"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1st Amendment to the US constitution – 1791
Brian Stelter is 31? Who knew?
The section of the 1st Amendment quoted above speaks of actions prohibited to the Congress of the United States. It does not regulate press relations between the Executive Branch of the federal government and the developing media.
It should be intuitively obvious to the casual observer that CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post and many other media outlets are deeply committed to hostility to the Trump Administration on each and every issue that may arise no matter how trivial and if there are no trivialities available, they seem quite willing to be creative.
If I were the Trump Administration I would reciprocate in terms of access to government officials now serving. Active Civil Servants and Soldiers in the US Service have no (zero) right of access to the press other than to read printed material or listen to broadcast media. They all take an oath to safeguard government information provided to them in the course of their work. There are criminal penalties involved for "unauthorized disclosure" if the government chooses to prosecute. At the same time the government may choose to release (openly or covertly) whatever information it pleases using these same employees or service members. The information belongs to the government.
So, while the federal government has no right or real ability to regulate or censor the media in the US, it has every right to selectively decline to cooperate with some media based on unrelenting prosecutorial attitudes and behavior. Under such "rules" there would be no on-screen interviews or behind the scenes "backgrounders" for the "hostiles."
Under such process the government would continue to refrain from attempting to prosecute people like James Risen, author of "State of War," while continuing to be free to prosecute people like Jeffrey sterling, the ex-CIA man who was Risen's supposed source for Chapter 9 of the book. I was a defense consultant in the case. pl