Daniels said earlier this week.
RSF USA executive director Clayton Weimers said in a statement that "the level of pettiness displayed by the White House is so incredible that it almost hides the gravity of the situation."
"A sitting president is punishing a major news outlet for its constitutionally protected choice of words," Weimers added. "Donald Trump has been trampling over press freedom since his first day in office."
President Trump banning the Associated Press from an event over their usage of "Gulf of Mexico" instead of "Gulf of America" may seem more absurd than alarming, but Trump's attacks on the free press are no joke.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) February 11, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Numerous experts highlighted what they called the unconstitutionality of banning a media outlet from press briefings for political reasons.
"The AP—a major news agency that produces and distributes reports to thousands of newspapers, radio stations, and TV broadcasters around the world—has had long-standing access to the White House," Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, wrote on Friday.
"It is now losing that access because its exercise of editorial discretion doesn't align with the administration’s preferred messaging," Terr added. "That's viewpoint discrimination, and it's unconstitutional."
Berlatsky wrote: "As ABC, Meta, the LA Times, The Washington Post, and Google demonstrate, you lose 100% of the fights you preemptively and despicably surrender. The AP has already won an important victory by refusing to change the Gulf of Mexico to some random other name at the whim of a power-mad orange gasbag."
"If any portion of Trump's agenda is to be stopped, we need people and organizations who are willing to defy him and speak truths he doesn't want to hear," he added. "Despite Trump, the
AP still calls the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico. In doing so, it's reminding us what freedom looks like. It's also demonstrating us that if you don't want to lose your freedoms, you have to use them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
California-Google Deal Called 'Disaster for Journalism and Good Government'
One critic said the agreement "was hammered out behind closed doors between media giants and tech platforms," and "fails to meet the needs of California's journalists and communities."
Aug 22, 2024
Anti-monopoly and media groups this week are sounding the alarm over a new agreement between California and Google that kills two state bills focused on funding journalism.
Both supporters and critics of the bills—state Sen. Steve Glazer's (D-7) S.B. 1327 and Assemblymember Buffy Wicks' (D-14) A.B. 886, also known as the California Journalism Preservation Act (CJPA)—have expressed concerns about the deal that Wicks announced and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom cheered as "a major breakthrough" on Wednesday.
Glazer's bill would have imposed a 7.25% tax on online advertising revenue to create a tax credit for California newsrooms while the CJPA would have made platforms pay part of their ad revenue to media outlets for using their content. Big Tech was fiercely against both proposals.
Negotiators settled on providing nearly $250 million in private and public funding over the next five years to launch a National AI Accelerator and a News Transformation Fund, to be administered by the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, according to Wicks, who claimed that "this is just the beginning."
As CalMattersreported:
Instead of Google and Meta being forced to negotiate usage fees with news outlets directly, Google would deposit $55 million over five years into a new fund administered by UC Berkeley to be distributed to local newsrooms—and the state would provide $70 million over five years. Google would also continue paying $10 million each year in existing grants to newsrooms.
The Legislature and the governor would still need to approve the state money each year; the source isn't specified yet. Google would also contribute $12.5 million each year toward an artificial intelligence "accelerator" program, raising labor advocates' anxieties about the threat of job losses.
The deal came after more than a year of debate over the bills, during which Google came under fire for testing that involved "removing links to California news websites, potentially covered by CJPA, to measure the impact of the legislation on our product experience," as Jaffer Zaidi, the tech giant's VP for global news partnerships, explained in April.
While the new plan was praised by leaders at CalMatters, Local Independent Online News Publishers, OpenAI—which is also part of the agreement—and Google's parent company, Alphabet, Glazer and various groups put out statements that range from skeptical to scathing.
"Despite the good intentions of the parties involved, this proposal does not provide sufficient resources to bring independent news gathering in California out of its death spiral," Glazer said a lengthy statement. "This agreement, unfortunately, seriously undercuts our work toward a long-term solution to rescue independent journalism."
"There is a stark absence in this announcement of any support for journalism from Meta and Amazon," he added. "These platforms have captured the intimate data from Californians without paying for it. Their use of that data in advertising is the harm to news outlets that this agreement should mitigate."
Charles F. Champion II, president and CEO of the California News Publishers Association, which represents over 700 newspapers and online publications in the state, was less critical, but still not fully pleased with the outcome.
"We appreciate the effort to bring together resources from both the public and private sectors to support local journalism," he said. "However, we believe that the financial commitments from Google and other tech companies should have been more robust, given the substantial revenues they generate from the distribution of journalistic content."
Seven labor union leaders—including Media Guild of the West president Matt Pearce—jointly declared that "California's journalists do not consent to this shakedown," and sent the state Legislature a letter of opposition over what they described as an "undemocratic and secretive deal with one of the businesses destroying our industry."
Noting the union opposition, Society of Professional Journalists national president Ashanti Blaize-Hopkins said that "it is concerning that journalists appeared to lose their seat at the table as this initiative was negotiated."
"At the very least journalists should be deeply involved in how this plan will be rolled out, as it could potentially impact their livelihoods," Blaize-Hopkins added. "As other states study this effort for lessons on how to bolster local journalism, I hope California leaders will set an example that both centers and honors the input of working professionals who fight tirelessly to keep the public informed."
Lee Hepner, senior legal counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project, which backed the CJPA, said Tuesday—before the agreement was officially announced—that "this backroom deal is bad for journalists, publishers, and all Californians, which is why state lawmakers including Gov. Newsom should reject it and proceed through a transparent legislative process."
