Posted on 11/20/2018 5:37:01 AM PST by SJackson
As a journalism professor, I have mixed feelings about Friday’s federal court ruling that the White House must reinstate Jim Acosta's press credentials. Ultimately, it may prove to be a pyrrhic victory as the entire press could lose much greater access from the fallout.
To be clear, Acosta is no First Amendment hero. His antics set a bad example that makes it harder for me to teach students responsible reporting. The CNN White House correspondent has been rude and unprofessional for President Trump’s entire time in office, and purposely so, to make himself a front-page story.
Most recently, on Nov. 7, he disrupted the flow of a press conference by physically preventing a White House intern from taking the microphone so Acosta could continue berating Trump.
[Read more: Trump calls CNN's Jim Acosta 'a rude, terrible person']
It’s normal for reporters to ask hard questions and press politicians for a more in-depth answer. But using the president’s press conference to grandstand your own opinions and monopolize the mic is not.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that a journalist doesn’t have respect for decorum when the president himself doesn’t. But using someone’s misconduct to justify your own is childish.
The bottom line is: You give up the mic when you’re asked. It wasn’t Acosta’s place to essentially say, “No, this is my mic!,” let alone put that White House intern in such an awkward spot.
It’s understandable that the White House responded by banning Acosta. Trump has tried the shaming approach ad nauseam, and if anything it’s emboldened Acosta. I doubt any sort of intermediate sanction would have gotten through to him.
But under the Fifth Amendment, the government can’t seize a person’s property without due process. Having passed the required security clearance to get a White House press badge, Acosta was entitled to be informed of the charges against him and to have the opportunity to respond before it could be revoked.
Trump supporters who decried the subversion of due process and the rule of law during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation process should applaud the Acosta outcome.
But many journalists may end up ruing this ruling. Not only did U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly not address whether Trump violated the First Amendment, but his ruling could inadvertently undermine press freedom.
Rather than risk future confrontations, Trump may just call on journalists who he knows will ask softball questions or avoid the press altogether. All it took was a couple of controversies with basketball teams for Trump to curtail the presidential custom of honoring champions. Press traditions could go next.
Trump has already abandoned the longstanding presidential participation in the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. There’s no law requiring the president to field questions from a particular reporter or to even hold a press conference. For three years, President George W. Bush froze out Helen Thomas, a legendary White House correspondent who was known to ask tough questions. Like Thomas, Acosta only has a right to be on the White House premises, not to be recognized at press conferences.
Then again, he probably wouldn’t ask any worthwhile questions even if called on.
Mark Grabowski (@ProfGrabowski) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is a lawyer and a journalism professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.
I still go with having the “journalists” submit written questions and POTUS answering them on radio/TV - after throwing out the stupid ones.
POTUS can reward any well-mannered and respectful journos of his choosing with one on one interviews, if he so wishes.
“Daily briefings’ should consist of printed handouts.
The issue I have with all of this is that the press pass belongs to the white house, not the accoster.
“But under the Fifth Amendment, the government can’t seize a person’s property without due process. Having passed the required security clearance to get a White House press badge, Acosta was entitled to be informed of the charges against him and to have the opportunity to respond before it could be revoked.”
What BS. All US GVT IDs I’ve worn have stated it is the property of the US GVT.
Acosta has a right to freedom of speech. He has no right to be heard.
My biggest problem with the ruling is that it takes a big step towards creating an “official” media in this country.
If Jim Acosta and CNN have the “right” to a press pass, then Alex Jones and my brother with his one man blog should have the same right.
If they don’t our black robed tyrants have just created an “official” media with privileges not enjoyed by the rest. A very, very bad thing.
Who gets to decide which media is entitled and which are not? One more bit of back-door censorship IMHO.
I so totally disagree with this statement. It seems to imply that reporters (who like to call themselves "journalists") have an entitlement that goes above what the rest of us have.
Attending a press conference is a privilege not a right.
When you abuse it, it can be revoked. There is no constitutional requirement the President inform the press of his activities.
Its simply a courtesy for hm to do so. If the press doesn’t like it, no one is forcing them to show up at the White House.
These people didn’t endorse, campaign for or vote for Trump, He owes them nothing.
They will keep calling on Acosta because he embarrasses CNN.
“doesn’t have respect for decorum when the president himself doesn’t”
Trump can be criticized for some of what he says but he isn’t a habitual interrupter.
That’s exactly what jumped out at me as well! Even a driver’s license normally states that it’s the property of the issuing State government.
Trump wasn’t the one who was rude and belligerent at the presser.
That was the feral pack of thugs called the DNC organ posing as a free press.
These people aren’t nice. The contempt is mutual. Who cares?
Acosta is that guy who acts up and gets everyone in trouble. He is the jerk that rules have to be made because he can’t control himself
A good idea. It's up to the President. Acosta could read the answers on Saturday Night Live.
Jim Acosta is no Helen Thomas. Helen Thomas may have been rude and unpleasant too, but she was something of a national treasure--the only journalist to have attended press conferences for every President from George Washington to George W. Bush. (Maybe she missed William Henry Harrison--he may not have held any during his short time in office.)
I don't think there are any journalists any more. All I see is Leftist activists dripping with anti-Trump hatred.
I think the judge felt the issue was due process. I think the ownership of the pass was in question, and presume the judge felt witholding it deprived him of property by depriving him of income. A bit of stretch imo, but establishing rules and an appeal process makes the issue moot.
Bingo, we have a winner. Increase press releases. Reduce press conferences. Get more work done.
What's more important is that the judge said The President NEVER has to call on Acosta.
no, not moot.
All passes should be revoked or declared invalid
On application, new passes clearly indicating the pass is US Government property , non transferable and valid for one year
Solid red temporary passes conditional on good behavior can be issued to marginal applicants
Being rude and unruly in the past is reason enough to not be issued a new pass.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
