Sunday, March 8, 2026

The Media’s Country Club Gatekeeping

By Becket Adams

Sunday, March 08, 2026

 

In 2017, NBC fired host Matt Lauer following multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.

 

What came next was a Matryoshka doll of hokey gimmicks by the network, including its decision a few years later to appoint an all-female panel to moderate a Democratic presidential primary. In praising the network’s supposedly progressive choice, then-anchor Brian Williams, himself once the subject of a journalism scandal, marveled at the announced moderators’ elite credentials, noting that three-quarters of them had been educated on the East Coast.

 

Besides unintentionally highlighting the panel’s near-identical experiential and regional limitations, Williams also reminded everyone of that unfortunate truism: that journalism is a country club, where membership is select and pedigree is everything.

 

Little has changed since Williams’s remarks that evening in 2019. The industry at the mainstream level remains as insular and self-important as ever, which is amusing considering we were handing out Pulitzers not that long ago for a story whose main subject didn’t exist (at least Janet Cooke had the decency to return her award for “Jimmy’s World”).

 

We were reminded of the country club attitude this past week after CNN’s Brian Stelter lamented that reporters from right-leaning and right-wing networks had been called on at a Pentagon briefing.

 

“Most of the questions at the Pentagon briefing came from right-wing outlets like the Daily Wire and LindellTV that have little experience covering the military,” he remarked. (It’s worth noting that among those authorized to attend the briefing were “respectable” outlets like CNN, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.)

 

Stelter’s myopic focus on the “who” of the questions rather than the “what” misses the point. Had he bothered to listen, he would have heard that the questions were thoughtful and useful insofar as they served the public interest. And that’s what should matter to media outlets — serving the public interest.

 

For instance, Mary Margaret Olohan of the Daily Wire asked about a recently eliminated Iranian officer, whom the U.S. government claimed had plotted an assassination attempt on President Trump. She also inquired whether NATO’s downing of an Iranian ballistic missile headed toward Turkish airspace could “trigger NATO’s Article 5” and whether it was the United States that downed the missile.

 

These are good questions! What’s the problem? That the “right” person didn’t ask them?

 

Ah, but let’s not beat up on Stelter too much. After all, he’s just a creature of the machine. He’s certainly not the chief engineer. His reaction is typical, almost automatic by now, like a host rejecting a foreign body.

 

Recall that journalists and pundits reacted similarly in 2019 after CNN announced that it would add Sarah Isgur, the former chief spokeswoman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Jeff Sessions, to its news division.

 

Corporate chickensh**!” was the rallying cry.

 

“Very glad to work in a newsroom that never in 100 years would hire a political operative of either party to help ‘guide’ or ‘coordinate’ coverage of a presidential election,” bragged New York Times reporter Trip Gabriel.

 

Never mind that Isgur is a longtime political figure whose years of experience could benefit a newsroom that has struggled to understand recent political shifts in the U.S.

 

Never mind, too, that the industry has a long record of “political operatives” who’ve made the jump from press shop to newsroom. George Stephanopoulos ricocheted between Democratic representatives Ed Feighan, then Dick Gephardt, then Michael Dukakis and the Clinton White House before securing a $15 million to $17 million anchoring position with ABC News. Tim Russert went directly from serving as an aide to New York Governor Mario Cuomo to covering the news at NBC. CNN’s Jake Tapper served as press secretary to former Representative Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky. CNN chief national security correspondent Jim Sciutto was an Obama appointee to the State Department.

 

Journalists never squawked about Russert. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

No, the negative reactions are reserved exclusively for people like Isgur; that is, those who are not part of the club.

 

Let’s also remember that ignoble moment of media gatekeeping from 2013, when reporters recoiled at the sight of a Daily Caller intern asking a question of then–White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. The intern, 16-year-old Gabe Finger, asked Carney whether the Obama administration planned to assist in the security measures for the recently acquitted George Zimmerman.

 

The subtext was clear: Did President Obama, who had waded into the matter by imagining that his nonexistent son might have looked like the black teenager whom Zimmerman shot and killed, feel any responsibility for the hostility directed at the man who was found not guilty? If so, did the president plan to offer help?

 

Carney hated the question. So did members of the press, but not so much because of what was said; rather, because of who said it.

 

“Out of the mouths of babes” apparently comes with terms and conditions.

 

Lastly, let’s consider a more recent example, and recall last year when political activist Laura Loomer asked during a Pentagon press briefing whether the Trump administration, after designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign Islamic terrorist organization, still planned to send F-15 fighter jets to Qatar.

 

That’s a good question! Many wanted to know the answer — and that’s the purpose of journalism: asking meaningful questions that produce meaningful answers.

 

A country clubber would’ve missed it, though.

 

My two cents: I’ll take a single decent question from an internet weirdo over 1,000 safe and soft questions from an over-credentialed, overeducated reporter with a bachelor’s from Harvard.

 

The internet weirdo might at least notice certain things “missed” by the so-called legitimate press, such as whether the president of the United States is mentally or physically incapable.

 

It’s not the who. It’s the what. 

No comments: