From Nixon to Trump: The Ongoing Battle for a Free Press

By Bill Bernardoni | The Bernardoni Brief

I. From the Newsroom to the Noise

Perspective from inside the press room.

I spent years in newsrooms — chasing deadlines, wrangling nervous producers, and crafting questions knowing someone powerful would take offense. Journalism isn’t glamorous; it’s grueling. But it taught me two truths: the press is democracy’s messiest necessity, and its tension with power is what keeps both honest.

Presidents have always clashed with reporters. It’s part of the job. But the Donald Trump administration’s approach — revoking access, weaponizing regulations, and vilifying critics — feels less like a feud and more like a campaign to reshape the information landscape. This isn’t about bruised egos; it’s a test of whether we value a free press enough to protect it.

II. The Adversarial Press: Designed to Provoke

The friction between power and the press is the system working.

Friction between power and the press is as old as the First Amendment. John Adams jailed critics under the 1798 Sedition Act. Franklin Roosevelt mocked “newspaper men” while mastering radio. Barack Obama’s Justice Department subpoenaed Associated Press phone records in 2013 to hunt leaks. Joe Biden’s team has restricted photographers at fundraisers, citing “optics.”

Richard Nixon, though, set the gold standard for press hostility. He wiretapped reporters, kept “enemy lists” of journalists like Daniel Schorr, and leaned on the FBI to intimidate Watergate investigators. Yet the press — led by The Washington Post — exposed his abuses, proving that adversarial journalism can save democracy from itself.

That lesson feels distant now. The Trump administration’s tactics echo Nixon’s but leverage modern tools: social media, regulatory muscle, and a polarized public. Unlike Nixon’s covert grudges, this fight is public — and it’s not about accountability but control.

That uneasy balance between skepticism and trust is the same tension readers navigate daily — which is why trust itself has become the next front in the media war.

III. Trump’s Playbook: Beyond Rhetoric

Modern tools, old temptations.

Criticism of the press is fair game; every reporter should face it. But the Trump administration’s record revealed something deeper than frustration — a coordinated attempt to shape which media voices thrive and which struggle to be heard.

In 2018, the administration suspended CNN correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House press pass after a contentious exchange in the briefing room — an action a federal judge later forced the White House to reverse on First Amendment grounds. The following year, the Justice Department secretly seized the phone and email records of reporters from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press during leak investigations, prompting bipartisan alarm over government overreach.

At the same time, Trump officials frequently promoted sympathetic outlets such as Newsmax and One America News, granting them prime access and exclusive interviews while sidelining traditional networks. Federal advertising and communications spending also ballooned during this period, with watchdogs noting the lack of transparency in how those funds were allocated — raising concerns that government resources were being used to reward loyalty rather than serve the public interest.

Meanwhile, the administration’s public attacks on major media companies and merger scrutiny of outlets perceived as critical — notably the Department of Justice’s lawsuit seeking to block AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner, CNN’s parent company — fueled the perception that regulatory power was being used as leverage against unfavorable coverage.

These weren’t isolated skirmishes. They reflected a pattern: access, visibility, and regulatory discretion tied to political allegiance. Nixon tried to hide his vendettas in secret tapes; Trump broadcast his in real time on X, rallying followers to distrust the “mainstream media.” Both share a perilous instinct — that government should define what counts as legitimate journalism. Once that line is crossed, a free press becomes a permitted press.premise: the government decides what’s legitimate news.

IV. How the Press’s Own Missteps Fueled Distrust

Critique is healthy. Coercion is fatal.

The press isn’t blameless. Newsrooms have chased viral headlines over substance — think BuzzFeed’s listicles or cable news’ outrage addiction. Corporate consolidation, like Sinclair Broadcast Group’s 190 local stations, homogenized coverage. During the 2003 Iraq War, major outlets amplified flawed intelligence on WMDs. In 2020, some downplayed early COVID-19 risks to avoid “panic.”

Social media supercharged those flaws. Algorithms on X and YouTube reward sensationalism, turning reporters into performers. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found 62% of Americans distrust national news, citing bias and clickbait.

But distrust doesn’t justify control. Bad journalism needs better journalism — more rigor, less punditry — not government oversight. Coercion silences; critique refines.

V. Freedom From Favor: The First Amendment’s Core

Independence, not perfection, defines a free press.

