I’m officially a credentialed journalist.

What does that mean in 2024?

An engraving of the Senate press gallery from the 1890s. (Senate Historical Office)

The big story on Capitol Hill yesterday was Pete Hegseth’s return to meet with more Republican senators, including a second sit-down with Iowa’s Joni Ernst, widely regarded as the critical vote on his nomination to be Defense Secretary.

Hegseth’s nomination has hit several speed bumps, such as claims that he frequently abused alcohol while in a string of previous jobs. (Hegseth has denied the allegations, but pledged to quit drinking if confirmed.) On CNN this weekend, Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) said “the media should be ashamed of themselves” for reporting on the accusations. “I really wish that the media would move on and start focusing on what he can bring as Secretary of Defense,” Mullin continued, “because he has a lot of good attributes, too.”

This is not exactly untrodden ground. Hegseth isn’t even the first would-be Defense Secretary to face similar questions: John Tower, nominated to lead the Pentagon by George H.W. Bush, also faced allegations of alcoholism and sexual impropriety. Like Hegseth, he pledged to stop drinking; for Tower, at least, it didn’t work. He is the most recent Cabinet nominee to be rejected by the Senate. (Others have withdrawn from consideration.) Tower later railed against the “lynch mob” of reporters who covered the controversy.

These sorts of complaints go back even further. In January 1860, a relatively new newspaper called the New York Times reported that Virginia congressman William Smith — later a Confederate general known as “Extra Billy” — had launched into a tirade against the media on the House floor, upset that it had been reported that he drank a glass of spiked eggnog over Christmas when, in fact, “as a general rule he never touches spiritous liquors.”

“Mr. SMITH charged the reporters as a body — at least charged many of them, and made no specific exceptions — with a desire to place the House of Representatives in a ridiculous light before the country; whereas, according to Mr. SMITH’s notions of journalism, we up here should ‘labor to present the members in the best possible aspect,’” wrote the Times.

It is, of course, not the job of journalists to present members of Congress in the most flattering way possible — and, it should be noted, the House of Representatives does a fine job (then and now) painting themselves in a “ridiculous light before the country” without assistance from the media. But “Extra Billy” Smith might be forgiven for thinking that reporters were more accomplices than inquisitors.

After all, up to that point, they largely had been.

As the former Senate historian Donald Ritchie chronicles in his book, “Press Gallery,” the earliest members of the congressional press corps all hailed from partisan newspapers. When Federalists were in power, they selected a paper to serve (on the government’s payroll) as “official organ”; when Democratic-Republicans took over, they did the same. Most reporting from the capital city flowed from these highly biased sources, while opposition papers came to expect government reprisal when the other party was in power.

The era that found “Extra Billy” holding forth on eggnog saw some of the earliest shifts in the tenor of congressional reporting. The party organs that had dominated Washington journalism were suddenly facing competition from a new league of upstarts, known as the “letter writers.” These journalists were less reflexively partisan, but they were also more sensational. Benefitting from a new technology — the telegraph (which saw its first American usage in the Capitol building) — the “letter writers” were faster-paced than their predecessors. While the old newspapers dutifully chronicled congressional debate, the new reporters (as Smith complained) emphasized scandal and intrigue. Building an air of mystery, many of them wrote anonymously. (The aforementioned Times dispatch was signed “Very obediently, NOBODY.”)

Unsurprisingly, many lawmakers had a difficult time adjusting. According to Ritchie, the great orator Henry Clay “expressed his outrage that a writer for unknown papers would presume to report what he had said to his own constituents without first obtaining his consent.” (The horror!) At the time, the Senate set aside a few desks for reporters; the chamber voted not to give any to the “letter writers.” They would have to fend for themselves in the public gallery, the senators decided.

But politicians often find it hard to dictate media trends, and they did not end up winning this particular battle. Eventually, journalists pushed to be able to decide for themselves who would be credentialed to cover Congress. The House acquiesced in 1879, and the Senate in 1884, each ceding authority to a Standing Committee of Correspondents.

Capitol Hill now has four such committees, overseeing access to the Daily, Periodical, Radio-TV, and Photographer’s galleries. Last week, these galleries took their most inglorious turn yet. I have been credentialed as a member.

---

It’s been a longtime dream of mine to be able to report for you all directly from the Capitol, and I’m very grateful to the professional staff and Standing Committee members at the Periodical Gallery who made it possible. I don’t intend for this post to be overly self-referential, but I can’t help but note that I seem to be joining the gallery on the eve of yet another hinge moment for the D.C. press corps.

