Talk:Access journalism
Add topicLatest comment: 7 months ago by Supertheman in topic Criticism section was removed
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Hi, so who wants to help improve this page? I did a google search and found some links, what else can be done to help build this page out? I think "access journalism" is a term that needs to work its way into mainstream discourse...
Additional media references
[edit]Here are a variety of media references to "access journalism" that can be used to substantiate this article. Saving them here in case other editors would like to use them — I may get around to helping out with this article myself, but please feel free to do so! - Tantek (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- https://theoutline.com/post/1604/access-journalism-is-not-for-you-or-me
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/03/19/billy-bush-defines-access-journalism/
- https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/04/25/why-trump-is-winning-and-the-press-is-losing/
- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/seymour-hershs-memoir-is-full-of-useful-reporting-secrets-629242/
- https://www.zdnet.com/article/access-journalism-and-the-silicon-valley-reporter/
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/05/14/the-systemic-problem-with-pro-trump-media-in-one-quote/
- https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/shattered-and-irritating-consequences-access-journalism/
- https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/06/the-new-york-times-protected-its-white-house-acces.html
- https://www.wgbh.org/news/2018/01/03/updated-timid-times-whats-wrong-political-coverage-our-leading-newspaper
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/05/12/woody_allen_s_publicist_proves_ronan_farrow_100_percent_right_about_access.html
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/journalists-in-the-age-of-trump-lose-the-smugness-keep-the-mission/2016/11/29/1ee85a28-b64b-11e6-a677-b608fbb3aaf6_story.html
- http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/media-white-house/
Criticism section was removed
[edit]- The Criticism section was removed, as none of the sources cited claimed that news outlets gave Trump free publicity for access, which the section claimed, and this page is largely about. Yes, Trump got a lot of free publicity, but that is "earned media", not access media. In fact, two of the sources were specifically about earned media and do not even mention "access media" or make the claim that Trump got free publicity, without fact-checking, for access. The New York Times article had this statement: "The big difference between Mr. Trump and other candidates is that he is far better than any other candidate — maybe than any candidate ever — at earning media". Not only was the Street article not about access media, it noted that a good percentage of Trump's earned media was negative, where it states "as much as 23% of free earned media attention given to Trump during the election was negative".
- The criticism section stated, "Critics of access journalism argue that prioritizing relationships with influential figures for the sake of access undermines the fundamental role of journalism to hold power accountable", and that "This practice was highlighted during Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, where media outlets provided extensive coverage, often without challenging the accuracy of his statements, resulting in what some estimated to be billions of dollars in free media exposure." None of the sources support this claim. In fact, the Berkeley article made the opposite claim, where it noted that fact-checking Trump changed from after an interview, to before and states that, "the fact that he lied became the lead in some stories, stating that he was telling yet another falsehood". That is not "prioritizing relationships ...for the sake of access". The media outlets were fact-checking up front, and leading with stories that he was lying.
- None of the articles make the claim that Trump wasn't fact-checked to facilitate access, in fact none of the articles even mention access media. This section —in its entirety— is false and none of the sources cited supported the claims in the section. Therefore it needed to be removed, as there was no way to "fix" this section. Supertheman (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)