U.S. judge orders White House to restore press pass to CNN's Acosta

[ResandePohm]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Obviously they need to redefine the rules for the press corp since they no longer have any respect. It should be similar to a court of law, where someone like Acosta could be shown to be in contempt. No legal charges for what he did, but removal and bans should be available. 

Then the same respect should be shown by those providing the information. That is they should tell the truth and not attack the press corps in attendance by insulting them and calling them the enemy of the people, etc. It works both ways.

[candide]

4 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Thank you. Paul Joseph Watson has done a youtube rebuttal of this which purports to show a speed bar not altering. I am not technical enough to know if this is correct or not.

And he surely is a guy to be trusted! ????

"Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, for whose website he promoted fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

 

[DoctorG]

2 minutes ago, candide said:

And he surely is a guy to be trusted! ????

"Watson's career emerged through his work for conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, for whose website he promoted fake news and conspiracy theories such as the claim that 9/11 was an inside job, the chemtrail conspiracy theory, the New World Order and the Illuminati."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

 

You forgot about the frogs.

[ResandePohm]

5 hours ago, Boon Mee said:

Doesn't matter. Acosta will be thrown out of the briefing room again if he acts up. 

 

If you are a persistent liar you must expect to be called out about it. It doesn't help to call him names. Just makes the orange man look the buffoon that he is.

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, farcanell said:

I think my gibberish translator function is broken, as this makes no sense to me.... so I’m wondering if someone with a functioning gibberish translator can help out here

 

[ResandePohm]

3 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

The video is a red herring. It makes no difference to me that their arms/hands touched while she was trying to retrieve the mike. What bothered me that Acosta was resisting her and speaking out of turn. He was forcing his way on the meeting and behaving in a way that was beneath his level of privilege.

Maybe that was because he was not getting any straight answers from the buffoon.

 

[farcanell]

13 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Absolutely golden ????????????????????

[ResandePohm]

1 hour ago, JimmyJ said:

In Question (Fri 9/11/18) ‘[Former member of UK Parliament] Galloway: CNN a “Fake News Bureau”’

 

"Anya Parampil reports on the double standard of the mainstream media’s outrage over Jim Acosta’s White House press pass being revoked."

 

https://www.patreon.com/posts/22631226

 

Great discussion of the hypocrisy of the US Corporate Media uproar over the Acosta incident.

 

 

Galloway??? Is he still around? I thought he had been truly and absolutely discredited of knowing anything about everything. I certainly wouldn't believe anything he might say.

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

But as such never happened, you can only dream.

The Obama administration never rescinded the press passes of Fox News reporters nor ejected or banned them from White House press conferences.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-block-fox-news-reporters/

[Dap]

On 11/17/2018 at 8:51 AM, DoctorG said:

Well, if you are convinced I guess that is proof.

 

"Getting tired of Trumpets ignoring facts staring them in the face. I've seen the actual video and the doctored video. Indisputable.

Well, he certainly does not stand alone in his belief 
 

[riclag]

57 minutes ago, ResandePohm said:

Then the same respect should be shown by those providing the information. That is they should tell the truth and not attack the press corps in attendance by insulting them and calling them the enemy of the people, etc. It works both ways.

 

"The courtroom showdown overseen by Kelly could have a grave effect on journalists’ rights to access the White House and cover the administration"

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/416935-judge-rules-against-white-house-in-cnn-dispute

 

It seems the flood  gates will be opening up soon! Presidents of the pass  and their administrations have  been subjected to media bias and scorn from journalists and their corporate owners ! Things sure have changed on how the media reports on the POTUS  and his Admin.

 

Finally, rules and regulations during press briefings ,possible  mandatory limits on questions by a single network or representatives,behavior of reporters who don't follow the rules can be ejected and if necessary stopping the briefing in real time, restricting access by broadcast streaming  will be coming down from the White House,  White House Counsel ,no doubt the Secret Service could also play a role in suggesting measures be taken for safety concerns for the POTUS and Press Secretary in this climate of hatred ! 

