Last week, President Donald Trump’s decision to bar some of his most frequent critics in the “lamestream media” from the White House sparked a torrent of commentary.
By Thursday, the uproar was nearly impossible to separate from the celebration in liberal newsrooms, after a federal judge ordered the White House to temporarily restore press access for journalists from CNN, MS NOW and Politico.
Now that the initial drama has faded, it is worth acknowledging what really happened: America—and the media—may have been drawn into Trump’s game once again.
Since the rise of MAGA, Trump has repeatedly turned political distractions into an art form, provoking reporters to chase short-lived controversies while overlooking the larger story.
He did not invent the tactic, but he has refined it more effectively than almost anyone in modern politics.
The expression “wag the dog” became part of the political lexicon after the 1997 film of the same name, which depicted a Washington strategist inventing a war in Albania to divert attention from a presidential sex scandal. When President Bill Clinton faced accusations that he had ordered military action to shift focus away from the intensifying Monica Lewinsky scandal, the phrase took on an even deeper political resonance.
I previously worked as an anchor at Fox News, and I still maintain friendships and sources inside the network’s Manhattan headquarters. They told me there was more than a little amusement when Trump abruptly announced on Friday that he was banning outlets he accused of publishing “fiction and lies.”
Melissa Francis (left) worked as an anchor for Fox News and has friends and sources inside the network’s Manhattan headquarters
Everyone seemed to have a loud opinion about President Donald Trump’s war with the media
At least one Fox News veteran I spoke with immediately understood the difficult position the network had been placed in.
No news organization—including Fox News—could reasonably allow a president to target fellow journalists without consequences.
He also understands how quickly a network can find itself in the crosshairs.
In October 2009, President Barack Obama’s Treasury Department attempted to keep Fox News out of a series of interviews with Kenneth Feinberg, the official overseeing relief payments connected to the 2008 financial crisis.
ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN refused to participate unless Fox was included. Treasury reversed course within hours, and Fox ultimately took part in the interviews.
That history helps explain why, after CNN, MS NOW and Politico were barred, Fox News had little choice but to stand with them and withdraw from coverage of Trump’s event.
Fox News contributor Ari Fleischer responded quickly on social media: “I agree with POTUS that several media outlets covering the WH are biased and unfair… Banning them from the WH is not the solution… Challenge liberal reporters. Argue and defeat them. Don’t ban them. Or one day they’ll ban us.”
Bill Clinton was accused of ordering US military strikes to draw heat away from the exploding Monica Lewinsky sex scandal during his presidency
Author, Melissa Francis
Fox News anchor Jacqui Heinrich, who serves as president of the White House Correspondents’ Association, also issued a warning: “The Constitution protects the freedom of the press from government interference.”
Fox News viewers, however, were hardly celebrating the moment of media unity. Still angry over the cancellation of Trump ally Maria Bartiromo’s program, many saw an uncomfortable contradiction. “Fox News pulled out of the White House Press Pool in solidarity with CNN, MSNOW and Politico which were banned from the White House. This is the same Fox News who just fired Maria Bartiromo for trying to report the news,” one viewer wrote on X.
Yet few appeared to recognize the strategic brilliance of Trump’s “briar patch moment”—creating the impression that the media had gained the upper hand when, in reality, they may have been advancing his agenda.
By acting collectively, news organizations denied Trump coverage of his arrivals and departures at precisely the moment when he had no interest in answering their questions.
So what was the week’s most consequential story?
It was the United Nations General Assembly gathering in New York, where Trump defended his decision to wage an unpopular war against Iran as his party confronted potentially devastating midterm election losses less than 40 days away.
Instead of pressing Trump on the issues affecting Americans most directly—including sharply rising prices at the gas pump—the media voluntarily stepped back and gave him the breathing room his administration needed.
Fox News viewers, of course, couldn’t care less and almost choked on this temporary solidarity. Still chafing from the cancelation of Trump ally Maria Bartiromo’s show, they saw a pattern (Pictured: Bartiromo interviewing Trump on April 14)
The administration quickly took advantage of that opening by promoting its own direct-to-consumer news platform—perhaps hoping viewers would eventually abandon cable news altogether.
“Get real-time updates and live events streamed DIRECTLY to your phone. No noise. Just the news that matters most – straight from the Trump Administration,” the White House wrote on X.
The most cynical interpretation is that Trump was not the only beneficiary of the confrontation. Other players also emerged with something to gain.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico received a highly visible platform from which to denounce what they described as an attack on press freedom.
Fox News, meanwhile, may have been the only clear loser—forced to defend networks it routinely portrays as unreliable, leaving the channel in an awkward and seemingly weakened position.
Somewhere, Maria Bartiromo is probably laughing.
