Editor’s Viewpoint – SPJ’s Defense of Press Freedom Highlights a Nationwide Transparency Crisis

February 17, 2025

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has once again stepped up to defend press freedom, this time condemning the Trump administration’s actions against Associated Press (AP) reporters. On Tuesday, two AP reporters were banned from White House events over the AP Stylebook’s refusal to adopt President Trump’s directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. This troubling move exemplifies a growing pattern of government overreach in controlling the press, one that should concern journalists and citizens alike.

As a member of SPJ and a journalist committed to holding public officials accountable, I find the implications of this latest attack on press freedom deeply unsettling. SPJ National President Emily Bloch rightly pointed out that “it is misguided and a violation of the First Amendment to dictate who has access based on whether you like what they write or report.” This sentiment echoes the struggles many local journalists face in the battle for government transparency, a fight I have experienced firsthand in Newberg, Oregon.

My reporting has exposed how the City of Newberg has selectively enforced policies regarding media access, particularly in its handling of executive sessions. After initially indicating that I would be granted media recognition upon completing a questionnaire, city officials later changed their stance, delaying the process and deferring to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission (OGEC) despite a legal opinion stating that such a determination was beyond OGEC’s purview. This inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary approach to recognizing news organizations underscores a broader issue: when government entities attempt to dictate who qualifies as “press,” they undermine the very foundation of a free and independent media.

The SPJ press release highlights that press freedom has been challenged by multiple administrations, not just the current one. This pattern suggests a disturbing trend where those in power seek to suppress critical reporting by restricting access to journalists who refuse to conform to government narratives. While the White House’s decision to ban reporters over a naming dispute may seem trivial to some, the precedent it sets is dangerous. When government leaders believe they can control press access based on editorial decisions, it erodes public trust and hinders the press’s ability to serve its vital role as a watchdog.

Local governments are not immune to this temptation. In Newberg, transparency has become a contentious issue, with officials resisting scrutiny and media oversight. When city leaders attempt to pick and choose which journalists they recognize, they effectively silence dissent and limit the public’s right to information. This should alarm every citizen who values accountability and open government.

It is important to recognize that freedom of the press is not a partisan issue—it is a fundamental right that should unite all journalists, regardless of whether they lean conservative, liberal, or even satirical. A free press benefits everyone by holding power accountable and ensuring that the public has access to truthful and diverse reporting. When one journalist is silenced, all journalists—and ultimately, the public—are at risk. Journalism and freedom of the press are not one-size-fits-all; different reporting styles, perspectives, and approaches contribute to a well-rounded, informed public. Defining who qualifies as “press” is a dangerous precedent that undermines the very essence of a free society. When officials take it upon themselves to determine who has the merit to report on their actions, they are shielding themselves from accountability and eroding the people’s right to know.

My qualifications as a journalist have been challenged simply because I do not fit the traditional mold. I purchased a newspaper with the intention of bringing news and information to the public, as is the right of all persons under the Constitution. Yet even within our own community, individuals who favor legacy media outlets that lean heavily in one direction are challenging people like me who identify as journalists—not because I lack credibility, but because they seek to silence dissenting voices. This is not just about me; it is about ensuring that independent and nontraditional journalists are not pushed out of the conversation by those who wish to control the narrative. Journalism is not a privilege granted by those in power; it is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs.

Recently, it has become known that the government was contributing to certain legacy media outlets, which could be construed as an attempt to influence reporting in one way or another. This is yet another example of government overreach affecting press freedom in ways we didn’t think possible. This is where non-conforming or non-traditional forms of news dissemination and non-traditional journalism serve as a necessary counterbalance to legacy media. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has uncovered millions of dollars being spent on legacy media outlets, raising serious concerns about the independence of these institutions and their ability to hold power accountable. Public sentiment on X (formerly Twitter) in early February 2025 reflects discussions on government payments to legacy media, as discovered by DOGE.

SPJ’s call to end “petty bans of reporters, frivolous lawsuits against news organizations, and other actions that serve to prevent information from getting to the American people” is not just a national issue—it’s a local one as well. Whether in the White House or a city council chamber, press freedom is not negotiable. It is the responsibility of both journalists and the public to demand transparency and hold officials accountable when they attempt to obscure the truth.

Now more than ever, we must stand firm against efforts to intimidate and silence the press. As SPJ urges, we must support excellent journalism, defend the First Amendment, and ensure that no government—federal, state, or local—can dictate what the public is allowed to know. We must resist efforts by legacy media outlets to intimidate or discredit non-traditional journalists simply because they break away from the agenda or narrative that those outlets promote. People need to be able to critically think for themselves without undue influence. These power plays—often in alignment with local political agendas—threaten journalistic integrity and the diversity of perspectives necessary for a truly free press.

Photo Credit: Yamhill County News File