Joyce Vance
Role at the time: Former U.S. attorney and author of Civil Discourse
Response to this claim
The television networks' coordinated suspension of White House pool coverage warrants an investigation for possible antitrust violations.
“But it’s doubtful that the networks’ boycott is the type of restraint on trade that antitrust laws are intended to prevent.”
Vance disputes the legal justification for investigating the temporary protest. Her assessment of political intimidation is her interpretation, not a finding about DOJ's motive.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Why we used this label
The case asks whether the Justice Department is justified in investigating the television networks' White House press-pool boycott under antitrust law. Vance writes that it is "doubtful that the networks' boycott is the type of restraint on trade that antitrust laws are intended to prevent" and says it is a real stretch to investigate given the First Amendment implications of the White House's own conduct. That opposes the investigation, so we labeled it Condemned. The closest competing label is Challenged the characterization, since she disputes treating the networks' action as a commercial restraint of trade; it loses because she goes on to criticize the decision to investigate.