[Small Joke]

4 hours ago, farcanell said:

I think my gibberish translator function is broken, as this makes no sense to me.... so I’m wondering if someone with a functioning gibberish translator can help out here

"cnn lie media no need press pass anywere,better keep out idiot media."

Ran it by my translator app, it confirmed it.

Fluent gibberish, with an alt. right dialect.

[lungbing]

So give him his pass back.  But there's nothing to say  they can call him to ask a question ever again.

[Scott]

Post and reply from unapproved source have been removed. 

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, lungbing said:

So give him his pass back.  But there's nothing to say  they can call him to ask a question ever again.

Surely you don’t think that they would be that petty and unprofessional, do you?

[atyclb]

12 hours ago, wwest5829 said:

But, of course, your point is moot as President Obama would never have referred to the Press as the enemy of the people, nor brought such national and international distain to the office.

Under Obama, a Chill on Press Freedom

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-chill-on-press-freedom.html

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, atyclb said:

Under Obama, a Chill on Press Freedom

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-chill-on-press-freedom.html

This is a fair comment. Obama did make some decisions to restrict press freedom. 

[joecoolfrog]

17 hours ago, DoctorG said:

Well, if you are convinced I guess that is proof.

 

More pertinent is the fact that the judge was convinced.

[Credo]

5 hours ago, atyclb said:

Under Obama, a Chill on Press Freedom

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-chill-on-press-freedom.html

Well, the article is from 2014, so I am not sure it's relevant and I am not sure you can compare a 'chill' to the persecution that Trump lays on the press.   

 

[quandow]

On 11/16/2018 at 4:35 PM, canuckamuck said:

If this was Obama and it was a Fox reporter being as disruptive as Acosta, I would make the same point.

I'm no fan of Obama but he was heckled MULTIPLE times and always kept his cool. Trump is a narcissistic ignoramus and has no couth, no depth of understanding how things work, and couldn't care less as long as his bank account continues to grow.

[Srikcir]

19 minutes ago, quandow said:

I'm no fan of Obama but he was heckled MULTIPLE times and always kept his cool.

Obama then (2014):

And now (2018):

Obama uses 'surgical intelligence' while Trump uses 'blunt intolerance.'

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, atyclb said:

Under Obama, a Chill on Press Freedom

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/politics/under-obama-a-chill-on-press-freedom.html

On the ohter hand, Obama never professed admirations for someone who physically assaulted a journalist.

[Srikcir]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

On the ohter hand, Obama never professed admirations for someone who physically assaulted a journalist.

Obama, recipient of an award for ethics in government:

"I Complained Plenty About FOX News," I Never Called Them Enemies Of The People

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/09/08/obama_i_complained_plenty_about_fox_news_i_never_called_them_enemies_of_the_people.html

 

 

[Thakkar]

On 11/17/2018 at 5:28 AM, rooster59 said:

There must be decorum at the White House

Says the guy who tweeted from the WH, calling a pornstar he had an affair with and later paid off for her silence, “horseface”

 

Says the man who mocked a disabled reporter at a campaign rally.

 

Says the president who threw paper towels at hurricane victims.

 

Says the man who mocked a decorated POW for being captured.

 

Says the man who insulted a Goldstar family.

 

Says the man who routinely gives childish, insulting nicknames to all his opponents.

 

Says the man who routinely lies about matters big and small from the WH podium.

[TopDeadSenter]

Forcing the return of the press pass to this activist was not a wise decision. Looks good on paper, but Mr Acosta will not be given the chance to hold a mic at white house press conferences again. A pyrrhic victory. I hear CNN alone has 50 of these press passes for their teams of journalists/activists. Not sure why the media consider Acosta to be more important than all other journalists from all other media outlets?

