Take your seat. The question now is — where, exactly, is that seat?

Those in the White House press corps might soon be asking that question.

In Monday’s newsletter, I included an item about the White House’s latest measure to weed out and deemphasize media it doesn’t like. Axios’ Mike Allen reported that the White House wants to take over the seating chart for its briefing room. Traditionally, the White House Correspondents’ Association has been in charge of who sits where.

But now the White House wants control, and the assumption is that media outlets that Donald Trump and his administration don’t like could be pushed to the back of the room, while those who give more favorable coverage to Trump will get prime positions.

Those near the front, in the good spots, are more likely to get the attention of White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt and ask their questions. That becomes much harder to do if they are seated near the back of the press corps.

CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Right now, under the association’s seating chart, journalists from the country’s biggest TV networks, newswires, newspapers, and radio networks sit toward the front. A wide range of other well-established news outlets also have assigned seats, with some taking turns in order to fit more than 60 outlets into 49 seats.”

Supposedly, the White House is saying this isn’t just about rewarding those who give Trump good coverage and punishing those who cover him accurately and, therefore, are seen as negative by the Trump team.

One White House official told Allen, “The goal isn’t merely favorable coverage. It’s truly an honest look at consumption (of the outlets’ coverage). Influencers are important but it’s tough because they aren’t (equipped to provide) consistent coverage. So the ability to cover the White House is part of the metrics.”

But that doesn’t entirely pass the smell test.

The WHCA put out a statement that said, “The most obvious end result of this reported plan is the punishment, not elevation, of journalists. It’s the same at the Pentagon, where the administration removed longstanding outlets whose coverage they disagreed with for other outlets that did not regularly cover the building.”

Whatever the reason, it does seem as if the media — and not the president — should determine how he is covered, including who gets what seats in the briefing room.

Because, in the end, this isn’t just about seating charts.

As Vanity Fair’s Issie Lapowsky wrote, “The issue is not so much how the seating chart will impact this White House’s press briefings, which mostly make news these days for the extent of their obfuscations. But, in assuming power over a system that has traditionally been the domain of the free press, President Donald Trump is sending a message about who’s really in charge of how his presidency gets covered and who gets to cover it.”

But back to the actual seating chart stuff. The WCHA strongly objected to the White House’s plans to take over the seating chart. In its statement, the association said, “The White House should abandon this wrong-headed effort and show the American people they’re not afraid to explain their policies and field questions from an independent media free from government control.”

It added, “If the White House pushes forward, it will become even more clear that the administration is seeking to cynically seize control of the system through which the independent press organizes itself, so that it is easier to exact punishment on outlets over their coverage.”

One White House correspondent told Stelter, “It doesn’t really matter where people sit. But it does matter when the White House tries to impact what questions are asked, and how stories are covered, by taking control away from an elected group.”

Meanwhile, Chuck Todd, formerly of NBC News, wrote in a tweet: “The lack of leadership by the execs of these impacted media outlets is quite striking. I admire the journalists at WHCA in trying to push back but without full throated public support from their bosses, it will go nowhere. WH press shop knows this.”

So what happens now?

Leavitt told Fox News on Monday that the administration tried to set up a meeting with the WHCA board, but it’s unclear where that stands after Leavitt said the board sent a “fundamentally unserious email” to its members.

In its statement, the WHCA said it has always welcomed the so-called “new media outlets” that the White House seems to believe have been excluded up until now. It wrote, “The WHCA has previously offered, and still stands ready, to discuss with the White House how to accommodate more and different types of journalists. We also offered logistical assistance and that remains on the table – providing support for trips, helping to coordinate coverage, and serving as a go-between for our nearly 900 individual members. The White House picked this fight and continues to do so. Our members want to cover the administration without fear or favor, and stand ready to question government officials from any corner of the Brady Briefing Room.”

It concluded by writing, “Finally, let’s be clear about why seats and who assigns them even matter. It’s simple: for the American people. For the public to get the information it needs to understand and make decisions about the most powerful office in the world, it needs news produced by experienced, professional journalists who ask tough questions and produce fair coverage. There is a reason Democratic and Republican administrations alike have maintained the existing arrangement with WHCA for decades. But if a White House’s goal instead is to receive ‘favorable coverage’ through easy questions, the American people lose out.”

What do Americans think?

The whole seating chart kerfuffle is the latest attack on the press from the Trump administration.

Before this, the White House banned The Associated Press from being in pool coverage of some events simply because Trump is mad that AP calls the body of water between Florida and Texas the Gulf of Mexico instead of the Gulf of America. And before that, there were lawsuits Trump filed against ABC News and CBS News and “60 Minutes.” And before that, and during that and after that, there have been the usual attacks on the media from Trump and his administration.

So, what do Americans think?

According to the latest Pew Research Center survey, news about Trump’s attacks isn’t necessarily getting through to the public. The poll shows that just 36% of Americans reported hearing “a lot” about the Trump administration’s relationship with the news media. Nearly a fifth said they’ve heard “nothing at all,” and 44% said they’ve heard “a little” about it.

In a story for Poynter, my colleague Angela Fu writes, “That’s a substantial decline from Trump’s first term, when 72% of Americans said in March 2017 that they’ve heard a lot about his administration’s relationship with the media.”

But as far as news about Trump, it appears as if Americans are paying attention. Fu notes, “Indeed, more Americans reported paying attention to political news now than during the beginning of Joe Biden’s presidency. The Pew study found that 71% of Americans said they are following news about the actions and initiatives of the Trump administration ‘very’ or ‘fairly closely,’ compared to 66% for the Biden administration in 2021. Forty percent of Americans said they are paying more attention to political news since Trump’s inauguration, while 10% said they are paying less attention.”

There’s plenty more to dissect, so check out the Pew survey, as well as Fu’s story.

