Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Making Acosta a Federal Case
Question: What does CNN’s Jim Acosta crave more than anything? If you said “attention,” go to the head of the class. It’s a mystery why the White House has given Acosta way more than that. By yanking his “hard pass,” after last week’s press conference (don’t ask who was obnoxious, they ALL were), Acosta has literally become a federal case. CNN filed suit claiming that their reporter’s First and Fifth amendment rights were violated. More than a dozen news organizations, including Fox, have filed amicus briefs supporting CNN, and even the Trump-friendly FoxNews judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano has opined that Acosta has a strong case. Mr. Showboat is just where he wants to be – the center of attention – but thanks to President Trump’s gratuitous swipe, he is also a free press martyr.
Acosta’s technique has been honed for many months – asking questions not to receive answers but to shame. At the November 7 press conference, Acosta rose to “challenge” the president on what he had said about the caravan during the closing days of the campaign. “As you know Mr. President, the caravan was not an invasion. It’s a group of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border with the U.S.”
It’s not Acosta’s job to joust with the president over interpretations of words. Leave that to commentators or politicians. He could have asked the president where he got his information about Middle Eastern terrorists infiltrating into the caravan, or what his evidence was that there were many criminals in its ranks. He might have asked what purpose U.S. troops would serve at the border in light of the Posse Comitatus Act. He could have asked whether the president thought any of the migrants might have colorable asylum claims. Instead, he demanded “Do you think you demonized immigrants?”
Frankly, if Acosta thinks the president demonized immigrants, let him write an op-ed. A press conference is supposed to be about eliciting information. Acosta doesn’t practice journalism so much as performance art.
The White House handled this mosquito in about the worst possible way. The president could have declined to call on him. Having called on him and been offended by his tone, the president could have refused to take the bait, saying “You might want to run for office yourself. In the meantime, I’ll call on someone who wants to ask a question, not stage a debate.”
Instead, in a fit of petulance, the White House revoked Acosta’s press pass. This is Trump not understanding the import of the office he holds. When Trump the businessman took swipes at press coverage he disliked, it was pique. When the president of the United States does it, it smacks of authoritarianism. Admittedly, the press corps are a high-strung bunch, but this White House flirts with intimidation, calling down contempt for them at rallies, deriding them as the “enemy of the people,” (which is an echo of Stalin, whether Trump recognizes it or not), threatening to sic the FTC on the owner of the Washington Post, and elevating the likes of Gateway Pundit.
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who cannot be much more honest than her boss and hope to keep her job, issued a tweet explaining that Acosta was exiled because he had accosted the intern who attempted to remove the mic from his hands. “President Trump believes in a free press and expects and welcomes tough questions of him and his Administration. We will, however, never tolerate a reporter placing his hands on a young woman just trying to do her job as a White House intern…”
Anyone who watched the exchange – or looked it up on YouTube — knew that this was risible. Yet Sanders said it anyway and even released a video that had been slightly doctored (by speeding it up) to make it seem that Acosta had been physically swatting at the intern.
Within a few days, Sanders changed her tune, claiming instead that the White House cannot run a smooth press conference if reporters hog the mic. But let’s pause to consider where this White House has settled. Covering up for an intemperate retaliation against a journalist, the spokesman for the president of the United States attempted to rewrite the history that we had all seen with our own eyes just days before.
Ms. Sanders would be a great fit in the Ministry of Truth.
Published in General
And Donald Trump calls the free and skeptical press “the enemy of the people.”
Do you get the difference? Perhaps not, so let me explain:
Donald Trump has men with guns to back up his words. When he says things, they’re backed by men with guns. So his words have more consequence to them.
I don’t [expletive] care about Acosta. His antics have the same consequence of the squeals of a kitten in a box. This isn’t about Acosta. This is about the principle of a President excluding questions that he finds inconvenient.
Acosta can be a clown. I don’t care. What I see is a sleazy politician who wants to exclude media that doesn’t fawn over him from the White House press room. That’s a major problem to me.
Ministry of Truth?
Wow.
“enemy of the people” is hyperbolic.
“backed up by men with guns”, “excluding questions”, “exclude the media”, even more so.
I am sure that Jim Acosta would like to think of himself as The Press, but he is one single obnoxious member of a group that numbers in the hundreds of thousands – if not the entirety of the US.
Acosta has no more right to time with the POTUS than you do.
Right.
First, “enemy of the people” means different things to different people. You don’t there leaders in countries without America’s strong free press tradition don’t notice what he’s saying? Because they are.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think he realizes how dangerous it is when he says that. He’s too stupid and too ignorant to possibly know.
Second, none of what I said was hyperbole. Donald Trump’s words are backed by force. (Mine aren’t, by the way.) And yes, he’s trying to literally exclude skeptical media.
First, do you sincerely fear Trump is about to have his “men with guns” enforce his will against the press(ie: jail/kill them)? If not then you are exaggerating your concern of Trump exerting his police powers(ie: hyperbole).