"The fact that a journalism preservation bill may be replaced with a Google-funded AI Accelerator is not just absurd policy, it's horrendous politics," Hepner continued. "That this AI deal is reportedly close to being finalized and we still don't know the details speaks volumes about who is driving the decision-making process in Sacramento—and it's not the journalists, publishers, or newsrooms who have had their industry hollowed out by Google's monopoly."
After the deal was set, Free Press Action co-CEO Jessica J. González, whose group opposed the CJPA, said that "we are disappointed in this outcome and this process. Good policy is made out in the open, where people can see and participate in the democratic process."
"This deal, meanwhile, was hammered out behind closed doors between media giants and tech platforms," she stressed. "While we're awaiting final details, it seems clear that the result is an agreement that fails to meet the needs of California's journalists and communities."
González continued:
While some newsrooms will benefit from this deal in the short term, the funding is far too meager, the time span far too short, the commitment to localism and diversity far too inadequate. Lawmakers must view this outcome as the first step in a much broader process to revive and transform local news, not as a viable long-term solution.
Local journalism that helps people understand what's happening in their communities and holds the powerful accountable is a public good. Local journalists, community publishers, public interest groups, labor unions, and grassroots advocates worked tirelessly to make this a priority issue for lawmakers.
"Going forward, we encourage lawmakers to continue working with these groups, look beyond short-term measures, and begin envisioning the kind of structural policy change that's needed to truly stabilize and transform our media system," she added. "That means putting community publishers, ethnic media outlets, and nonprofit newsrooms at the center of any legislative intervention. These entities are closest to their communities and are doing incredible work to plug critical information gaps."
Keep ReadingShow Less
30+ News Organizations Condemn 'Chilling' Police Raid on Kansas Newspaper
"Newsroom searches and seizures are among the most intrusive actions law enforcement can take with respect to the free press, and the most potentially suppressive of free speech by the press and the public."
Aug 14, 2023
Dozens of U.S. news organizations on Sunday condemned last week's raid by Kansas police on a local newspaper and publisher's home in what critics called an unconstitutional search they say contributed to the death of the paper's co-owner.
"On August 11, 2023, law enforcement officers with the Marion Police Department (MPD) executed a search warrant at the Marion County Record's newsroom and at its publisher's home, and seized the Record's electronic newsgathering equipment, work product, and documentary material," The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) wrote in a letter to Marion, Kansas Police Chief Gideon Cody signed by 34 major U.S. news organizations, including The Associated Press, CBS News, Gannett, McClatchy, NBCUniversal News Group, The New York Times, Reuters, and The Washington Post.
"Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency."
The raid—which was executed by five MPD officers and two county sheriff's deputies—came as the Record was investigating sexual misconduct allegations against Cody.
"I may be paranoid that this has anything to do with it, but when people come and seize your computer, you tend to be a little paranoid," Record publisher Eric Meyer toldThe Handbasket publisher Marisa Kabas in an interview Saturday.
Kari Newell, a politically connected restauranteur who has feuded with the paper, is also believed to have played a role; the Record had recently received a tip about her driver's license being suspended after a 2008 DUI conviction but ultimately decided not to run the story. Newell has confirmed her DUI conviction and has admitted that she continued driving even after her license was suspended.
According to the Record, the raid contributed to the death of 98-year-old co-owner Joan Meyer, who was "otherwise in good health for her age."
Meyer—who the paper said "tearfully watched during the raid" and accused the police of "Hitler tactics"—was "stressed beyond her limits and overwhelmed by hours of shock and grief" and "collapsed Saturday afternoon and died at her home."
The RCFP letter argues that "newsroom searches and seizures are among the most intrusive actions law enforcement can take with respect to the free press, and the most potentially suppressive of free speech by the press and the public."
On Saturday, MPD published a statement on Facebook acknowledging that the federal Privacy Protection Act "does protect journalists from most searches of newsrooms by federal and state law enforcement officials" and "requires police to use subpoenas, rather than search warrants, to search the premises of journalists."
However, the post notes that the law grants an exception when journalists "themselves are suspects in the offense that is the subject of the search."
The warrant, which was signed by 8th Judicial District Magistrate Judge Laura Viar, authorized a search for evidence of identity theft and criminal use of a computer.
Eric Meyer, who is Joan Meyer's son, told the Kansas Reflector on Friday that "basically, all the law enforcement officers on duty in Marion County, Kansas, descended on our offices today and seized our server and computers and personal cellphones of staff members all because of a story we didn't publish."
According to the RCFP letter, "based on public reporting, the search warrant that has been published online, and your public statements to the press, there appears to be no justification for the breadth and intrusiveness of the search—particularly when other investigative steps may have been available, and we are concerned that it may have violated federal law strictly limiting federal, state, and local law enforcement's ability to conduct newsroom searches."
"Your department's seizure of this equipment has substantially interfered with the Record's First Amendment-protected newsgathering in this instance, and the department's actions risk chilling the free flow of information in the public interest more broadly, including by dissuading sources from speaking to the Record and other Kansas news media in the future," the letter continues.
"We urge you to immediately return the seized material to the Record, to purge any records that may already have been accessed, and to initiate a full, independent, and transparent review of your department's actions," the signers added.
Press freedom and civil liberties groups have also condemned the raid.
"Based on the reporting so far, the police raid of the Marion County Record on Friday appears to have violated federal law, the First Amendment, and basic human decency," Freedom of the Press Foundation advocacy director Seth Stern said in a statement. "Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves."
ACLU of Kansas legal director Sharon Brett said that this "seems like one of the most aggressive police raids of a news organization or entity in quite some time" and "quite an alarming abuse of power."
On Monday, the board of the Society of Professional Journalists unanimously voted to authorize $20,000 to cover the Record's legal costs, according to the Kansas Reflector. Both Meyer and Newell said they are considering lawsuits.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular