By Adamu S Ladan
The latest confrontation between President Donald Trump and sections of the American media has raised a much bigger question than the dispute between a president and particular news organisations: Is independent journalism itself becoming a casualty of the growing politicisation of information?
CNN, MS NOW and Politico are currently challenging their exclusion from the White House in federal court, arguing that the action violates First Amendment protections. The dispute has also disrupted the traditional presidential television pool. The White House, on the other hand, maintains that access is a privilege and not an unrestricted right.
America has historically been regarded as one of the world’s important models of press freedom. That is why developments in Washington have implications beyond the United States. If political authorities can determine which media organisations receive access according to their coverage, other governments may find justification for similar practices.
But the global press-freedom crisis is much bigger than Washington. In Gaza, journalists have faced an infinitely more dangerous environment. The Committee to Protect Journalists reported that, as of June 11, 2026, at least 263 journalists and media workers had been killed in the wider conflicts covered by its database, including at least 75 whom CPJ determined were directly targeted and killed by Israeli forces. CPJ also cautions that the true figure may be higher because of restrictions on access, destroyed communications infrastructure and the difficulty of independently verifying individual cases.
This brings us to the fundamental issue of the human right to freedom of information. Freedom of information is not merely a privilege for journalists. It is essential to the public’s ability to know what governments, armies and other powerful institutions are doing in their name. When journalists are silenced, excluded, threatened or killed, the public loses an important means of independently verifying official narratives.
The same principle applies everywhere; from Washington to Gaza, from London to Lagos, and from Abuja to Katsina. This also takes me back to my recent commentary on the Reuben Abati–Rufai Oseni debate. My concern there was not whether journalists should be criticised—they absolutely should. The media must be accountable for accuracy, fairness, professional ethics and responsible journalism.
But accountability must not become political control of journalism. Journalists should be free to question governments, politicians and powerful institutions. At the same time, journalists must accept legitimate scrutiny and avoid allowing partisan loyalties to determine their professional judgment.
The danger comes when politics begins to decide who gets heard, who gets access, whose story is credible and whose journalism is dismissed as propaganda.
The world should therefore learn one simple lesson from the present imbroglio: press freedom cannot be defended selectively.
We cannot demand freedom for journalists whose views we agree with while remaining silent when journalists on the other side are suppressed.
A free press does not mean a perfect press. It means a press sufficiently free to investigate power, challenge official narratives and give citizens access to independently verified information.
When journalism loses that freedom, it is not only journalists who suffer. Society’s right to know suffers with them. That is why the struggle for press freedom is ultimately a struggle for democracy, accountability, and the fundamental human right to information.
Adamu S. Ladan
adamusladadamu@gmail.com