Second, Trump has not excluded any questions from the media including Acosta’s questions in this particular dust up, so you are accurate that none of what you said was hyperbole, in that it is not exaggeration, it was just factually wrong.
Journalistic “enemies of the people” might interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, interfere with the Constitutional order such as committing journalistic malpractice and promulgating perjury to obstruct a judicial appointment, spreading false stories to the effect that there is no election fraud while publishing stories that assist it.
But of course that can’t happen here.
What has happened is that the era of yellow journalism has returned, and the old pretense of “objectivity” is getting pretty tattered… but the institutions like press conferences that developed over a century in which the “objective professional journalist” was the ideal no longer fit the new reality.
While the New York Times has excellent reporters and can still do mid 20th century style journalism, it increasingly chooses not to. This is a deliberate choice on the part of management and so far I think the NYT’s increasingly partisan stance has helped its bottom line, though I don’t pay too much attention to it anymore.
Ah, the ‘chilling effect’ argument which is no more than a slippery slope argument that is served over ice.
Journalistic “enemies of the people” might interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, interfere with the Constitutional order such as committing journalistic malpractice and promulgating perjury to obstruct a judicial appointment, spreading false stories to the effect that there is no election fraud while publishing stories that assist it.
But of course that can’t happen here.
What has happened is that the era of yellow journalism has returned, and the old pretense of “objectivity” is getting pretty tattered… but the institutions like press conferences that developed over a century in which the “objective professional journalist” was the ideal no longer fit the new reality.
While the New York Times has excellent reporters and can still do mid 20th century style journalism, it increasingly chooses not to. This is a deliberate choice on the part of management and so far I think the NYT’s increasingly partisan stance has helped its bottom line, though I don’t pay too much attention to it anymore.
UPDATE: @torywarwriter links to a worrisome story which is (so far) on the members only feed concerting the way Google is working to suppress an important news story.
You see what they’re up against, these brave warriors of the press whose grim determination to spray truth-to-power at 600 factoids/second at those who would force us to bend the knee to the tiny-fingered, cheeto-faced, ferret-wearing [snip]-gibbon whose only goal is to remove our civil rights through the wicked power of his Twitter feed. This cannot stand: Onward Journalistian Soldiers!
Fake news. Even Buzzfeed says this is conspiracy-theory territory.
Mona, seek help.
The White House Press Secretary passed along a clip from Infowars.
It’s right to be skeptical of both of them. Infowars in Infowars. And the Trump White House has zero credibility, having long since burned it all.
What boring comment.
From the OP:
I’d like to flag this post for supporting a conspiracy theory. If memory serves, that is against the CofC.
Alternatively, it’s knowingly claiming an untruth as fact.
edited to add: I’ve just now scrolled through the comments – I note that I was not the first to bring the offending comment to attention.
That’s not how that works.
Please don’t abuse the CoC.
That’s a lie perpetuated by the tabloid media. Trump said *fake news* is the enemy of the people. That the tabloid media lies about this proves Trump correct. q.e.d.
“Free and skeptical press” is a hilarious way to describe them.
I wish they were merely “skeptical.”
We have an absolutely useless news media in this country. That “uselessness” includes favorite leftist punching bags like Fox News. Fox just happens to be the best of an entirely bad lot. If we really want to save the country from these seemingly irreparable divisions, we could start by shutting down every 24/7 “news” channel and replacing them with . . . I don’t know, . . . reruns of Star Trek or something.
Does not rise to the level of RicoComment of the Day! but a nice turn of phrase just the same.
2 1/2 thumbs up.
Can we also get Mona suspended if not banned for life?
FIFY
<narrator> They actually are.
Thank you, and I hope your third thumb heals over time.
Is there a thumb on the gripping hand?
Yes, the thumb is required in order to grip.
That’s not what the Code of Conduct is for, right? It’s not meant to be used to silence people who disagree with you.
You know, I wish to hell you people would actually read the Code of Conduct before you try to abuse it.
I’ve been suspended three times Fred. I would argue that each time was more about silencing and/or re-educating me to think right. My comment was both sarcastic and tongue in cheek.
P.S. If you knew that when I wrote my comment I believed that Mona is not even a member then you might have understood that I was being facetious.
P.P.S. I’m beginning to believe that many of the redactions, suspensions, and terminations are completely unnecessary as well as, in the long term, stifling of discussions and honest debate.`
FYI: I was suspended the first time for making y’all look like a bunch of radical fruitcakes. The third time for defamatory, gossipy, or rude comments. The second time for following ‘orders’ which does not appear to be a violation of the CoC but of course TPTB can suspend/ ban for life anyone they want at anytime. Two more strikes and I understand that I will be banned for life for the second and final time.
It’s only meant to be used to silence people who hold conspiracy theories you disagree with.
No. You are invited to read the Code of Conduct before opining on it.