White House bans CNN's Jim Acosta

Kaiser-Kun

!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 12, 2009
Messages
6,944
Reaction score
1,915
Age
39
Location
Mexico
Americans are allowed to legally challenge the president's lies now? What else did I miss?
 

Ketzel

Leaving on the 2:19
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
1,835
Reaction score
262
As for the press marching out en masse and refusing to cover Trump's pressers, etc., I think the fear is that Fox and Friends will hang in. Then Trump will be perfectly delighted to provide exclusives and self-dealing answers to soft-ball questions from his personal news network, while simultaneously bashing the mainstream press with unprofessional and un-journalistic behavior. "They are so committed to lying and false news!" said Trump, "They can't even pretend to cover me fairly - they won't even show up at press briefings anymore. People, anything you read about me in the lamestream media is fake, fake, fake!" The MAGA crowd will love it.
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
As for the press marching out en masse and refusing to cover Trump's pressers, etc., I think the fear is that Fox and Friends will hang in. Then Trump will be perfectly delighted to provide exclusives and self-dealing answers to soft-ball questions from his personal news network, while simultaneously bashing the mainstream press with unprofessional and un-journalistic behavior. "They are so committed to lying and false news!" said Trump, "They can't even pretend to cover me fairly - they won't even show up at press briefings anymore. People, anything you read about me in the lamestream media is fake, fake, fake!" The MAGA crowd will love it.

Agreed.

The press needs to be there; hold these people accountable and demand answers. To hell with the criticism from the administration.
 

RookieWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,745
Reaction score
40
Location
Mojave Desert
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.
 

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
8,555
Reaction score
8,432
Location
The Seattle suburbs
Website
www.reneedominick.com
However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive.

Why did Trump call on him, then? There are 50+ reporters there.
 
Last edited:

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.

Misbehaved how?

He asked a question.

How was he disruptive?

How was he disrespectful?

Trump did not answer the question, that's why Acosta kept talking.

Why, like on what basis, would the WH win, do you think? They revoked the pass of the WH correspondent based on... nothing? They first claimed he'd physically attacked an intern, which he didn't, then claimed it was because he'd refused to comply with general press conference standards, which is obviously ludicrous.

The criteria for revocation of a pass by the SS (presuming the person is still employed in the capacity for which they applied, etc.) is that the person poses a security threat. So on what grounds would the WH/SS win this?
 

Elle.

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 10, 2018
Messages
1,272
Reaction score
734
Location
United Kingdom
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.

If the White House were to ban someone for being disruptive and disrespectful, for misbehaving during press conferences then if Trump should be not Acosta.
 

Introversion

Pie aren't squared, pie are round!
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
10,642
Reaction score
14,865
Location
Massachusetts
It’s pretty obvious the WH banned Acosta because Trump didn’t like Acosta’s questions. I don’t think a reasonable observer would say that Acosta posed a threat to Trump’s person. An annoyance, perhaps.

RookieWriter, how do you think it serves our democracy for the WH to be able to ban reporters who ask tough questions? Yes, CNN could send another reporter. Do you think that replacement would be more or less inclined to ask softball questions than their predecessor, when called upon? Irrespective of whether it’s legal of the WH to manage the press pool this way, do you think it serves the country well, to be able to squash press questions in this manner? Is the press’ purpose anything more than printing what the WH wants them to say?
 

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN.

It's the beginning of a slippery slope for a democracy once it starts to pick and choose which journalist gets to ask questions.

-cb
 

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.

It is clear that you do not understand the job of the free press in a democracy.

A free press is necessary for a strong democracy.

Attacks by government officials on the institution of the press are also damaging. Calling the media “dishonest” or the “enemy of the American people” works to further destroy public trust. Trying to bully the press with threats or insults only works to weaken our democracy.

As U. S. Senator John McCain recently said February 20, 2017 on CNN: “If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I am afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That’s how dictators get started.”

Trump banned Acosta because he is clearly afraid to respond to Acosta's questions.
 
Last edited:

Larry M

Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
1,057
Reaction score
331
Location
Texas
Website
www.amazon.com
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.

