Submitted by Bill Fernie
23rd September 2026
Caithness Business has not been banned from the White House. So far.
I am relieved, although I am beginning to wonder whether we have simply not become important enough yet.
The White House has recently banned CNN, MS NOW and Politico from its grounds after President Donald Trump accused the organisations of producing what he describes as "fake news". The three organisations are now taking the administration to court, arguing that the ban violates constitutional protections for the press.
Meanwhile, other major television networks have stood back from parts of the presidential press operation rather than simply stepping into the vacant space.
This has left me wondering what it takes to get yourself banned from the White House.
Perhaps Caithness Business needs to increase its readership.
At present, I suspect the White House would struggle to find Caithness on a map, never mind discover that its most troublesome journalist is sitting somewhere near Wick writing about heating oil prices.
I could, of course, start reporting more aggressively.
"President Trump refuses to answer Caithness Business questions about the price of diesel."
The problem is that I haven't actually asked him any.
Perhaps I should.
There is also the question of access.
The White House says access is a privilege rather than a right. That is an interesting concept for a small website.
We have always assumed that if somebody doesn't want to speak to us, we simply send them an email.
If they don't reply, we send another.
If they still don't reply, we write the article without them.
There is no White House press room involved. There isn't even a press room.
There is just a computer, a cup of tea and somebody in Caithness wondering whether the latest government announcement actually means anything for local people.
The Trump administration's position is that the First Amendment protects the media's right to publish but does not give individual organisations an automatic right to White House access. The banned outlets argue that withdrawing access because of unfavourable reporting amounts to unconstitutional retaliation. Those arguments will now be tested in court.
And this is where the story becomes more interesting than the jokes.
A free press is not particularly useful if journalists can only report from inside government buildings when the government likes what they are writing.
But governments and politicians have always disliked unfavourable coverage. The White House itself has pointed to previous administrations restricting access to journalists and media organisations it considered hostile.
Perhaps the lesson for Caithness Business is therefore simple.
We shall continue doing what we have always done.
We will report the things we find interesting.
We will occasionally get things wrong and correct them.
We will publish things governments would probably rather we didn't publish.
We will publish things governments will be pleased to see.
And, on rare occasions, we may even publish something that makes absolutely everybody cross.
That seems to be part of the job.
As for being banned from the White House, I shall try not to worry.
If the President ever decides that Caithness Business is sufficiently influential to deserve banning, I shall regard it as a considerable career achievement.
I might even put it on the website.
"Caithness Business banned by White House."
That should do wonders for the readership figures.
Although knowing my luck, somebody will probably ask:
"What did you do to deserve it?"
And I will have to admit - "Err....I wrote something about heating oil." I won't hold my breath.