Assume almost no access to Trump and the people around him who have power, or imagine that the access game becomes a net negative. Now what? You still have to find out what’s going on, but the “access” portal is closed. This seems to me a better starting point, even as you fight for real access, defend the daily briefing, and demand timely responses to Freedom of Information requests.
Outside-in means you start on the rim and work towards the center, rather than the reverse. Domestically, it involves mining sources in the agencies and civil service rather than the people perceived as “players.” (As is commonly done in investigative journalism.) With foreign policy it means more is likely to come from other governments than from the U.S.
During the Trump campaign who had better access: The reporters in the media pen, or those who got tickets and moved with the rest of the crowd? Were the news organizations on the blacklist really at a disadvantage?
I say this every time a mighty whinge goes up from the press corps over who moved whose chair where or who had to print some adulatory crap in order to preserve a spot on some bullshit list somewhere: STOP ACTING LIKE THESE THING AREN’T CHOICES. If you’re there to brag about where you rank, you can behave like that.
If you’re there to serve your readers you might be better off putting down the crack pipe and going out and covering things from the perspective of people who are AFFECTED by Trump’s policies. Mayhap with a fraction of the compassion you show for his economically insecure racist prick base.
Pretend you can’t get in, even if you can. And even if you can, maybe DON’T, because that’s not where the stories are anyway.