Connect with us

Washington

These 2 media figures spark a press freedom debate in Washington state Legislature

Published

on

These 2 media figures spark a press freedom debate in Washington state Legislature


Former KOMO TV reporter Jonathan Choe, left, and former Fox TV reporter Brandi Kruse pushed Washington state Legislature to change its press access rules.

Courtesy of Jonathan Choe and Brandi Kruse

When the Trump administration announced in February that it would handpick the reporters who get access to the White House — stripping that power from the century-old White House Correspondents’ Association — the association of journalists condemned the move as tearing “the independence of a free press in the United States,” declaring that “in a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

Yet, just eight days later, Washington state’s own Capitol Correspondents Association willingly chose to give up its own influence over which reporters get access to the Legislature, handing that gatekeeping role solely to the same legislators they cover.

Advertisement

That decision came after two right-wing former Seattle-area TV reporters — Brandi Kruse and Jonathan Choe — sought media credentials to access certain parts of the state Legislature earlier this year. After their requests were denied, they threatened to sue under the First Amendment.

Faced with a choice of either weathering an expensive lawsuit or endorsing the kind of media figures their guidelines had long excluded, the correspondents association took a third option: Tell the Legislature they would no longer perform the screening role they had for decades.

“We don’t have lawyers,” said association president Jerry Cornfield, a reporter for the Washington State Standard. “We chose not to litigate on behalf of the Legislature. It’s their building. They ultimately control access to the chambers. We were not going to fight their fight for them.”

In the weeks since, the Washington state Senate has placed temporary new restrictions on reporters and the state House is weighing its own set of rules.

The fight over press access in Washington state illuminates the mounting pressure on legislative correspondent associations nationwide in an increasingly fractured media landscape. Already weakened from years of newsroom cuts, these associations are being challenged from two flanks: from legislators who want to strip away access from traditional reporters and from independent — and often controversial — media figures who want that same access.

Advertisement

Judge orders White House to allow AP access to news events

What plays out in Washington state, whether in the Legislature and potentially the courts, could set a precedent for similar battles across the country.

“Now that there are so many independent journalists out there, politicians are taking it upon themselves to be the judge of who is and isn’t a journalist based on whether they like the political slant of the publication,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for journalists and whistle-blowers.

Blurred lines

Kruse and Choe have broken multiple stories using journalist tools like public records, but their opinionated and aggressive approach often targets populations that conventional journalists sometimes treat sympathetically — unauthorized immigrants, transgender people and other reporters.

For example, where many reporters use the phrase “gender-affirming care” when reporting on the debate around transgender health care, Kruse and Choe call it “mutilation.”

Advertisement

But this latest fight has given Kruse and Choe an opportunity to portray themselves as the true defenders of press freedom and the Olympia press corps as abandoning it.

“I never thought I’d see, from the White House down to the statehouse here, politicians dictating the terms about who gets in and who doesn’t,” Choe told InvestigateWest.

Cornfield argues that the correspondent association was never truly a “gatekeeper.” The ultimate power to choose who gets allowed in the chambers had always rested with the Legislature.

Yet for a half-century, the Legislature had left credentialing decisions up to the press corps. It works the same way in Idaho and Oregon.

Oregon Capital Chronicle editor Julia Shumway, president of the Oregon Legislative Correspondents Association, wrote in an X post last year that their own capitol credentialing processes were crucial so “activists with cell phones and no ethics or standards don’t get to masquerade as reporters.”

Advertisement

In Idaho, a conservative think tank called the Idaho Freedom Foundation launched its own media outlet in 2010, naming it the Idaho Reporter, as a way to get press passes in the Legislature. It was Idaho’s Capitol Correspondents Association that rejected that ploy.

But as the media landscape has changed, these standards have become trickier to enforce.

Until 2009, Washington state’s Capitol Correspondents Association only offered credentials to reporters who worked for newspapers and licensed TV or radio stations. But with the growth of new media outlets, legislative newsletters and reporting nonprofits, the definition had to change.

