AP’s Left-Leaning Stance Diverges from Mainstream America

As a journalist with a lifelong commitment to the field, I should definitely stand with The Associated Press in its current legal battle against the Trump administration.

And I would support them if the AP still maintained its reputation as a neutral, fact-focused wire service.

Regrettably, it has transformed into yet another entity that promotes leftist opinions masquerading as unbiased news.

The ongoing dispute with the White House also reveals a disturbing sense of elite entitlement.

This case stems from the AP’s allegations that its freedom of speech was compromised when it was removed from its long-established position in the press pool, which comprises a select group of legacy news outlets that receive close to daily access to the president.

Alongside the AP, Reuters and Bloomberg were also part of this exclusive group.

Others granted special access include various television and cable networks, photographers, radio reporters, and rotating representatives from print media.

Refused to adjust

With only one slot allocated for print journalists, many had to settle for questioning the president just once a month during confined settings like Oval Office announcements and aboard Air Force One.

The AP lost its position after it declined to modify its influential stylebook, maintaining its reference to the “Gulf of Mexico,” even after President Trump officially renamed it to the “Gulf of America.”

While I concurred with the federal judge’s ruling that the AP was unfairly demoted, my appreciation for how the White House has leveraged this case to democratize access to the president has significantly increased.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt, the youngest individual to hold her position at 27, assumed office with a goal to welcome new media outlets—including innovative podcasts, political influencers, and diverse wire services.

This new access includes uplifting conservative voices and reducing the overwhelming influence of left-leaning, legacy media.

The initial step followed a clever reaction to the court’s directive, stating that the AP “cannot be treated worse than its peer wire services.”

Instead of reinstating the AP to its prior position, the White House opted to exclude all three wire services, placing them alongside 31 other organizations, while also adding a second print slot for small-space events.

This rotation means that rather than enjoying daily guaranteed access, each of the wire services will now have opportunities to attend these events roughly once a month.

Understandably, Reuters and Bloomberg are also complaining about their reduced access, with the AP returning to court, arguing that the White House’s actions contradicted the judge’s ruling.

Judge Trevor N. McFadden from the federal District Court in DC has disagreed with that assertion.

He mentioned on Friday that he required more time to reflect on the situation but suggested that the White House appeared to be acting in “good faith,” likely because their new policy aligns with his ruling regarding the AP and its counterparts.

Indeed, the White House has stated, “No other news organization in the United States receives the level of guaranteed access previously granted to the AP. The AP may have gotten used to its privileged status, but the Constitution does not mandate that privilege lasts indefinitely.”

Furthermore, this situation not only uncovers the AP’s sense of entitlement but also introduces the administration’s intention to dismantle the media’s monopolistic hold over privileged access to the White House and other federal departments, such as State and Defense.

Gatekeeper mentality

This gatekeeping mentality poses a significant obstacle during Trump’s two terms, as many legacy outlets hold openly hostile positions toward him and the Republican Party.

True “straight” reports are nearly non-existent, with almost every daily article filtered through personal bias against the president and conservative values.

This approach starkly contrasts with how the same organizations reported on the Biden administration.

During those years, their coordinated efforts featured gentle, supportive coverage, even as public sentiment sour on issues like inflation and open borders, highlighting the disconnect between mainstream media and public opinion.

The resultant drop in public trust towards the media is justified, considering that most organizations overlooked the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Despite professing to be defenders of free speech, none opposed the censorship mandates orchestrated by the White House to shield the first family from corruption allegations reported by The Post and others.

Moreover, none of the legacy outlets displayed any curiosity regarding Joe Biden’s apparent mental and physical decline.

In fact, some, like The New York Times, perpetuated the White House’s narrative that claims concerning the president’s decline were merely altered videos or right-wing propaganda.

It wasn’t until Biden’s dismal debate performance last June and the ensuing fear that Trump might win the election that the media finally acknowledged his condition, coincidentally concluding that he had to withdraw from the race.

As soon as he did, they were quick to rally behind Kamala Harris and collectively hailed her campaign as filled with “joy.”

Thus, they should refrain from asserting their essential role in effective governance or public enlightenment. More often than not, they have shielded corruption and misled the populace.

This alignment among similar outlets creates a near-monopoly of coverage, one closely associated with the White House Correspondents Association.

This private group has for decades controlled the pool for small-space events and allocates the 49 seats in the separate briefing room, all of which are dominated by legacy media.

Upset media apple cart

They, along with the Times and others, are incensed that Leavitt has disturbed their status quo by reshuffling the pool and allowing newcomers into the briefing room.

As many as 20 individuals with new credentials can be seen lining the sides of the room, with some getting opportunities to ask questions.

Reports suggest she is considering going even further by altering the seating arrangements.

Oh no, the sky is falling, shout the correspondents’ association.

Like a union feeling the loss of its power, it warns Leavitt against modifying the seating chart.

In a statement, the association insisted that the White House “should abandon this misguided initiative and demonstrate to the American public that they’re not afraid to clarify their policies and entertain questions from an independent media free from government oversight.”

Herein lies the hubris—the presumption that only media hostile to Trump are “independent.”

This reflects the AP’s attitude with its exaggerated claims that its demotion “centers on the government blocking AP’s access to cover events,” as if the agency had been outright banned from the White House.

Fact check: False!

In reality, Trump is the most accessible president in modern history, probably taking more questions in a month than Biden did in four years.

To even suggest otherwise is fake news, which regrettably characterizes the current offerings from the AP and its affiliated entities.