A hard pass is the key to the kingdom if you’re covering the White House. It comes with a security clearance that means you only have to go through usual I.D. and metal detector screening on your way to the briefing room or North driveway. It’s a big time saver.
So when I read that Fred Lucas is about to lose his hard pass as new rules kick in on July 31, I was concerned.
Lucas, who has covered the White House for the Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal since 2009, is concerned as well. As he noted in an e-mail to me:
This is likely a start for the Biden White House to find ways to further purge what they view as noncompliant news outlets. They will likely see how much they can get away with. It's not about being concerned with any particular news outlet.
In order to get a White House hard pass, you first need a pass for the House, Senate or Supreme Court. Lucas says that he is applying for one. The current rules require that pass holders live in D.C., not engage in lobbying, and work full-time.
Every White House has a legitimate interest in limiting the number of passes. The briefing room has 49 seats (as well as standing room). There are limited seats for press covering the House and Senate. So there’s cause to limit passes for individuals who work for bona fide news organizations.
BUT you don’t want elected officials to pick who can cover proceedings based on their politics.
Lucas first was targeted in 2017 when the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi wrote about the controversy of having a Heritage Foundation employee participate in a supplemental White House press pool.
Farhi wrote at the time,
While there were no objections to Lucas’s pool reports on (then Vice President Mike) Pence, some journalists suggested the presence of the Signal as a member of the pool crossed a symbolic line, into greater legitimacy for the partisan press. (I added italics.)
I get that it’s a story about “some journalists” taking issue with Lucas. But to my view, it is fellow journalists going after the stray conservative reporter — not for anything he did wrong, other than existing — that makes my profession appear partisan.
Debra J. Saunders is a senior fellow with the Discovery Institute’s Chapman Center for Citizen Leadership.
Comments welcome.
How interesting a dividing line since “partisan” is defined as a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person. In Washington we may default to political beliefs or political parties as the meaning of partisan but in the real world we are all partisan for something - a religion, a restaurant, a social cause or even a friend. I seriously question the ability of the White House or any other government entity to know where our “partisan” beliefs really rest. Our work or our employer is a poor judge of where our strong support really lies and society seems to accept that for some professions, why not journalism?
This is the downside of the government agencies credentialing the reporters who cover them. I realize that space and security require limits on who has easy entry to the White House. But I don't trust Biden's henchmen to decide fairly.