“It is important that a line be established between professional journalism and political or policy work,” the state’s Capitol Correspondents Association’s updated guidelines said. “Blurring that line would raise questions about the motives of everyone in the press corps, and risk having the Legislature revoke or restrict the access we have maintained in the public interest for many years.”

AP sues 3 Trump administration officials, citing freedom of speech

Advertisement

That standard required journalists seeking press passes to be working for an entity that is “doing news for the sake of news alone,” specifically excluding someone who works for a “think tank’s blog.”

That requirement appeared to exclude Choe, who’s been covering homelessness for the Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank that got its start by arguing that a divine intelligence was behind the origin of life.

Choe’s coverage has often been controversial in the Northwest. He has been accused of antagonizing — even getting into a physical altercation — with the left-wing protesters he frequently covers.

He was ousted as a KOMO TV news reporter after, without station approval, he produced an upbeat livestream and photo montage of a Proud Boys rally, a far-right organization that has brawled with far-left militants on the streets of Seattle.

Now unshackled from a broadcast news sensibility, enough of Choe’s videos have violated TikTok community standards, he said, that he’s been permanently banned from the platform.

Advertisement

“My content wasn’t brand-safe enough,” Choe said.

But Choe insists he’s still a journalist, pointing out that he’s also a freelancer for right-wing outlets like Daily Wire and Newsmax.

By contrast, when Kruse is accused of having strayed from traditional journalistic ethics prohibiting political activism, she repeatedly insists she’s not a journalist.

In November 2021, Kruse quit her reporter job at Seattle’s Fox 13 to launch her own podcast, telling her audience that she couldn’t effectively do her job when she “had to balance everything I said and did and wrote against this range of mainstream considerations.”

Less than two years later, Kruse not only endorsed Republican gubernatorial candidate Dave Reichert last year, she estimates that she drove about 6,000 miles around the state to speak at his rallies. She estimates she’s been paid to speak at 10 Lincoln Day dinners, the annual fundraisers for local Republican parties.

Advertisement
Brandi Kruse has become an outspoken political activist, including whipping up support for a string of initiatives aimed at reversing laws passed by state Democratic legislators.

Brandi Kruse has become an outspoken political activist, including whipping up support for a string of initiatives aimed at reversing laws passed by state Democratic legislators.

Courtesy of Brandi Kruse

She’s officially an ambassador of Future 42, the right-wing nonprofit that sponsors a segment on a “mutually agreed upon topic” each week of her podcast, though she said they don’t have a say over her show’s content.

The Olympia correspondent association’s guidelines, however, specifically exclude would-be reporters “involved with a party, campaign or lobbying organization” from being accredited as a reporter.

But Kruse maintains that being open about her biases actually makes her more ethical than traditional media outlets.

“What’s worse?” Kruse said. “Bias in favor of conservatives and openly admitting it, or having a media press corps that’s biased in favor of the party that’s in power and not admitting it?”

Advertisement

‘Not ideal for anyone’

Two years ago, Kruse reported that Choe was being excluded from some press events, in part because the governor’s office was using the correspondent association’s guidelines to make its own access decisions.

So this year, Choe said, he teamed up with Kruse to take a “preemptive strike” and hire a “high-powered law firm” to challenge the association’s criteria.

After the association decided to simply let the Legislature develop its own standard instead, officials in Olympia scrambled to make new rules. In the Senate, effectively anyone could now get a press pass and sit at the press table, so long as they filled out a form online to identify themselves as a reporter.

But to get access to the Senate’s wings — a crucial setting for journalists to connect with senators — reporters had to secure explicit permission from Republicans to report on the Republican side, and from Democrats to report on the Democrats’ side.

Aaron Wasser, communications director for the Washington Senate Democrats, said that the Senate didn’t even want the job.

Advertisement

“This is something that got dumped in our lap during probably the busiest time of the session,” Wasser said. “As we were passing the rule on the floor, Jerry [Cornfield] was right there, and I’m like, ‘There’s still time to take it back, Jerry!’ … This is not ideal for anyone.”

