Trump Suggests He Chose ABC Interviewer Himself \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ During an ABC News interview, President Donald Trump claimed he personally selected interviewer Terry Moran, raising concerns over journalistic independence. ABC has declined to confirm the selection process, as media ethicists warn against letting public figures influence coverage. The incident reignites debate about editorial control in high-stakes political interviews.
Quick Looks
- Event: Trump suggests he hand-picked ABC’s Terry Moran
- Broadcast: Prime-time ABC News interview aired Tuesday
- Controversy: Ethical concerns about letting newsmakers choose interviewers
- ABC’s Response: Declined public comment on selection process
- Moran’s Role: Veteran journalist, lower network visibility in recent years
- Ethics Viewpoint: Undermines journalistic independence, says Poynter Institute
- Historical Context: Competition for interviews has long shaped media dynamics
- Audience Impact: Trump interview drew nearly 4 million viewers
- White House Trends: Trump administration seeks greater media control
- Industry Voices: Former network presidents describe selection as “negotiation”
Deep Look
President Donald Trump’s prime-time interview with ABC News’ Terry Moran stirred controversy this week—not for what was said about policy, but for the president’s suggestion that he personally chose the interviewer. The comment, made during a tense exchange about deportation policies, has raised fresh concerns about the independence of political journalism and the ethical boundaries between reporters and those in power.
“You’re doing the interview. I picked you because, frankly, I never heard of you, but that’s OK,” Trump told Moran during Tuesday night’s broadcast. He then added, “You’re not being very nice,” underscoring his belief that Moran was present at his discretion.
From a journalistic ethics standpoint, this type of influence over interviewer selection is a major red flag. As Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute put it, “It undermines our independence as journalists. When we let the powerful person we are attempting to question choose who conducts the interview, we break our promise to act in the public’s interest.”
However, ABC News declined to publicly confirm or deny whether Trump had a role in choosing Moran. Privately, the network has pushed back against claims that Trump was given a list of potential interviewers, though it remains unclear what conversations occurred behind the scenes.
Why Moran?
The selection of Terry Moran raised eyebrows in media circles. Once ABC’s chief White House correspondent during the George W. Bush administration and a frequent interviewer of Barack Obama, Moran’s current role is lower profile. He now anchors for ABC News Live, the network’s streaming service, and primarily covers the Supreme Court.
By contrast, ABC’s highest-profile journalists—David Muir, Mary Bruce, and Jonathan Karl—may have seemed more obvious choices. Muir, as anchor of World News Tonight, is the face of ABC’s evening news. Karl has authored multiple books on Trump and co-hosts This Week, while Bruce is the current chief White House correspondent. Only George Stephanopoulos, who recently settled a defamation suit filed by Trump, was likely off the table.
The Ethics vs. Reality Gap
In theory, a news organization maintains complete control over interview assignments, question preparation, and editorial direction. But in reality—especially when it comes to interviewing a sitting or former president—access becomes currency.
Presidents receive dozens of interview requests, most with specific reporters attached. According to former CNN and NBC News executive Mark Whitaker, the idea of allowing a subject to select their interviewer was never part of his experience, though negotiations around interviews were common.
Andrew Heyward, a former president of CBS News, acknowledged that while journalistic principle dictates full editorial control, “in practice, it’s often a negotiation.” He clarified that he had no insider knowledge of ABC’s process but noted that high-stakes interviews often involve delicate back-and-forth over who gets the seat across from the president.
Ratings and the ‘Get’
In this case, Moran’s interview with Trump was a ratings success, drawing nearly 4 million viewers, the most-watched program on television that night, according to Nielsen.
That attention highlights the competitive nature of securing big-name interviews, a dynamic that’s existed for decades. During what veteran journalist Connie Chung called the “Wild West” era of TV journalism, networks regularly allowed interviewees to dictate terms, especially when pursuing high-profile “gets.”
Chung recalled competing with Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer, who often lobbied independently for interviews even within the same network. In one instance in 2001, ABC had assigned Walters to interview scandal-ridden Congressman Gary Condit, but Condit’s team demanded Chung or they would go to a different network. ABC relented—and Chung got the interview.
While today’s media landscape is more fragmented and digital, the value of exclusivity remains—and so does the temptation to compromise ethical standards to land the headline-grabbing sit-down.
Media Strategy in the Trump Era
Trump’s media strategy has long involved undermining traditional media norms, favoring outlets and reporters he considers sympathetic. His administration routinely sparred with national outlets, altered White House press access, and promoted lesser-known, ideologically aligned journalists in place of mainstream correspondents.
His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, has continued this approach, inviting newer outlets into briefings and hinting at more selective access policies. The administration also clashed with the Associated Press over access to the Oval Office.
This controlling approach extends into interview negotiations—fueling speculation that the president’s apparent influence over Moran’s selection may have been part of a broader White House media control strategy.
The Gray Area
So, was this a breach of ethics or just the reality of political journalism in 2025?
“It is a bit of a gray area,” said Heyward. While purists argue that a president should have no say in who interviews them, industry veterans acknowledge the blurry lines, particularly when an exclusive opportunity is at stake.
For journalists, it’s a reminder that access must be balanced with independence. For audiences, it reinforces the need for transparency—about who is asking the questions, who is choosing them, and who ultimately controls the narrative.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.