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.
“These people aren’t nice. The contempt is mutual”
Both the media and Trump want the press conferences to be entertaining. Emotion is essential. Being “not nice” is essential. To some extent we in the audience are being played.
And, most of all, to hijack an event organized by someone else to make it his own event.
Maybe they also watched the Kavanaugh hearings.\?
No wonder children are rude and uncivil.
“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.”
Agreed with other FReepers on this, but one point is missing:
Unless Acosta purchased the press pass, it was not his property and thus the 5A is not germane to his case.
The judge does deserve sanction.
The author of the article has been immersed in liberal academia for too long...
The real crime here is the fact that he lets the judge assume powers he doesn’t have. This will be the destruction of his Presidency if he doesn’t get a handle on them.
The White House press badge is NOT personal property!!!!
I have a badge and it is good only as long as the agency I work for allows me to have it.
That is a BS escuse and it should be a losing excuse.
They were happy to have Obama give them the questions to ask.
Same thing with the mic - government property.
IMHO, at the first press opportunity, President Trump should verbally invite Acosta back. And then have nothing to do with him. Pretend he’s not there.
Acosta is a bully. Bullies hate being ignored.
“The real crime here is the fact that he lets the judge assume powers he doesn’t have. This will be the destruction of his Presidency if he doesn’t get a handle on them.”
EXACTLY!!!
What’s to stop a Federal judge from ordering the President to sign or veto a law? What’s to stop a Federal judge from ordering the President to do or not do anything else?
And what’s to stop a Federal judge from arbitrarily revoking my right to access a Federal courthouse? They do this kind of thing all the time and no judge ever said that ‘due process’ was required.
Rush disagreed with me today, on this issue, but I have ask Rush when did these pip squeak judged assume this authority? Their rulings used to only apply to their district, when did we let their rulings become Constitutional Amendments?
Yes. This would never have happened to Obama. It is absurd on the face of it. I view it as a loss no matter the legal outcome, because any judge should have thrown it out.
Imagine any judge - any judge! - saying that a conservative journalist could verbally abuse Obama at a White House press conference, refuse to surrender the mike when Obama commanded it, legally batter an intern Obama directed to retrieve the mike, and then could justifiably claim his Constitutional rights had been violated because his PRIVILEGE to enter the President’s personal residence had been summarily revoked.
The entire judiciary is full of hubris and out of control. Do not trust SCOTUS! Remember John Roberts!
Decorum? When has the NeverTrump media of either side displayed respect toward Trump since he announced?
Yes, and this is serious:
The cookie-cutter conservatives who cleverly craft this as a long-game win are clueless.
To the left - the media, academia, and entertainment - the Bill of Rights are not for We The People, but for the leftist-approved Elite.
They are de facto communists who think only the select members of the Central Committee should have freedom and power.
Thus the First does not apply to the citizen journalist.
Thus the Second does not apply to the citizen gunowner.
We are in dangerous territory here.
Absolutely correct. Therefore any outcome is severely problematic.
Yep. Dangerous waters.
You were right, Rush was wrong. Limbaugh balks at calling out the Institutions and the UniParty for just how complicit and criminal they are - although I think he knows deep down.
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.