Judge Kelly orders the White House to reinstate Jim Acosta’s hard pass.

Judge says CNN has shown irreparable harm will occur. Says even if CNN sent another reporter, that “does not make the harm to Mr Acosta any less real."

Judge orders Trump administration to restore CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press pass
 
Last edited:

Jolly-Boo

Please, call me Boo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
65
It's one of the most ridiculous lawsuits ever. Acosta was banned. Not CNN. If the WH tried to ban all of CNN then it's different and I would say the WH would for sure lose and I would be hammering Trump for that. However it's just one reporter who has repeatedly misbehaved during press conferences. Acosta wasn't interested in asking tough questions he was interested in engaging in a debate. He was disrespectful and disruptive. Trump answered the questions and Acosta continued to argue his point. Will a judge rule in favor of Acosta? Maybe. However the WH will appeal and win in the end.

I don't know the rules for how news organization are given access to the White House, and I don't know if there are any rules or precedent to ban someone if they genuinely behave in a hostile manner. I do think Acosta should have just given the microphone back, but that doesn't warrant a ban. And the White House fucked up bad. Sarah gave a bullshit "big strong burly man attacks poor innocent young woman" reason for the ban, along with a doctored video.

Again, maybe if Acosta had gone over a certain threshold, the ban could've been viewed as valid. Or perhaps WH could request a replacement, however this is done. But these "masterminds" made it worse all on their own.
 

lizmonster

Possibly A Mermaid Queen
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
14,532
Reaction score
24,098
Location
Massachusetts
Website
elizabethbonesteel.com
I do think Acosta should have just given the microphone back

It's really interesting how differently so many people can view the same video.

I saw a reporter in the middle of asking a question (admittedly while the president was trying to shut him up), trying to hang on to the mic while an intern was physically going after it, and saying "Pardon me, ma'am" when she wouldn't let go.

I suppose one could argue the etiquette of whether or not he should have relinquished the microphone when some kid went wordlessly up to him and tried to grab it, especially since the president clearly didn't want to talk anymore. But he didn't shove anybody, and he didn't steamroll a pack of other reporters trying to talk. He did his job.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
It’s pretty obvious the WH banned Acosta because Trump didn’t like Acosta’s questions. ...
Trump's goal was to change the subject from his pre-election fear-mongering about Hispanic immigrants to his post-election silence about the dangerous hordes on our border.

He succeeded superbly.
 

MaeZe

Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 6, 2016
Messages
12,772
Reaction score
6,477
Location
Ralph's side of the island.
I don't know the rules for how news organization are given access to the White House, and I don't know if there are any rules or precedent to ban someone if they genuinely behave in a hostile manner. I do think Acosta should have just given the microphone back, but that doesn't warrant a ban. And the White House fucked up bad. Sarah gave a bullshit "big strong burly man attacks poor innocent young woman" reason for the ban, along with a doctored video.

Again, maybe if Acosta had gone over a certain threshold, the ban could've been viewed as valid. Or perhaps WH could request a replacement, however this is done. But these "masterminds" made it worse all on their own.
Re the bolded: Why?

Acosta was merely refusing to let Trump give a non-answer. Acosta wanted the point of his question heard.

Unfortunately, Acosta lost, not because of the press pass kerfuffle. Acosta lost because he set up Trump to be even more effective silencing the question.
 

Jolly-Boo

Please, call me Boo
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
562
Reaction score
65
Re the bolded: Why?

Acosta was merely refusing to let Trump give a non-answer. Acosta wanted the point of his question heard.

Unfortunately, Acosta lost, not because of the press pass kerfuffle. Acosta lost because he set up Trump to be even more effective silencing the question.

If someone gives me the microphone (i.e. permission to speak) and then asks for the microphone back, I will give it to them. But I could never be a journalist, as I don't enjoy fighting for attention or a word. Trump's a douche, the press are right to be frustrated. Nonetheless ... I don't know, not my mic.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
If someone gives me the microphone (i.e. permission to speak) and then asks for the microphone back, I will give it to them. But I could never be a journalist, as I don't enjoy fighting for attention or a word. Trump's a douche, the press are right to be frustrated. Nonetheless ... I don't know, not my mic.