Very, very rude

LSU women’s basketball coach Kim Mulkey directs her team during the first half against UCLA on Sunday in the NCAA Tournament. (AP Photo/Young Kwak)

By most accounts, LSU women’s basketball coach Kim Mulkey is well-liked by her players. Mulkey was a scrappy, talented player in college, and she has become a scrappy, talented coach. Her teams at Baylor and LSU have won four national championships, and she has coached five teams to the Final Four. So, she is clearly one of the best basketball coaches in the country.

But she isn’t necessarily liked by people outside of LSU and its fans. She can be a bit much sometimes.

Case in point was Sunday, when her team was stopped short of reaching another Final Four after losing to UCLA. It was the second season in a row that Mulkey’s team was eliminated in the Elite Eight. In the postgame press conference, a student reporter from KLSU started a question with that fact — that it was the second consecutive season LSU got knocked out in the Elite Eight. Then, before he could get into the crux of his question, Mulkey interrupted and said, “That’s terrible, isn’t it?”

The reporter gave a polite chuckle and tried to move along with this question when Mukley asked, “Is that terrible, or is that good?”

The reporter said, “Terrible,” although the tone in his answer made it seem as if he was simply going along with Mulkey’s first response.

Then Mulkey appeared annoyed and said, “Is it? How many Final Fours (did) you play in?” Mulkey asked.

The reporter said, “None,” and Mulkey said, “So it’s probably pretty good, huh?”

OK, so it wasn’t a profanity-laced, yelling-and-screaming rant, but what was Mulkey’s point? The reporter hadn’t even finished the question and she had to be difficult.

On Monday’s “First Take” on ESPN, co-host Stephen A. Smith finally said what needed to be said. Smith said, “I’m not gonna take away from the fact that Kim Mulkey is a great coach and an established coach. We just need to finally say this about her: She’s very rude. She’s very rude. She’s very, very rude. She’s rude, she’s condescending and unnecessarily so to too many people.”

Then Smith got to the real issue with Mulkey: that she seems to punch down. That is, she goes after reporters who might feel powerless to stand up to her — in this case, a student reporter.

Smith said, “But it’s always with the right one. See, she don’t go up to the wrong ones like that. You see what I’m saying? It’s almost like she knows … who to do that to and who not to do that to. Because certain people you do that to, they gonna clap back at you. But she is a phenomenal coach, one of the best ever, but she is just a very, very rude person.”

Well said.

Shannon Sharpe, the former NFL-star-turned-broadcaster, said on “First Take,” “Has she not ever lost a game before? I mean, he didn’t even get a chance to finish the question. He’s asking, ‘Coach, this is the second time you’ve been eliminated.’ And for you to snap back and say, ‘Well, how many Final Fours have you been to?’ Really?”

Sharpe added, “Kim Mulkey has been nasty for a very long time. And she’s gotten away with this type of behavior because she is a National Championship-winning head coach.”

Media tidbits

• From Poynter’s PolitiFact, Madison Czopek with “Anonymous X account shares falsehoods to Elon Musk, top US officials. What we know about ‘Amuse.’”
• The Atlantic’s Elaine Godfrey writes about the White House’s communications chief in “Steven Cheung Is the Voice of Trump.”
• Semafor’s Max Tani with “Get out of their bubbles, or harden them? Newsom, Democrats debate their media future.”
• The New York Times’ Katie Robertson with “Bloomberg Has a Rocky Start With A.I. Summaries.” Robertson reports, “The news outlet has had to correct at least three dozen A.I.-generated summaries of articles published this year.”
• ProPublica editor-in-chief Stephen Engelberg with “How Investigative Journalists Actually Find Fraud, Waste and Abuse.”
• Many former TV news anchors like Joy Reid, Don Lemon and Jim Acosta are headed to Substack. The New York Times’ Jessica Testa writes, “The Loosening of American News Anchors.”
• The Ringer has hired NBA writer and podcaster Zach Lowe, who was surprisingly caught up in ESPN layoffs six months ago. I say surprisingly because Lowe is one of the better voices worth following in the NBA world. Ringer boss Bill Simmons, who loves basketball, must think so, too. The two worked together at ESPN. On his podcast, Simmons said, “Obviously, Zach is one of the best people I’ve ever worked with, and I was really hoping at some point in life we would get to work together again. So it’s happening.” And here’s Lowe’s announcement for a new podcast for The Ringer.
• While we’re talking sports media, Peter Schrager, longtime co-host on the NFL Network’s “Good Morning Football,” announced on Monday’s show that he is leaving the show. He has been with the show since its start in 2016. And he’s likely leaving the network, too. The Athletic’s Andrew Marchand reported last week that Schrager was going to leave the NFL Network, as well as his gig at Fox Sports, and was likely to join ESPN. Marchand wrote, “If the deal is finalized, Schrager is expected to be on the network’s daily shows, including ‘NFL Live,’ ‘Get Up,’ ‘First Take’ and other studio programming. ESPN is gearing up for its initial Super Bowl in February 2027. Schrager would likely have a role in draft coverage.”
• Speaking of Schrager’s departure, here’s an emotional sendoff from Kyle Brandt, who has co-hosted “Good Morning Football” with Schrager since the start.

Hot type

More resources for journalists

• Gain essential skills that protect your mental health while producing nuanced coverage that serves vulnerable communities. Enroll now.
• Craft your reporting into a captivating book. Apply by April 25.
• Revolutionize your investigative toolkit with Poynter’s Will Work For Impact. Enroll now.
• Advance your legal understanding with strategies to secure your work in the current media climate. Enroll now.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at tjones@poynter.org.

The Poynter Report is our daily media newsletter. To have it delivered to your inbox Monday-Friday, sign up here.