Last week, on the same day I picked up my Capitol Hill press badge (I’d post a photo of it, but you’re not allowed to), the Atlantic’s Helen Lewis wrote an obituary for the mainstream media. “In the 2024 campaign,” she wrote, “both presidential candidates largely skipped newspaper and television sit-downs—the tougher, more focused ‘accountability’ interviews—in favor of talking directly with online personalities.” They did so for a reason: as Lewis notes, Donald Trump’s conversation with podcaster Joe Rogan fetched a larger audience than any other candidate interview this cycle — 40 million views on YouTube alone, numbers that any mainstream media outlet could only dream of.

According to Donald Trump Jr., Rogan could now be in line for a seat in the White House briefing room. I doubt Rogan will want one, but there are surely several other pro-Trump podcasters who would take them up on it; just as Joe Biden gave more interviews to the “Smartless” podcast (two) than to the New York Times (zero), we are likely heading for four more years of the White House preferencing non-traditional media. On Capitol Hill, I don’t envy the Standing Committee of Correspondents, who will likely have difficult decisions to make in the coming years, as independent media outlets increasingly try to dip their toes into politics.

In some ways, this clash is a photo-negative of the 19th-century fights between the party organs and the “letter-writers.” Now, the incumbents are (at least largely) non-partisan outlets, while the upstarts are generally more overtly ideological. As in the 1800s, there’s no question which types of outlets the politicians will sympathize with. At least on the Hill, it will fall to journalists to decide who does or doesn’t count as among their colleagues.

In 1844, from the U.S. Capitol, Samuel Morse sent the first telegraph in U.S. history. “What hath God wrought?” it read. At first, the elders of the congressional press corps looked down on their telegraph-happy colleagues. Later, use of the machine became a qualification for membership. (Photo by the Architect of the Capitol)

For my part, I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly I was credentialed after my most recent application. The first time I requested congressional credentials was in 2020, after arriving in D.C. as a college freshman. It sparked a winding (and often opaque) months-long process, which ended with the committee allowing me to receive day passes on a case-by-case basis (which is how I’ve been able to cover Hill proceedings in the past) but opting not to give me permanent credentials, raising concerns about my age and my revenue model. At the time, all Wake Up To Politics content was free; gallery rules state that an outlet’s revenue must be “chiefly” derived from advertising or subscription — criteria I now meet with a once-a-week paywall, but still find an awkward fit for the current era.

An emerging generation of media outlets is poised to bump uncomfortably against these regulations, including non-profit newsrooms fueled by donations, Substack newsletters without paywalls, and TikTokers and podcasters who piece together incomes from a variety of different sources. These rules have noble roots — many of the earliest congressional reporters moonlighted as lobbyists or congressional staffers, giving raise to the emphasis on independent finances — but in age where the economics of media are shifting, they also run the risk of excessive gatekeeping.

As the galleries themselves acknowledge, “some of the earlier Standing Committees took an elitist view of news reporting in Washington and fashioned rules based more on a policy of exclusion than inclusion.” Then, that meant keeping out those who didn’t (or couldn’t) keep up with the latest technologies: rules requiring dispatches to be filed telegraphically excluded many Black and women’s newspapers that filed their reports by hand, leading to an almost exclusively white male press corps.

Now, it will mean wrestling with whether the rules aren’t technologically advanced enough. Everyone is a journalist now, says the modern media baron Elon Musk. Is he right? I’ve been writing Wake Up To Politics for more than 13 years; did I become a journalist just last week, when I received my first permanent badge affirming it? Or have I been one all along? In an era of sliding definitions, where do we draw the line — and who should be holding the pen?

Although I am a firm believer in a free press, I am glad there is a credentialing body (even if it’s one that didn’t always accept me) making sure the Hill isn’t bogged down by partisan podcasters yelling at senators, preventing serious reporters from getting their questions answered. And yet, if a critical mass of people are getting political news from Substack, and TikTok, and podcasts, it would be a disservice to the electorate if the rules don’t allow for good-faith correspondents from those platforms to have access to the people’s representatives. At this point, many of these independent outlets have audiences vastly larger than those of the incumbent corporations (which also means it may not always be in the interest of the mainstream reporters to let in the newer voices). In a democracy, voters need to know what is going on in Congress; if they are tuning out from the currently credentialed outlets, then either a more diverse set of outlets will need access, or the people will lose touch with their representatives.

