Why aren't the Congressional limits on press coverage during the Trump impeachment trial considered a breach of the first amendment?

Question

Congress is proposing rules that would severely limit press coverage of the impeachment of Donald Trump, restricting where reporters may locate themselves and dramatically restructuring the way that reporters may speak with Senators and other representatives relative to the previously enjoyed status quo. It is also imposing stringent new security checks that will make it more difficult for reporters to get news coverage out in a timely manner.

Journalists have long been barred from entering the Senate chamber, relegated to an overhead view from the press gallery above. Now, to enter the upstairs gallery, they will need to queue up for a magnetometer meant to sniff out illicit electronics, raising concerns about their ability to quickly relay to the public what is happening inside.

I've seen no outcry that this is a violation of the first amendment, so I assume that I have a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere. But to my eye, this appears to be a clear abridgement of the freedom of the press, preventing them from gaining access that can be, should be, and must be in the public record for everyone to see and review.

Why is this not seen as a violation of the freedom of the press?

Answer 1

Freedom of the press means that anyone can publish anything they know without having to obey government gag orders. The government is not required to keep journalists informed. Freedom of the press is not violated if the government tries hard to not leak anything to the press.

That's why the Freedom of Information Act exists. It grants journalists access to certain government information. Freedom of information is entirely different from (and unrelated to) freedom of the press. The constitution is definitely not violated here, but the Freedom of Information Act might be.

Answer 2

People often get this misconception, and it's related to one non-stated factoid: press covering political events are a mutually agreed convention.

Politicians give press conferences, and the press broadcasts them. Neither are required by law to do that. The politician thinks they'll be better off by giving the press conference - whether it's to give their spin on something, or simply because they're appearing accountable. Likewise, the press broadcasts it because they think they'll be better off - that they'll garner more viewers and interest than whatever other story they'd be covering instead.

This mutually agreement isn't stated... but it goes deeply into the heart of how politicians and the press act. If press coverage of something wouldn't help both parties out, it simply doesn't happen. For example, the press doesn't broadcast a house rep's speech on soybean farmers, because very few people want to watch it - even if that rep would love to have it covered. Likewise, a decision-making meeting within a caucus wouldn't be covered, because the caucus wouldn't want its arguments to go outside the walls - they want to provide a united front, even if the press would love to get the juicy details of their disagreements

Here's an article going into a bit more depth, particularly the extreme we've got now - where politicians feel the press is unfair to the point where it doesn't actually benefit them to participate in the agreement (you can disagree about the correctness/rightness of it, but that's generally at least the reason they're doing it.)

Once this 'mutual agreement' disappears, the press isn't that much different from any ordinary citizen - they can't simply barge in to wherever they want to go. They can't force their way into the oval office, the floor of the senate, etc. Sure, the government can't force them to say anything in particular or prevent them from saying something negative, but they certainly don't have to allow them to go wherever they want.

Answer 3

Rainer P.'s answer already covers that Freedom of the Press doesn't have anything to do with providing information to the press. But even if that weren't true, your question seems to be predicated on a belief that an impeachment trial

can be, should be, and must be in the public record for everyone to see and review

"Can be" is true enough, and "should be" is a matter of opinion. And while I imagine most people in the US share that opinion, neither "can be" nor "should be" automatically result in a conclusion that it "must be." And there is no law that requires an impeachment trial to be in the public record.

Constitutionally, each chamber of Congress is required to create a journal of their proceedings, but it doesn't specify what should go in those journals. Usually, they only contain a very high-level overview of what the chamber's business of the day was, with no information on deliberations or debates. But even if the journal did contain details of the trial, the Constitution allows each chamber to decide on their own if any of their proceedings are secret and thus shouldn't be included in the journal.

Outside of what's specified in the Constitution, there is a law that requires all public proceedings of Congress to be printed in the Congressional Record. But again, each chamber gets to decide on their own which proceedings will be public.

There is a Senate rule that says that during an impeachment trial, the doors of the Senate shall be kept open. But that's a Senate rule that the Senate can decide to change on their own. And even that rule does allow the doors to be closed by majority vote, during deliberations.

So, no, there is no "must be" when it comes to making an impeachment trial part of the public record.