On the 11 of January, like many across the world, I tuned in to the long awaited press conference by the US President elect Donald Trump. There was quite a build up to the event; he had not held one for six months. For six months the press had followed his campaign and transition through rallies, tweets and surrogates sent to broadcast stations, unable to engage him directly on his many controversial campaign statements, claims and promises.
Trump's relationship with the media grew contentious and strained over the election. The title once reserved for his opponent Hillary Clinton quickly applied to the media as well: "The crooked media." CNN specifically came to be known to him and his supporters as the "Clinton News Network." We saw more and more reports of journalists being verbally attacked from the press areas of his rallies and through social media. It is no secret, Donald Trump does not like the media. Particularly anyone whose reporting on him is not flattering.
It was, therefore, not a surprise at the tone he took with the media as he started the press conference. The opening comment that the reason he did not hold press conferences was because they covered him unfairly and the fiery engagement with a reporter regarding the release of his tax returns.
What was a huge surprise to me, however, was the treatment of CNN. Not because of how he engaged with them, that was to be expected given his contempt for the channel, but rather, how he delegitimised them as a news organisation and how he openly sidelined them during the press conference.
Trump has put accusations to the news channel and CNN has responded to those allegations. This is not what this article about. Nor is it about the manner in which CNN covers news stories. My concern stems from the treatment of the media and what problems that could pose. Because CNN was the recipient of his fury at this last conference, I'd like to use them as an example.
Firstly, there is a question of access. CNN is the largest news organisation delivering content in over 200 countries and territories across the world. To many, it is a vital source of international news. It cannot be argued that the USA is of news interest globally given the impact of its domestic and foreign policy decisions on other nations. To refuse access to an organisation that reaches 2 billion people worldwide is incredibly worrying.
Donald Trump referred to CNN as a "fake news" organisation. Does this mean that he does not consider them a legitimate news organisation and what does that mean for CNN's journalists operating in some of the most dangerous places on earth?
Jim Acosta, the CNN white house correspondent on the receiving end of the fiery engagement with Trump, later reported that he had been warned that he would be removed from the conference if he continued to be troublesome. Does this mean that, going forward, CNN will have limited or no access to Donald Trump and some of the most important members of his administration? This would take away not just another viewpoint but a large one.
Already Rex Tillerson the secretary of state nominee, in his confirmation hearing, did not commit to having a travelling press corps with him as he goes about his duties. The man charged with relating to the rest of the world could potentially not have any member of the press with him at all to engage him.
Secondly, there is a question of legitimacy. Donald Trump referred to CNN as a "fake news" organisation. Does this mean that he does not consider them a legitimate news organisation and what does that mean for CNN's journalists operating in some of the most dangerous places on earth? For example, should a CNN journalist be kidnapped by ISIL/ ISIS or imprisoned in a country not welcoming to journalists, what would his policy be for getting those journalists out and to safety? Would it be different for an NBC oR Fox news journalist?
I remember growing up in Mafikeng in 1994 at the time of the political crisis in Bophuthatswana. My parents, to this day, speak fondly of CNN. With local coverage not available, it was CNN coverage and reports by their journalists on the ground that kept them informed. It was information coming from CNN that let them know when to move us to safety, what routes to take and when to go out for supplies.
Will the President elect's stance on the media limit their ability or discourage them from covering news stories that are in high risk areas? Will they feel less safe knowing one of the most powerful governments is not necessarily on their side?
My final concern lies with the other news agencies. Donald Trump in his introduction to the press conference stated that the reason he had not held one in such a long time was because the agencies were not fairly covering him in the election. He denied them access because he felt he was unfairly treated. When a BBC journalist stood up to ask his question at the press conference, his comments were clear, he considered them to be another one of "those" news agencies.
The point here is, today it is CNN. Tomorrow it will be NBC or the BBC or even Fox news who seem to not be in his favour at a particular time. If the press does not stand united here and take that risk of upsetting him by taking him on for excluding the largest news organisation in the world, then what is the point of having that access to him? Will it not then mean that there will always be a filter applied to him? Will they show him favourably to keep that access and therefore not tell the full story?
If journalists cannot access one of the most powerful governments in the world, feel too afraid to do their jobs or water down their content to fit a particular narrative, then people all over the world will be the biggest losers.