The mic is there so that the person can be heard by the room and cameras. It's not a talking stick. I mean yes, you're meant to wait until you have the mic to speak, for the above reason, but journalists aren't meant to simply shut up on command; he was still asking his question. If he'd been actually hogging the mic (like he'd asked a question, gotten an answer, asked a follow-up [normal behaviour], gotten an answer or even had someone say they were not going to answer) then the subject of the press conference called on someone else, who had a mic and/or started speaking [there's not one mic -- I've been at much smaller, less-prestigious press avails that have multiple roaming mics] and Acosta had talked over the person incessantly, refused to let anyone else ask a question for some extended period of time, even though he'd gotten an answer, etc., the press in the room would have told him to stfu. You'd have heard like, 'Jim,' or something similar from elsewhere in the room. Reporters absolutely have each other's backs, but if someone does something wrong it makes everyone look bad and ramps up the innate tension in press conferences, so people will check bad behaviour in the group.

That no other reporters seemed irked by Acosta; that even Fox was on his side about the pass, should demonstrate the egregiousness of the WH's behaviour.
 

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
12,079
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
If someone gives me the microphone (i.e. permission to speak) and then asks for the microphone back, I will give it to them. But I could never be a journalist, as I don't enjoy fighting for attention or a word. Trump's a douche, the press are right to be frustrated. Nonetheless ... I don't know, not my mic.

What Trump needs is a compliant Press.

What any country absolutely does not need is a compliant Press.
 

Lyv

I meant to do that.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
1,934
Location
Outside Boston
Acosta was doing the job we need him to do in a non-objectionable way. It's the way he and other journalists have done it to presidents and elected officials on both sides of the aisle.

BTW, this morning, the person (I have a hard time calling him that) who called him "rude" tweeted this:

So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!

Yes, that is how he spelled Rep. Schiff's name. The tweet has been up for over an hour. I do like Rep. Schiff's response:

Wow, Mr. President, that’s a good one.

Was that like your answers to Mr. Mueller’s questions, or did you write this one yourself?
 

RookieWriter

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 7, 2012
Messages
1,745
Reaction score
40
Location
Mojave Desert
It’s pretty obvious the WH banned Acosta because Trump didn’t like Acosta’s questions. I don’t think a reasonable observer would say that Acosta posed a threat to Trump’s person. An annoyance, perhaps.

RookieWriter, how do you think it serves our democracy for the WH to be able to ban reporters who ask tough questions? Yes, CNN could send another reporter. Do you think that replacement would be more or less inclined to ask softball questions than their predecessor, when called upon? Irrespective of whether it’s legal of the WH to manage the press pool this way, do you think it serves the country well, to be able to squash press questions in this manner? Is the press’ purpose anything more than printing what the WH wants them to say?

My view is that reporters can and should be able to ask the toughest questions they can think of to the POTUS, or anyone else serving in government. That being said there has to be a point of order and behavior protocol. Acosta wasn't banned for tough questions. If that was the case he would have been banned a long time ago. If you are honestly implying that a POTUS banning one reporter from press conferences is going to lead all the media in the country to being a mouthpiece for the WH I'd say that is a really long stretch.
 

Helix

socially distancing
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 31, 2011
Messages
11,695
Reaction score
12,079
Location
Atherton Tablelands
Website
snailseyeview.medium.com
My view is that reporters can and should be able to ask the toughest questions they can think of to the POTUS, or anyone else serving in government. That being said there has to be a point of order and behavior protocol. Acosta wasn't banned for tough questions. If that was the case he would have been banned a long time ago. If you are honestly implying that a POTUS banning one reporter from press conferences is going to lead all the media in the country to being a mouthpiece for the WH I'd say that is a really long stretch.

And yet, when a reporter from a different network endorsed Acosta's skill as a reporter, Trump said 'I'm not a big fan of yours, either'. Which doesn't look as if Trump was worried about protocol, but more about his hurt feelings.

Referring to journalists as 'enemies of the people' and their networks and newspapers as Luegenpresse is the first step. Controlling who can ask questions is a bit further down that road.