The audience has entered the chat, and brought a federal complaint. Apparently some people have been watching coverage of their government for information rather than to admire the lighting.

AP reports that six news consumers sued Trump and aides in New York on Monday, arguing that retaliatory White House press exclusions violate the public’s rights. They seek broad protection for news outlets, not merely restored access for particular reporters. This is a new complaint, not a ruling granting that relief. The White House responded that “No person may demand access to the Oval Office” and said disputed outlets can report from outside.

It is an admirably convenient answer to a question one would prefer to substitute for the actual dispute. A public interest in independent coverage does not require installing every American on an Oval Office folding chair. There would be a terrible queue for the restroom. It requires considering what the people outside lose when the government selects which scrutiny is allowed inside.

Make powerful people uncomfortable.
Subscribe to Democrawonk.

A camera pointed at a president is also pointed on behalf of people who have other things to do. They cannot all abandon work, school and dinner preparation to discover whether today’s announcement survives a follow-up question. That is one reason reporting exists. It is not an elaborate hobby for people who enjoy wearing credentials.

The new plaintiffs put that ordinary arrangement at the center of their claim: access decisions affect the people receiving the information, too. Whether their legal theory succeeds is for the court to decide. The political point does not need to wait for a verdict. A president cannot reasonably measure the public value of reporting by how pleasant he found the reporter.

Nor does defending access require believing every outlet gets everything right. The remedy for a bad question can be a good answer. Removing the questioner produces an excellent answer rate by reducing the number of questions.

A government that wants to communicate can issue a statement. A government willing to be scrutinized has to tolerate someone asking what the statement left out.

The people at home are allowed to want the second program. They are paying for the building.