 

 The correct response from Acosta should have been a heartfelt apology to the young girl that he tussled with over the mic, and an apology to Trump and his staff for getting a bit carried away. In such times of personal errors in the public sphere, an admission to alcohol/narcotic abuse and making a show of checking into a facility always buys sympathy. 

 

Interesting to see how this plays out at the next press conferences, but likely Jim Acosta's career just went the same way as the dodo.

 

 

[Srikcir]

5 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Not sure why the media consider Acosta to be more important than all other journalists from all other media outlets?

The US Constitution applies to every individual, not to groups. It matters not how many journalists a news media has - what matters is that every journalist shares the same constitutional inalienable rights.

[neeray]

13 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Forcing the return of the press pass to this activist was not a wise decision. Looks good on paper, but Mr Acosta will not be given the chance to hold a mic at white house press conferences again. A pyrrhic victory. I hear CNN alone has 50 of these press passes for their teams of journalists/activists. Not sure why the media consider Acosta to be more important than all other journalists from all other media outlets?

 

 The correct response from Acosta should have been a heartfelt apology to the young girl that he tussled with over the mic, and an apology to Trump and his staff for getting a bit carried away. In such times of personal errors in the public sphere, an admission to alcohol/narcotic abuse and making a show of checking into a facility always buys sympathy. 

 

Interesting to see how this plays out at the next press conferences, but likely Jim Acosta's career just went the same way as the dodo.

 

 

We’ll see. 

[TopDeadSenter]

3 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

The US Constitution applies to every individual, not to groups. It matters not how many journalists a news media has - what matters is that every journalist shares the same constitutional inalienable rights.

There are approx 30,000 full time journalists in the US. It is logistically impossible to have all 30,000 of them sitting in the front row at a white house press conference, and for them all to be allowed a chance to give the President a question(or 4 in Acosta's case). Now, let's try again. Why is it imperative that Acosta is sat in the front row and given the chance to question the President over the other 30,000 journalists? How will this judges ruling make any difference?

 

 Come to think of it, I have yet to see one of the so-called alt right journalists sat in the front row giving Trump questions ever. Mark Dice? Never. Watson? Never. Jones? Never. Does the US constitution not apply to middle of the road and right leaning journalists?

[Opl]

27 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

There are approx 30,000 full time journalists in the US. It is logistically impossible to have all 30,000 of them sitting in the front row at a white house press conference, and for them all to be allowed a chance to give the President a question(or 4 in Acosta's case). Now, let's try again. Why is it imperative that Acosta is sat in the front row and given the chance to question the President over the other 30,000 journalists? How will this judges ruling make any difference?

 

 Come to think of it, I have yet to see one of the so-called alt right journalists sat in the front row giving Trump questions ever. Mark Dice? Never. Watson? Never. Jones? Never. Does the US constitution not apply to middle of the road and right leaning journalists?

Whoever, it does not matter, good looking young female trainees or sycophants will be best since Trump is begging for easy questions that make him look good, and does not answer the issues but repititively advertises himself, with reason,  after all the only audience he speaks to is his base who does not care for facts or thruth or credibility. Journalists with conscience and ethics should not lose their time waiting for the mic  when entertainers like Hannity excel at polishing Trump's shoes. 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Opl

[GroveHillWanderer]

54 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

I hear CNN alone has 50 of these press passes for their teams of journalists/activists. Not sure why the media consider Acosta to be more important than all other journalists from all other media outlets?

Well, that's the exact same argument Sarah Sanders and the White House were making, and it's an argument that Judge Kelly, when ordering the WH to restore Acosta's press pass, dismissed out of hand, as follows:

 

Quote

... the First Amendment interests as recognized in Sherrill were not vested merely in publications or agencies; they were liberties of the individual journalists themselves. For that reason, that CNN may still send another journalist or other journalists to the White House does not make the harm to Mr. Acosta any less irreparable. … It’s a harm that cannot be remedied in retrospect.