• by Wayne Friedman , Staff Writer, 5 hours ago

The U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust division has launched an investigation into five TV networks after they suspended White House press pool coverage, according to reports.

The investigation is focused on CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, and Fox News Channel, which temporarily declined to provide press pool coverage of the Trump press conference and other coverage.

Typically, video “pool” coverage is due to sometimes restricted physical environments where Trump delivers comments and answers questions from journalists.

Wy would the Trump Administration would care about the suspension, or future video pool suspensions to come? After all, the Trump Administration believes most of these news channels are delivering "fake news."

From a media organization's point of view, Trump may not deliver much “news” value, or insights. News channels have reportedly said he regularly delivers inaccurate information.

Still, at other times, it is worth covering Trump.

Recently, Trump suggested that Iran could attack U.S. cities at a rally last Monday, saying: “They can take out a city," and adding: “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.”

Is this news? Or a joke? Could it have been a malicious swipe at those California cities? In any regard, this could be some news to cover.

We know that President Trump has always loved attention, even as an aspiring real estate owner and builder.

The Trump Administration may be concerned about colluding networks that might increasingly want to trim back coverage of his missives.

A very loose antitrust, monopolist argument can be factored in.

In a straight business sense, antitrust moves by companies come down to consumers' "costs" -- paying more to get products and services.

Does this mean higher live TV network bundles and monthly pricing for streaming? 

What about advertising costs rising for brands? We don’t think so.

Perhaps it’s all about a decline in attention around Trump. The administration may see diminishing interest on the part of high-profile networks -- those with major reach and the scale to record professionally made videos that are distributed around the world.

That is what freedom means in the principle and phrase “freedom of the press." They get to pick and choose.

Still, couldn’t a journalist from some smaller digital news organization just hold up a mobile phone and record some video?