New York.- The New York Times newspaper announced this Monday that it will not publish images taken by the group of photographers covering the White House (‘pool’) following President Donald Trump’s veto of CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.
“The New York Times will not publish or distribute any images taken as part of the White House photo ‘pool’ today,” the newspaper reported in a statement published on its social media channels.
This decision aims to support “the media outlets that are being unfairly attacked by the president’s ban on journalists accessing the White House,” the NYT explained.
“We remain committed to covering the president’s trip to New York. Americans deserve a free and independent media that covers their government without intimidation, as well as comprehensive coverage of newsworthy events,” he/she stated.
You can also read: The New York Times will pay US$9.25 million for defamation
The New York newspaper thus joins the main television networks in the United States -ABC, CBS, Fox News and NBC-, which agreed today to suspend joint coverage of Trump’s events.
The four networks, which share with CNN the responsibility of providing television coverage of presidential events, which involves the distribution of images to the entire world, decided to show solidarity with their banned colleagues.
More Read
Trump defended his position again this Monday, asserting in a message on his Truth Social network that he is “not waging an attack on the free press,” but rather against ‘fake news,’ a phenomenon that, according to him, “has grown like a cancer” in the U.S.
For their part, the media outlets affected by the veto filed a lawsuit this same Monday against the president before a federal judge at the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.
The lawsuit could lead to hearings and legal arguments by the Administration as early as this week, according to the affected media outlets in a joint statement.
More Read
CNN, MS Now, and Politico will ask the court to restore their access to the White House as soon as possible and will file a separate motion seeking an emergency order to remain in effect while the litigation proceeds.