Some reporters with experience covering the Legislature expressed concerns about the change, but most in the media saw little impact from the new rules. Legislative leaders gave the entire existing Olympia press corps a blanket pass to each side of the aisle.

But when Choe tried to test the new rules last week, holding a new pink press pass — issued by the Legislature to grant him partial access — Wasser himself blocked Choe from attending a Senate Democratic press conference in the wings.

“You’re not a reporter, Jonathan,” Wasser said on video recorded by Choe. “Good luck with your fearmongering.”

The interaction became fodder for a story in multiple conservative publications. Since then, Wasser has acknowledged that he’d screwed up and said Choe is welcome to get access to the chamber as long as he gives a heads-up to legislative staff.

Advertisement

“We’re just kind of trying to figure this out as we go,” Wasser said.

Senate Democratic communications staffer Aaron Wasser regrets his confrontation with Jonathan Choe, where Choe was excluded from a press conference held in the Democratic wing of the Washington state Senate.

Senate Democratic communications staffer Aaron Wasser regrets his confrontation with Jonathan Choe, where Choe was excluded from a press conference held in the Democratic wing of the Washington state Senate.

Video screenshot

Both Kruse and Choe were officially credentialed to report on press conferences on both sides of the Senate last week.

Bernard Dean, chief clerk of the Washington state House of Representatives, said that reporters who’ve been previously issued press passes have continued to be allowed to operate in the House, but that a formal credentialing process still needs to be developed.

“It does put us in an awkward position of determining who is press,” Dean said. “It’s why multiple states throughout the country rely on the capitol correspondents’ position to issue those credentials.”

Advertisement

Shumway, the Oregon Capital Chronicle editor, has seen how having a Legislature control who can cover them creates problems. When reporting on the Arizona Legislature, she watched lawmakers craft bespoke new rules intended to cut out certain longtime reporters who caught the ire of powerful politicians.

“We also had them inviting absolute cranks — from outlets like the Gateway Pundit — who do not do any kind of fact-based reporting, who were standing alongside us and heckling the actual journalists covering the Legislature,” Shumway said.

If there needs to be access rules, Kruse argued that they should be about decorum or behavior, not about a definition of journalist.

“I would argue that I need more First Amendment protections than a mainstream journalist does in Olympia,” Kruse said. “Whose speech would the government be more eager to suppress: my speech, or a mainstream journalist’s speech? Probably the speech that’s the harshest on them.”

Trump White House seeks tighter grip on message with new limits on press

Advertisement

Free speech rules

At the national level, it’s mainstream journalists who’ve had their access rights come under attack. Both Kruse and Choe say the Trump administration was wrong to ban the Associated Press from certain press events because they refused to call the Gulf of Mexico by the name Trump has insisted upon, the “Gulf of America.”

Last week, a federal district court ruled that Trump had violated the Associated Press’s constitutional rights.

“What is not allowed is viewpoint discrimination,” said Stern, the press freedom advocate. “Journalists can’t be selected for exclusion because of what they say or because of their political slant.”

For the last five years, legal battles have unfolded in multiple states over this issue.

In 2021, the Alaska Governor’s Office settled a media access lawsuit from a nontraditional media personality, a former state Senate candidate who had been denied access to the traditional media’s rotating press pool.

Advertisement

On the other hand, that same year, a 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case determined that the governor of Wisconsin could, in fact, seek to exclude those with “entanglement with special interest groups, or those that engage in advocacy or lobbying” from press briefings.

But trying to ban journalists who engage in advocacy can get constitutionally dicey fast, Stern said. After all, many newspapers advocate for causes or candidates on their editorial pages. And in the early years of the United States, many newspapers — those that the country’s founders both championed and decried — were explicitly partisan organs of political parties.

“The journalists that the First Amendment was originally intended to protect were not objective by any means,” Stern said. “They were extremely political.”

