My fellow panelists and I told the gathered business leaders, diplomats and other foreign officials about how Trump revoked the press credentials for The Post and other news organizations. And we talked about how it was still our duty to cover the Republican presidential nominee.

But during the question-and-answer period, an attendee who said she was from the Kurdistan region of Iraq raised a great point. One that elicited knowing applause and left us momentarily speechless.

AD

AD

Many of us are diplomats, officials, party officials from, let’s say, countries, developing countries. If our presidential candidates blocked the credentials of a single journalist we would have “Human Rights Watch,” “Amnesty International,” a lot of press freedom organizations at our throats. Have any of them spoken in your defense?

She was absolutely right. Freedom of the press is a key ingredient to a functioning democracy. Without it and the transparency such a freedom affords, the people will never know what their government is doing, either to them or to others. That’s why the United States government and international organizations become quite vocal when that freedom is abridged in any way.

Now that it is actually happening in this country, you don’t see nearly as much condemnation as you would when it happens elsewhere. But that’s not to say voices haven’t been raised.

Back in May, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) released a blog entitled “Why Trump’s insults of journalists must be taken seriously.” The day after Trump announced his ban on The Post, CPJ tweeted, “A candidate for the highest elected office in the land doesn’t get to choose what goes into a newspaper.” Last month, PEN America called on both both Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton to “respect and protect the vital role of the press by granting reporters unfettered access to events and candidates, making clear that personal attacks on journalists are unacceptable, and demonstrating their commitment to media freedom through their words and actions.”

AD

AD

All the while, Trump continues to threaten the press. At a campaign event on Monday, he complained about “very dishonest” coverage in the New York Times. He invoked his ban on The Post and said, “I should do it with the Times.” At that Monday rally, Trump also harangued CNN, saying he would no longer grant its anchors interviews. And then there was the tweetstorm he unleashed on the cable network that same day.

Here’s what makes Trump’s actions complicated. Even though there is a ban on The Post, my colleagues have had access to the candidate. Just yesterday, Philip Rucker had an eye-opening sit-down with the GOP nominee. All hell broke loose after Trump refused to endorse House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and others for reelection. Yet, it was telling how the transcript notes how often Trump glances at the television and comments on what he sees. Not to mention his fascination with his impact on television coverage and ratings.

Trump’s inability to abide by his own bans is one reason there hasn’t been a huge outcry akin to what the questioner from Iraq expected. The other reason is more important. Confidence at home and abroad remains in the other institutions that buttress U.S. democracy. Our government doesn’t function the way it should but it is not on the verge of collapse. And a free press is as much a reflection of the culture as it is inherently part of the culture.

It will take more than the whining threats of a narcissistic presidential candidate to thwart a free press. That one is this close to putting that assertion to the test as president of the United States is more worrisome.