Even the organization of the galleries, rooted in the 19th century, can begin to seem outdated: in an era of live blogs and home pages, all publications are daily, even those (myself included) credentialed as a periodical. Similarly, the rules on finances stem from good intentions — but can lead to odd results. Is a mainstream outlet owned by a billionaire businessman really less conflicted than a crowdfunded online newsletter?

---

In any event, precisely because I have been trying for so many years to be credentialed at the Capitol, being able to cover Congress and question lawmakers is a privilege I won’t take lightly. I hope I live up to the Standing Committee’s trust — and, ultimately, to yours.

At its best, independent media’s increasing inclusion in the halls of power offers an opportunity to complement mainstream reporting and step in to fill some of old media’s blind spots. Returning to the clashing models from those early days of Hill reporting, it’ll be my goal to borrow from the best of both the original congressional publications and the upstart “letter writers.”

The “letter writers” belonged to no party and proudly criticized them both. They harnessed a new technology to shine light on the Hill, covering the place with voice and energy. But that meant it was often the existing publications that were better at covering the substance of daily legislating: “It has given us some pain,” the publishers of one such newspaper wrote, “for more important reasons than our labors are thrown away, or undervalued, to find that so small a portion of the debates of Congress find their way into the newspapers dispersed over the country.”

In the intervening centuries — aided by technologies that work even quicker than the telegraph — this problem has only gotten worse. Members of Congress are sent here to make laws, not soundbites; God knows not enough of them do it — but one wonders if more might if the media was elevating the legislators and looking past the loudmouths. The bloviators feed off our attention; it’s time to turn the spigot off, and stop giving them the oxygen they seek. If they want media mentions, they should be expected to put in real legislative work to earn it.

The Times correspondent who covered eggnog-gate in 1860 defended the “letter writers” by blaming the audience: “There are thousands of the non-political class in every district who will read a racy personal letter with avidity, while turning away with a shrug from the full report, or still dryer ‘skeleton,’ of speeches actually delivered.”

But I believe it’s possible to put together a news report that’s interesting and informative at the same time; that brings in the writer’s own voice — but in service of explaining important issues, not elevating scandal or flacking for one side.

When I’m roving around the Capitol, I’ll try to carve out a “bipartisanship beat” that is sorely missing in other news outlets, doing my best to offer inside-the-room reporting on the substantive, under-the-radar bills I already cover in my Friday issues. I’ll try to offer historical context (such as a reminder that tensions between new and old media date back quite a while!) And the heart of my efforts will always be focused on improving your understanding of how your government works.

At the end of the day, I’ll be on the Hill for you — so I hope you’ll hold me accountable to those promises. I’ll try to be your representative here in Washington, so please let me know if there are questions you want answered and pieces of legislation you want covered. As always, you only have to click “reply” to reach me.

---

---

More news to know

Rupert Murdoch in 2015. (Photo by the Hudson Institute)

Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst appeared to inch closer to supporting Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary after their second meeting.

The Supreme Court declined to hear a lawsuit by Wisconsin parents challenging a school district’s policy to allow transgender students to use pronouns and bathrooms that match their gender identity without notifying parents. Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas said they would have heard the matter; four justices are needed to take up a case.

Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch, 96, lost a legal bid to keep his chosen son in charge of his conservative media empire after his death, instead of his more liberal children.

Democratic governors say that, even after their struggles with Biden, there’s no age that’s too old to be the party’s 2028 nomine. “It’s not a time of life, it’s a state of mind,” says Gavin Newsom.

Pennsylvania Rep. Susan Wild, the top Democrat on the House Ethics Committee, reportedly acknowledged to the panel that she leaked information relating to the Matt Gaetz investigation.

Kari Lake is a top contender to be nominated as U.S. ambassador to Mexico.

Donald Trump referred to the Canadian prime minister as “Governor Justin Trudeau of the Great State of Canada.”

---

The day ahead

• President Biden will deliver remarks on his economic legacy at the Brookings Institution and speak at a “Christmas for All Dinner in Celebration of Unity, America, and Special Olympics” at the White House.

• Vice President Harris has nothing on her public schedule.

• The Senate will vote on confirmation of Keli Marie Neary to be a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania.

• The House will vote on up to 10 pieces of legislation, including bills on Amtrak, cyber resilience, and laundry.

• The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Seven County Coalition v. Eagle County.