When the U.S. Congress voted last month to remove the president from office, the most powerful voices in American media were left with few options.
A series of “emergency” votes last week meant the Senate could not pass legislation to remove President Donald Trump from office.
In the meantime, the Trump administration’s attempts to undo the executive order temporarily blocking refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries have only increased.
But one of the most significant developments this week came from a small group of outlets that had never before received such a significant exposure.
They had to start acting like a major news organization.
They could no longer ignore the president.
Theirs was a chance to make a difference.
But instead of backing down, the publications decided to fight back, with their own plans to reach millions of people and push the boundaries of journalism in the age of Trump.
This is how the media revolution unfolded.
The first story The most immediate challenge facing the media establishment came when Trump ordered a temporary suspension of refugee resettlement.
The move was part of a broader executive order signed last month that banned entry of refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days, while barring entry for 120 days for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
This week, the Department of Homeland Security announced the suspension of all refugee resettlement in the United States.
The administration argued that the countries affected by the order were “high risk” and that the order was necessary to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks.
The news coverage surrounding the move was dominated by reports that the Trump Administration was seeking to impose an additional 120-day ban on Syrian refugees and an additional 90-day moratorium on refugees from Iraq.
Some news outlets, including CNN, CNN.com, and the Washington Post, ran stories that highlighted the fact that these new refugee restrictions were being imposed in defiance of a presidential executive order that was the subject of multiple court challenges.
The new restrictions would prevent refugees from entering the U.
“The New York Times published an op-ed titled “The Trump Administration’s New Syrian Refugee Ban Is An Imperfect Solution,” which reported that the new refugee ban would “have the unintended consequence of limiting access to legal immigration to the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Germany, and Sweden.
“The New York Post ran a story titled “New Syrian Refugee Regulations Would Limit Immigration to UK, Ireland and Denmark,” which stated that the executive orders “would limit access to green cards to citizens of these countries and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
“CNN, in a piece titled “Trump Order Would Impose ‘Unintended Consequences’ on Refugees,” described the refugee resettlement ban as a “tough policy decision” that “could have unintended consequences for thousands of people, particularly refugees.
“CNN also ran a feature story titled, “A Look Inside The White House Refugee Scandal,” which focused on the role of the administration in the refugee crisis and the media coverage it received.
In a story headlined, “President Trump’s Refugee Ban,” the outlet reported that “Trump’s order has been widely criticized, including by the American Civil Liberties Union, who have pointed to a number of legal challenges.
And the executive action is still in the making.
“The article also noted that the refugee restriction “is the first time the president has imposed an unprecedented restriction on refugees, the first by a sitting president.
“The outlet also noted, “the ban has sparked criticism from civil rights advocates and even some Republican lawmakers, and some have questioned whether it will ever be fully implemented.
“The media coverage that came out of the executive actions that resulted in the suspension and ban did not come without controversy.
“We’ve reported on the refugee ban. “
The Times has consistently sought to paint itself as a champion of civil rights,” the editorial said.
“We’ve reported on the refugee ban.
We’ve been skeptical of the president’s decision to limit refugee resettlement for 90-days, and we’ve been critical of his decision to halt all refugee admissions to the U, even while we’ve written articles critical of the policy.
And we’ve defended the ban, even when it has been criticized.
But that was when the White House was in the throes of a scandal over its decision to end all resettlement of refugees.
That was when it was in a state of crisis.
It is now that crisis that the Times has spent a year covering.”
The editorial continued, “As we’ve argued, we do not think the president is innocent of wrongdoing.
But we believe that the media’s reporting is fundamentally flawed.”
The NYTimes ran an oped titled, The Times Is a White.House