On his Facebook page, Donald Trump, sounding like something halfway between Holden Caulfield and a cult-of-personality authoritarian nursing a bruised ego, issued a statement announcing the Trump campaign was revoking the Washington Post’s press credentials. “Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign,” the post read, “we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.”
Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron responded in a statement:
Donald Trump’s decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn’t correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished. The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along — honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. We’re proud of our coverage, and we’re going to keep at it.
Many applauded Baron’s comments, with some reminding us of some of the other forces Baron has come up against:
Remember, @PostBaron fought the Catholic Church and won.
— Jack Shafer (@jackshafer) June 13, 2016
Reminder: @washingtonpost pretty much forced him to mail that million dollar check to a vets charity.
— Goldie Taylor (@goldietaylor) June 13, 2016
@PostBaron welcome to the club
— Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) June 13, 2016
One of world’s most respected papers, which broke Watergate + is lead by Spotlight’s Marty Baron. Yep. https://t.co/4rcvIrg80l
— Josephine Tovey (@Jo_Tovey) June 13, 2016
— Charles Ornstein (@charlesornstein) June 13, 2016
Could not have said this better. Well, I guess that’s why he’s Marty Baron and I am me. https://t.co/bOwhZnltvJ
— Gene Weingarten (@geneweingarten) June 13, 2016
— Tony Haile (@arctictony) June 13, 2016
It’s kind of hard to make America great (again or otherwise) if you have such issues with the legal foundations that this country was built upon, namely, a Constitution with a Bill of Rights that has freedom of the press as one of its First Amendment guarantees. Of course, that right applies to how the government treats the press. If you’re a presumptive, dog-whistling nominee who gets reactive when those innuendos get spelled out, you could do what you want, we guess, but that’s not a luxury for someone sworn to defend the Constitution.