Lawsuit threats themselves can risk chilling speech. As outspoken as Choe and Kruse have been on the issue, Washington state’s Capitol Correspondents Association has been wary of commenting.

Asked if the current situation was an improvement for press access, Cornfield remained silent for more than 20 seconds before saying he would not address that question on the record, due to ongoing concerns about potential litigation.

Advertisement

“You have more questions, you can keep asking,” Cornfield said. “I’m just going to give you silence.”

InvestigateWest (investigatewest.org) is an independent news nonprofit dedicated to investigative journalism in the Pacific Northwest. A Report for America corps member, Daniel Walters covers democracy and extremism across the region. He can be reached at daniel@investigatewest.org.

This republished story is part of OPB’s broader effort to ensure that everyone in our region has access to quality journalism that informs, entertains and enriches their lives. To learn more, visit opb.org/partnerships.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Washington

‘Not just workers’: Calls for safer roads during National Work Zone Awareness Week

Published

on

‘Not just workers’: Calls for safer roads during National Work Zone Awareness Week


Incidents like the one in 2023 along the Baltimore Beltway — a crash that killed six highway workers — are the reason why officials gathered to stress the need for better work zone safety during National Work Zone Awareness Week.

This week, officials, workers and residents are calling for safer roads as they say there is still more work to be done when it comes to safety.

“It’s about understanding that each of us has a role to play in the safety and protection of one another,” William Pines from the Maryland State Highway Administration said.

With an active construction site as the backdrop — at the interchange between Pennsylvania Avenue and Suitland Parkway — roadway workers spoke up.

Advertisement

“We are not just workers, we are people — real people. We are parents, siblings, friends and neighbors. So when you see us out there, please pay attention to that.” Dawn Hopkins with Flagger Force Traffic Control Services said.

Hopkins says she’s had to sound an alarm to get her crew out of dangerous situations.

“Please slow down, stay alert…and watch out for us in the workzones,” Hopkins added.

While the number of crashes in Maryland work zones in 2025 remains concerning, it is lower than in 2024. In 2025, there were:

  • 1,148 work zone crashes
  • 9 work zone deaths
  • 449 injuries

In 2024, there were:

  • 1,302 work zone crashes,
  • 12 work zone deaths, and
  • 492 injuries

“While citations are down, we still had 19 citations that were issues where the automated system recorded drivers traveling in excess of 130 miles an hour in work zones,” Pines said.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has proclaimed April 22 as “Go Orange Day” in Maryland, urging everyone to wear orange in support of highway worker safety.

Advertisement

A moment of silence for road workers who have been killed will be observed at noon this Friday.



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Q1 market trends in Northern VA and Washington DC | ARLnow.com

Published

on

Q1 market trends in Northern VA and Washington DC | ARLnow.com


This regularly scheduled column is written by Eli Tucker, Arlington-based Realtor and Arlington resident. If you would like to work with Eli and his team in Northern Virginia and the greater D.C. Metro area, you can reach him directly at [email protected].

Question: How has the local real estate market performed so far this year?

Answer: After a year where market conditions softened in favor of buyers, the Northern VA real estate market became more favorable for sellers in the first quarter of 2026, while the Washington DC condo market continued to reel.

What is in this article:

Advertisement
  • Northern VA, Arlington, and Washington DC Absorption Trends (demand)
  • Northern VA, Arlington, and Washington DC Inventory Trends (supply)
  • Washington DC List Price Trends (market values)

Northern VA & Arlington Inventory is Being Absorbed Faster

After four straight quarters of double-digit decreases in year-over-year absorption, the Northern VA and Arlington markets saw a ~8% increase in absorption rate.

What this means: Demand increased in Q1

Northern VA & Arlington New Listing Volume is Declining

After a promising trend of six straight quarters of year-over-year increases in the number of homes listed for sale in Northern VA, new listing activity fell by ~1% each of the previous two quarters.

What this means: Sellers have less competition, buyers have fewer choices

Washington DC Condo Absorption is Plummeting

The absorption rate for DC condos has declined year-over-year for 16 quarters straight and 23 out of the past 26 quarters.