The Founders didn’t just protect speech; they enshrined a free press as an institutional check. Thomas Jefferson endured vicious partisan papers yet defended their right to exist. A free press isn’t about being perfect — it’s about being independent.

When credentials, funding, or licenses become political tools, that independence erodes. The Trump administration’s defenders argue it’s simply “fighting bias.” But bias is a debate for newsrooms and readers, not regulators. When the state picks winners, the public loses.

VI. Why This Matters Beyond Journalism

When the press falters, markets and trust follow.

A free press isn’t just for reporters — it’s the backbone of transparent markets and democracy. When governments pressure or intimidate journalists, they don’t just muzzle headlines; they chill the flow of information that investors, researchers, and executives depend on to make informed decisions. Transparency drives confidence — and confidence drives markets. When that transparency erodes, volatility follows.

For communicators and marketers, the stakes are deeply personal. Brands rely on credible, independent media to vet claims, shape narratives, and sustain consumer trust. When media lose independence — or appear to serve political or corporate masters — even the best messaging rings hollow. According to the 2022 Edelman Trust Barometer, only 44% of people globally trust the media, and nearly 60% say they buy or boycott brands based on their beliefs and values. Trust is now the currency that underwrites both journalism and marketing — and once it’s gone, both lose value.

If the press isn’t free, the market isn’t either.

VII. The Economic Cost of Media Capture

Control kills credibility—and economies.

Around the world, the pattern is clear: when governments or their allies capture the press, economies suffer. In Hungary, where watchdogs estimate that more than 80% of media outlets now align with the ruling party, foreign investment has stagnated and investor confidence has fallen amid growing concerns about transparency and rule of law. The OECD and Transparency International both link those trends to weakened institutions and reduced market confidence.

Investors distrust manipulated numbers; consumers tune out propaganda. Even authoritarian regimes recognize the trade-off: censorship may buy control, but it sells off credibility — the one currency no economy can print.

America’s edge has always been trust — in its markets, data, and institutions. A free press underwrites all three. Undermine it, and you don’t just threaten journalism; you erode capitalism itself.

VIII. Critique vs. Coercion

Healthy skepticism keeps democracy breathing.

The Trump administration claims it’s targeting bias. Fine — bias exists. But using state power to punish coverage crosses a constitutional line. Every revoked credential sets a precedent. Every defunded outlet weakens a guardrail.

Today it’s a network you dislike. Tomorrow it could be one you trust. Democracy thrives on debate, not state-enforced uniformity.

IX. The Press’s Path Forward

Accountability builds trust; arrogance destroys it.

Defending the press doesn’t mean excusing it. To rebuild credibility, journalists must:

Admit errors publicly, as The Washington Post did in 2021 when it issued a major correction to its reporting on former President Trump’s call to a Georgia election investigator.
Prioritize data over narrative, following the model of ProPublica’s evidence-driven investigations.
Diversify newsrooms; only about 13% of newsroom leaders are journalists of color, according to the ASNE 2022 Diversity Survey.
Invest in local reporting, where public trust remains highest — 68% of Americans trust local news, Gallup found.

A free press isn’t flawless — it’s accountable. Its strength lies not in perfection but in its willingness to self-correct, not self-censor.less — it’s accountable. It must self-correct, not self-censor.

X. What Communicators Can Do

Trust is our currency.

At Bernardoni Media & Marketing, we know trust drives every brand relationship. Communicators can defend a free press by:

Supporting independent outlets with ad dollars — back ProPublica or local papers, not propaganda.
Partnering with transparent media that disclose sponsorships and corrections.
Promoting media literacy to help consumers spot manipulation.
Speaking out against intimidation — silence is complicity.
Modeling ethical campaigns to strengthen the information economy.

Free markets need a free press. One can’t survive without the other.

XI. A Messy, Vital Institution

Freedom of the press isn’t polite conversation—it’s civic resistance.

The press and democracy are like an old marriage — full of fights but bound by necessity. A press that doesn’t provoke isn’t doing its job.

Yes, the media deserves scrutiny. But it doesn’t deserve control. A government more afraid of headlines than corruption has lost its way. Because once power controls the story, it won’t stop there — it’ll control the truth, and then it’ll control us.

XII. Closing Reflection

“If I had to choose between a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.” — Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson loathed the press of his day, yet he knew its freedom was non-negotiable.

As citizens, consumers, and communicators, we must defend that freedom — especially when those in power forget why it matters.