White House launches ‘Hall of Shame’ site to publicly condemn media outlets for alleged bias
New White House webpage names major news organisations and journalists as “fake-news offenders,” sparking criticism. It is not clear why such a website — which is essentially journalism about journalism — is being treated as a threat, as though journalism itself were dangerous, or as though journalists were somehow ‘above’ the accountability they demand from everyone else.
The White House, under President Donald J. Trump, has unveiled a new public page on its official website devoted to exposing what it calls “biased” or “misleading” media coverage.
The page — headlined “Misleading. Biased. Exposed” — includes an “Offender Hall of Shame,” a publicly searchable database in which 21 leading news outlets and individual journalists are listed as recurring “media offenders”.
Among the 22 named institutions are prominent global and American media players such as CBS News, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Politico, The Wall Street Journal and even international outlets such as BBC.
The site also features a rotating “Media Offender of the Week”.
The White House accuses these outlets of offences ranging from “bias” and “left-wing lunacy” to “malpractice,” “reckless negligence,” and “omission of context”.
The page invites the public to sign up for weekly “offender alerts”.
The initial launch of the website drew swift criticism after media watchdogs identified errors.
Most notably, one piece of alleged “fake news” was incorrectly attributed to Fox News — a mistake that forced the White House to temporarily remove the page and issue corrections.
When the site went back online it listed 31 “fake-news offences” from 21 media organisations.
In its debut week, the “Offender Hall of Shame” ranked The Washington Post first among the worst offenders, followed by MSNBC, CBS News, CNN, and several others.
The White House singled out recent reporting it viewed as distorted — for instance, coverage of controversial comments by the President about Democratic lawmakers and the military that the administration says was misrepresented.
This initiative represents a dramatic escalation in the administration’s long-running public conflict with mainstream media.
In recent months, the President has filed lawsuits or threatened legal action against outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and repeatedly called various media institutions “enemies of the people”.
Media advocacy groups and press-freedom defenders condemned the new online platform.
They argue it amounts to a government-sponsored attempt to delegitimise independent journalism and intimidate reporters.
Some also fear it may chill critical reporting and erode public trust in the press.
Others note the fact that the “exposure” site itself was forced to correct its own mistakes as evidence of its deeply flawed methodology.
The rollout comes at a time of heightened tension between the administration and large parts of the press, including recent legal confrontations, personal attacks on reporters, and public disputes over coverage of controversial statements by the President.
The new webpage underscores how the White House increasingly seeks to recast media criticism as hostile propaganda — and to marshal public support in doing so.
Whether this tactic will succeed, or ultimately erode press freedom and public confidence, remains an open question.
The page — headlined “Misleading. Biased. Exposed” — includes an “Offender Hall of Shame,” a publicly searchable database in which 21 leading news outlets and individual journalists are listed as recurring “media offenders”.
Among the 22 named institutions are prominent global and American media players such as CBS News, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, Politico, The Wall Street Journal and even international outlets such as BBC.
The site also features a rotating “Media Offender of the Week”.
The White House accuses these outlets of offences ranging from “bias” and “left-wing lunacy” to “malpractice,” “reckless negligence,” and “omission of context”.
The page invites the public to sign up for weekly “offender alerts”.
The initial launch of the website drew swift criticism after media watchdogs identified errors.
Most notably, one piece of alleged “fake news” was incorrectly attributed to Fox News — a mistake that forced the White House to temporarily remove the page and issue corrections.
When the site went back online it listed 31 “fake-news offences” from 21 media organisations.
In its debut week, the “Offender Hall of Shame” ranked The Washington Post first among the worst offenders, followed by MSNBC, CBS News, CNN, and several others.
The White House singled out recent reporting it viewed as distorted — for instance, coverage of controversial comments by the President about Democratic lawmakers and the military that the administration says was misrepresented.
This initiative represents a dramatic escalation in the administration’s long-running public conflict with mainstream media.
In recent months, the President has filed lawsuits or threatened legal action against outlets such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, and repeatedly called various media institutions “enemies of the people”.
Media advocacy groups and press-freedom defenders condemned the new online platform.
They argue it amounts to a government-sponsored attempt to delegitimise independent journalism and intimidate reporters.
Some also fear it may chill critical reporting and erode public trust in the press.
Others note the fact that the “exposure” site itself was forced to correct its own mistakes as evidence of its deeply flawed methodology.
The rollout comes at a time of heightened tension between the administration and large parts of the press, including recent legal confrontations, personal attacks on reporters, and public disputes over coverage of controversial statements by the President.
The new webpage underscores how the White House increasingly seeks to recast media criticism as hostile propaganda — and to marshal public support in doing so.
Whether this tactic will succeed, or ultimately erode press freedom and public confidence, remains an open question.