Advertisement

What this means: It is difficult to find buyers for DC condos

Washington DC Condo Inventory Declined Slightly

Total inventory declined by 3.4% year-over-year, the first quarterly drop since Q4 2023. Still, there were great than 2x more condos for sale in DC in Q1 2026 than Q1 2020

What this means: Motivated sellers must compete aggressively with each other for buyers

Washington DC Condos Keep Getting Cheaper

The average price of a DC condo listed for sale is 9.4% less than it was in Q1 2025 and ~9% less than it was ten years ago.

What this means: Even lowering the price won’t guarantee a buyer

Advertisement

If you’d like to discuss buying, selling, investing, or renting, don’t hesitate to reach out to me at [email protected].

We have access to the most pre and off-market listings across the DMV of any brokerage and are happy to share what’s available with anybody who asks.

Below are some of our team’s pre/off-market listings, details and additional listings available by request:

  • Westover – 4BR/2BA/2,000sqft – Detached Single Family (2000) – 23rd St N Arlington VA 22205
  • Green Valley – 5BR/4.5BA/3,000sqft – Detached Single Family (2020) – 24th St S Arlington VA 22206
  • Ballston – 4BR/3.5BA/2,400sqft – Townhouse (2008) – N George Mason Dr Arlington VA 22203
  • Ballston – 4BR/3.5BA+office/4,000 sqft – Four Townhouses (2026/2027) – 11th St N Arlington VA 22201
  • Rosslyn – 2BR/2BA/1,800sqft – Condo (2021) – 1781 N Pierce St Arlington VA 22209
  • Rosslyn – 3BR/2.5BA/2,400sqft – Condo (1986) – 1530 Key Blvd Arlington VA 22209
  • Williamsburg – 6BR/5.5BA/5,500 sqft – Detached Single Family (2026) – 27th St N Arlington VA 22207
  • Yorktown – 6BR/6.5BA/6,000+ sqft – Detached Single Family (2026) – N Greencastle St Arlington VA 22207

Eli and his team believe that your real estate needs should be managed by advisors, not salespeople. Their mission is to guide, educate, and advocate for their clients through real advice, hands-on support, and personalized service.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Washington

Washington Watch: CCAMPIS grant competition announced – Community College Daily

Published

on

Washington Watch: CCAMPIS grant competition announced – Community College Daily


The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “on behalf of the Department of Education (ED),” on Monday released a Notice Inviting Grant Applications for the Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program. Applications are due by May 29.

Last November, ED announced that it had entered into an interagency agreement with HHS to administer the CCAMPIS program. This is the first CCAMPIS competition conducted under this arrangement.

Approximately $73.5 million will go to institutions of higher education that awarded at least $250,000 in Pell grants to enrolled students in FY 2025. HHS will award about 148 grants, ranging from $150,000 to $1 million.

The terms of the grant competition are not significantly different than prior competitions. As before, there are two absolute grant priorities that every application must address – leveraging non-federal resources and utilizing a sliding-fee scale for low-income parents.

Advertisement

This year’s competition includes only one invitational priority that reflects the Trump administration’s general educational policy. The new priority, entitled “Expanding Education Choice in Early Learning Settings,” encourages applications that “expand access to education choice … including by empowering parents in choosing the early learning setting that best meets their family’s needs.” Flexible childcare programs that include drop-in care and care during nontraditional hours are also encouraged.

One other notable difference from prior competitions is an expanded “Terms and Conditions” section that not only requires compliance with applicable civil rights laws, but also refers to Trump administration Executive Orders and guidance on racial discrimination that clarify “the application of federal antidiscrimination laws to programs or initiatives that may involve discriminatory practices, including those labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs.” This includes any “discriminatory equity ideology [as defined in Executive Order 14190] in violation of a federal antidiscrimination law.”

The exact scope of these terms is unclear because courts have not found many of the practices described in these Executive Orders and guidance documents to be violations of federal law.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending