White House revokes Jim Acosta's press pass

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

No, not only by my rules.  When you give a concrete reason that something has happened, even if it's your opinion, then if someone asks you for some examples to support that opinion, then you don't just get to say "my opinion."  I know that's long been one of your favorite fallbacks, but it's not magical fairy dust to save you from having to support your argument, nor do you get to then tell the other person to go find examples.  Just not that way it works.  Anywhere.

Now, if you wish to provide some further evidence that bolsters the "opinion" or claim that Acosta's suspension was due to a pattern of behavior, I welcome it.  Otherwise, move on.

I provided some but I could do  until hell froze over and it wouldn't be good enough to you once you sink your teeth into your side of a discussion/argument.

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, Proud Tiger said:

I provided some but I could do  until hell froze over and it wouldn't be good enough to you.

You provided one and I thanked you for it.  You're welcome to provide others.  Any number greater than zero will exceed what your buddy was able to provide.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

8 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You provided one and I thanked you for it.  You're welcome to provide others.  Any number greater than zero will exceed what your buddy was able to provide.

He is not my "buddy." We have never met. I would love to meet him in person as I have offered to do with you. He is just a decent poster who usually shares the same opinions about things. But when we do disagree we do so with respect and don't require a boatload of evidence supporting our opinion. That's obviously not how you see the world. End of comment on my part and moving on as you suggested.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

21 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

He is not my "buddy." We have never met. I would love to meet him in person as I have offered to do with you. He is just a decent poster who usually shares the same opinions about things. But when we do disagree we do so with respect and don't require a boatload of evidence supporting our opinion. That's obviously not how you see the world. End of comment on my part and moving on as you suggested.

Well I didn't ask for a 'boatload', I asked for some - enough to reasonably establish this pattern he asserted was ultimately responsible for Acosta having his credentials revoked.  Sorry you think that's being too demanding.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

38 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You provided one and I thanked you for it.  You're welcome to provide others.  Any number greater than zero will exceed what your buddy was able to provide.

You want me to quit commenting but you continue mentioning me. Just because im not obeying your demands doesn’t mean I’m “unable” to provide links. Are you going to continue referencing me?

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You want me to quit commenting but you continue mentioning me. Just because im not obeying your demands doesn’t mean I’m “unable” to provide links. Are you going to continue referencing me?

I won't reference you anymore unless responding to someone who brings you up.  

And we can state for the record you are not unable, simply unwilling.  Thanks.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I won't reference you anymore unless responding to someone who brings you up.  

And we can state for the record you are not unable, simply unwilling.  Thanks.

For the record, I PMd you a link that I believe evidences the pattern I alluded to. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Yes you did. I wish you'd have posted it here earlier and this entire episode could have been avoided.  Let's dig into this then:

 

Quote

 

This wasn't the first time Trump and White House officials clashed with Acosta, whose network is a frequent target of "fake news" attacks from the administration. Here's a brief history of other times the reporter and the White House have butted heads.

Acosta asks Trump to call on woman reporter

During a news conference amid the Supreme Court confirmation process for Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September, Acosta suggested the president should call on a female reporter to ask questions about the sexual misconduct allegations against the nominee.

"What does it mean," Trump responded, clearly irked. Acosta said he thought it was important for a woman to ask a question about the accusations about Kavanaugh.

"I wouldn't mind that at all," Trump then replied. "It wouldn't make any difference to me."

So help me understand why this would be part of any criteria for removing a member of the press's credentials.  

 

 

 

Quote

Sanders won't say if press is 'enemy of the people' so Acosta walks out

With Trump frequently referring to the press as the "enemy of the people," Acosta pressed Sanders to say definitely whether she agrees.

Acosta's question came after Trump's daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump said she does not believe the press is the enemy of the people.

Sanders wouldn't answer the question directly during the August news conference, and said the media went after her personally. "As far as I know I'm the first press secretary in the history of the United States who has required Secret Service protection," Sanders said.

Acosta walked out of the conference and tweeted, "I am totally saddened by what just happened."

 

This was the example PT linked to.  Let me ask, do you think it's unreasonable for a member of the press to ask the Administration to explain themselves on this statement?  And do you think it unreasonable when the response is vague, to press for them for a more specific answer.

If Obama had told a Fox News reporter that they were "the enemy of the people," would you have been dismayed that the reporter put him on the spot to answer for the remark, and wouldn't accept vague, unspecific answers?  Or would you have been glad that he (or his press secretary) was having their feet held to the fire over the remark?

 

 

 

Quote

 

'Just doing my job': Acosta shouts questions at Trump during Easter egg roll

During the family-friendly annual Easter egg roll at the White House, Acosta shouted questions toward Trump about the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program.

"What about the DACA kids? Should they worry about what's going to happen to them?" Acosta shouted, per pool reports.

President Trump replied that Democrats had "let them down," but didn't reply to a follow-up question.

Trump's campaign manager, Brad Parscale, criticized Acosta for the exchange, to which Acosta replied, "Just doing my job ... which is protected by the First Amendment of The Constitution."

I'll agree, this was kind of a douche move.  Not that the subject isn't important, but the event wasn't the place to do it.

 

 

 

Quote

 

'I like real news. Not fake news. You're fake news'

Acosta pressed Trump during a brief exchange in the wake of the deadly Charlottesville attack. Acosta wanted Trump to hold a fuller news conference after the attack (a day later, he held one in Trump Tower), but Trump said he had just held a conference (he merely made some remarks and signed a memorandum on Chinese trade practices).

"Can we ask you some more questions then, sir?" Acosta asked.

Trump replied: "It doesn't bother me at all, but, you know, I like real news. Not fake news. You're fake news. Thank you everybody."

 

 

 

I don't understand.  How is Acosta asking if he can ask some more questions, and Trump responding with his "fake news" trope a problem with Acosta?

 

 

Quote

 

Miller says Acosta has 'cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree'

During a press conference tied to an immigration proposal, White House adviser Stephen Miller and Acosta had a long debate over immigration in the United States.

Acosta brought up a poem on the Statue of Liberty and then asked if the White House was trying to change what it means to be an immigrant.

Miller at one point asked, "Do you seriously at CNN not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration?"

At that point, Acosta pointed out that he is the son of a Cuban immigrant.

Later, Miller said Acosta was showing his "cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree."

Let's take a look at their exchange on this one:

Quote

 

Following Trump's touting of a plan from two Republican senators that would slash legal immigration, Miller took questions from the press corps. The final question of the afternoon came from Acosta, who brought up the poem on the Statue of Liberty.

"What you're proposing and what the president is proposing does not sound like it's in keeping with American tradition when it comes to immigration," Acosta said. "The Statue of Liberty says, 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It doesn't say anything about speaking English or being...a computer programmer."

Acosta then asked if the White House was trying to change what it means to be an immigrant.

That kicked off a debate between the two that lasted several minutes.

 

 

"The Statue of Liberty is a symbol of liberty enlightening the world," Miller replied. "It's a symbol of American liberty lighting the world. The poem that you're referring to was added later. It's not actually a part of the Statue of Liberty."

"You're saying it does not represent what the country has always thought of as immigration coming into this country?" Acosta retorted. He then charged that it was "national park revisionism."

The two continued to argue, with Miller demanding at one point, "Do you seriously at CNN not know the difference between green card policy and illegal immigration?"

At that point, Acosta pointed out that he is the son of a Cuban immigrant.

When Acosta continued to question whether immigrants would have to know English before coming to the United States, charging that people would have to come from Great Britain and Australia, Miller fired back.

"I am shocked at that statement," he said. "It reveals your cosmopolitan bias to a shocking degree... The notion that you think this is a racist bill is so wrong and so insulting."

 

Explain to me what you think is the problem with Acosta's approach here.  Miller even attempts to lecture Acosta, who is the son of a Cuban immigrant, on immigration and green card.  But whether Miller is right or Acosta is right on the matter isn't important.  The point is, this is an exchange that Miller is more than willing to engage in and he gives just as good as he gets.  He asks questions of Acosta where a response is warranted or expected, so he continues the discussion himself.  It's not just Acosta taking over the press conference himself.

I appreciate the effort here, but I'm struggling a bit to see how these situations, outside of the Easter Egg Hunt, combined with Acosta not allowing the President to cut him off by having his mic taken away because he didn't like the questions being asked, warrant removing his press pass.  Or at least, I don't really see the pattern you suggested that led to it.

Upon deeper examination, do you still think these examples support your claim here?

 

 

 

 

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-acosta-video-white-house-appears-from-infowars-2018-11

[augolf1716 21,156]

Very entertaining

[WDavE 332]

During the Obama administration the entire Fox News network was excluded from interviews.

 

White House communications director, went on CNN to denounce Fox as a "wing of the Republican Party" and say that the White House was going to stop treating them as a "news network." Administration heavy hitters David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel reinforced the message on other cable and network talk shows in subsequent days.

 

 

 

 

[channonc 466]

I thought this was interesting.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

37 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Yes you did. I wish you'd have posted it here earlier and this entire episode could have been avoided.  Let's dig into this then:

 

So help me understand why this would be part of any criteria for removing a member of the press's credentials.  

 

 

 

 

This was the example PT linked to.  Let me ask, do you think it's unreasonable for a member of the press to ask the Administration to explain themselves on this statement?  And do you think it unreasonable when the response is vague, to press for them for a more specific answer.

If Obama had told a Fox News reporter that they were "the enemy of the people," would you have been dismayed that the reporter put him on the spot to answer for the remark, and wouldn't accept vague, unspecific answers?  Or would you have been glad that he (or his press secretary) was having their feet held to the fire over the remark?

 

 

 

I'll agree, this was kind of a douche move.  Not that the subject isn't important, but the event wasn't the place to do it.

 

 

 

 

I don't understand.  How is Acosta asking if he can ask some more questions, and Trump responding with his "fake news" trope a problem with Acosta?

 

 

Let's take a look at their exchange on this one:

Explain to me what you think is the problem with Acosta's approach here.  Miller even attempts to lecture Acosta, who is the son of a Cuban immigrant, on immigration and green card.  But whether Miller is right or Acosta is right on the matter isn't important.  The point is, this is an exchange that Miller is more than willing to engage in and he gives just as good as he gets.  He asks questions of Acosta where a response is warranted or expected, so he continues the discussion himself.  It's not just Acosta taking over the press conference himself.

I appreciate the effort here, but I'm struggling a bit to see how these situations, outside of the Easter Egg Hunt, combined with Acosta not allowing the President to cut him off by having his mic taken away because he didn't like the questions being asked, warrant removing his press pass.  Or at least, I don't really see the pattern you suggested that led to it.

Upon deeper examination, do you still think these examples support your claim here?

 

 

 

 

I think Acosta has a continued pattern of exclusive disruptive behavior, unmatched by colleagues in similar positions, the accumulation of which resulted in the suspension. We don’t have to agree on every incident referenced - we at least agree on one - but I provided you with what I believe supports my position. Again, there are numerous incidents involving Acosta’s behavior. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

27 minutes ago, WDavE said:

During the Obama administration the entire Fox News network was excluded from interviews.

 

White House communications director, went on CNN to denounce Fox as a "wing of the Republican Party" and say that the White House was going to stop treating them as a "news network." Administration heavy hitters David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Rahm Emanuel reinforced the message on other cable and network talk shows in subsequent days.

 

 

 

 

Being granted an interview and being excluded from the press corps entirely are two vastly different things.  

[GiveEmElle 1,559]

57 minutes ago, channonc said:

I thought this was interesting.

It’s an intersting thread. Acosta says “pardon me ma’am” after he bumps her arm. 

 

[WDavE 332]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Being granted an interview and being excluded from the press corps entirely are two vastly different things.  

Not really since he was the only reporter from CNN excluded. CNN could send any other reporter on their staff.

But what play would they get from that? By last count, CNN had over 110 reporters.

 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

20 hours ago, AUDub said:

The WH is lying through their teeth about what went down...

Your thread isn't much better. Not much of a "swat" there. 

I agree. But let's be honest, if the shoe were on the other foot #MeToo would be outraged. IIWII  Sad place we find ourselves in these days. 

I say we join #dialitback. Sign up today!

[AUFAN78 3,897]

11 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Good lord at the contortions you will twist yourself into to defend the adolescent in the WH.

To be fair, there was more than a single adolescent at the briefing. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

41 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

To be fair, there was more than a single adolescent at the briefing. 

But even going along with that opinion, only one of them holds the most powerful position in the free world and whose decisions affect 350 million people, for good or ill.

[AUDub 11,148]

This is going to be a fuuuuun few weeks. 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But even going along with that opinion, only one of them holds the most powerful position in the free world and whose decisions affect 350 million people, for good or ill.

Unfortunately, a$$holes like Acosta do impact that same 350 you mentioned. Otherwise, this thread would not exist. 

He has history. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise, just as it is to demand evidence. We all have eyes and ears. 

The difference in interpretation will come down to bias. Nothing more. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

12 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Good lord at the contortions you will twist yourself into to defend the adolescent in the WH.

You and Dub are the one's twisting my response by making an argument that isn't being made by me trying to equate what happened to Michelle Fields to this intern. I've never come close to saying Acosta assaulted her or should be charged with anything. He got his justified punishment by getting his pass revoked. That's good enough punishment imo. 

It's one thing to be combative with Trump or even Sarah Sanders, but Acosta was combative with an intern over a mic. None of the other reporters who's questioned were knocked and bashed by Trump  got into a squabble with the intern over the mic, just Acosta... When Trump was done talking to other reporters, they had no problem relinquishing the mic to the intern. But Acosta decided he could just stop the intern from getting the mic and keep talking even though Trump was done with him. He escalated it by squabbling with the intern over the mic.

Acosta always likes to make press briefings about himself or the media. He wants his moment/questions to go viral by being more aggressive then any other reporter and makes it personal with the WH. His shtick is obvious to anyone that's not entirely anti-Trump and willing to call out his sh**.

Chris Wallace is far from a Trump sycophant and he thought Acosta was out of line. Meghan McCain as we all know has been vocal and critical of Trump a lot, even she thought Acosta's behavior was over the top. So no, you don't have to twist yourself into knots to think Acosta was out of line.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

29 minutes ago, AUFAN78 said:

Unfortunately, a$$holes like Acosta do impact that same 350 you mentioned. Otherwise, this thread would not exist. 

It’s not even close in terms of influence and power. Let’s not be ridiculous. 

 

Quote

He has history. It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise, just as it is to demand evidence. We all have eyes and ears

It’s hardly disingenuous. And if it’s as ubiquitous as you claim, presenting it should be easy as pie. You don’t get to wiggle out from the responsibility to support your contentions just because you deem it obvious. Not how it works.

 

Quote

The difference in interpretation will come down to bias. Nothing more. 

Regardless you have to offer supporting evidence and we can all examine it and discuss it. If that’s too much of a burden then maybe the football forum is more your speed.

 

[AUFAN78 3,897]

13 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

It’s not even close in terms of influence and power. Let’s not be ridiculous. 

It’s hardly disingenuous. And if it’s as ubiquitous as you claim, presenting it should be easy as oue. You don’t get to wiggle out from the responsibility to support your contentions just because you deem it obvious. Not how it works. 

Regardless you have to offer supporting evidence and we can all examine it and discuss it. I’d that’s too much of a burden then maybe the football forum is more your speed.

 

Other than you, no one claimed that.

It is disingenuous. Evidence would be easy, but not necessary for a sane person paying attention. JMHO

Sorry. I laughed. But hey, I can acknowledge it is your rules, so there is that. I just offered an opinion.

 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

Other than you, no one claimed that.

It was silly to even mention Acosta in the same breath on that point.  It was a senseless rebuttal and a waste of keystrokes.

 

1 minute ago, AUFAN78 said:

It is disingenuous. Evidence would be easy, but not necessary for a sane person paying attention. JMHO

Nope.  You make a contention, if someone asks you for some examples to back it up, you back it up or go talk about grilling and music in All Things Considered.  Politics is too mentally strenuous for you.  Simple as that.