White House revokes Jim Acosta's press pass

[homersapien 11,373]

23 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Regardless of who brought it up originally, I’m still addressing an argument that you’re making. 

To Nola, this forum as just a gang "flame" fight. 

Forget logic.

 

[homersapien 11,373]

8 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution. Acosta’s suspension does not amount to an abrogation of the Constitutionally protected free press. Nor does the protection, in any way, permit quantitative questioning at whim. Your fundamental lack of understanding is not disturbing though, especially coming from a washed up scientist.

Er........, OK. 

My statement still stands.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, japantiger said:

You could probably pull up the video of when Obama did just that....how did you guys react?

Don't know.  Show us.

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

You don’t think there is a pattern.

And this is relevant how?

And sadly, you assert no condemnation of him for physically preventing the intern from doing her job.

LOL!  That woman could probably have kicked his ass if she needed to.  What a snowflake you are!

Why in the hell should I appease your fancy? Again, I could care less if my argument fails for you. If you think I’m going to drag up old Acosta moments (one from last summer comes to mind), and hash them out with you, you’re sadly mistaken.

Awwwww..... 

 

 

[homersapien 11,373]

7 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The difference in this “debate” is that the sufficiency of “supporting evidence” is entirely arbitrary 😂😂😂

You don’t fool me old man. I win.

 

[AUFAN78 3,896]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

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

 

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.

 

 

I'll stand on my interpretation. Thanks!

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Just now, AUFAN78 said:

I'll stand on my interpretation. Thanks!

Well, you're wrong.  Enjoy.

[bigbird 60,525]

3 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

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

 

To me it sounded more like, “pardon me ma’am” (get the eff off me) as opposed to “pardon me ma’am”(excuse me, I didn't me to bump you)

JMO. I couldn't care less about it.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

4 hours ago, GiveEmElle said:

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

You are are making an unproven claim using an accusation /opinion. Provide real evidence it is true.

[AUFAN78 3,896]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

Well, you're wrong.  Enjoy.

Nope. Rather obvious I would enjoy civility. But it is what it is right? 

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours 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.

Not from press conferences.  Big difference.

And Fox is an unofficial propaganda wing of the Republican party.  Why in the world would you grant them an interview without having editorial control? 

You think Trump would give an interview with Huff Po under those circumstances??

Get real.

[Mikey 16,600]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

If you are talking about the clip in the OP, I didn't see it.

 

I was most certainly NOT talking about the clip in the OP.  This was my first statement "I happened to be watching when this incident happened. (watching NBC )". That was to differentiate from any clip that might have been altered one way or the other. Can you not understand simple statements?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

Er........, OK. 

My statement still stands.

Wrong, like always. Your basis is invalid and I called you on it.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

6 hours ago, WDavE said:

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.

 

It is different.  An interview is a sit down, one on one situation.  That's what Obama never gave Fox.  The press conference isn't an interview in terms of media coverage.  Everyone is there and allowed to ask questions.  Obama admin never pulled Fox's credentials to my knowledge. 

As for putting someone else there besides Acosta, that's not the White House's decision to make.  When you let a public entity begin to dictate who can and can't cover it, you run into major problems from a journalistic integrity POV.  CNN could choose to pull Acosta off the beat, but they won't and neither should they at this point.

[jw 4 au 526]

6 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

It is different.  An interview is a sit down, one on one situation.  That's what Obama never gave Fox.  The press conference isn't an interview in terms of media coverage.  Everyone is there and allowed to ask questions.  Obama admin never pulled Fox's credentials to my knowledge. 

As for putting someone else there besides Acosta, that's not the White House's decision to make.  When you let a public entity begin to dictate who can and can't cover it, you run into major problems from a journalistic integrity POV.  CNN could choose to pull Acosta off the beat, but they won't and neither should they at this point.

Just an observation here, but this stance is such a one sided point of view. The guy was wrong, has been wrong for a long time, and to defend him as freedom of the press is so one sided. Isn’t that point of view what we need to get rid of between all of us. Don’t you argue that when it is in your favor. No one treated Obama this way.  Fox did not send someone to make an ass of himself at every press conference. Forget what Trump thinks, think about all the staffers and workers and other press people there and how this guy is just a jerk on camera all the time. He shows no respect for anyone’s time. Who cares where he works or who he works for, if it wasn’t made such a big deal by him and CNN, anyone like him would have been run a long time ago. This should be an obvious one here but go ahead and make it political, why change. 

[TitanTiger 20,482]

Small footnote from the earlier discussion with @NolaAuTiger about what rights the press have with regard the 1st Amendment in situations like this.  Saw this at the bottom of an article this morning on CNN:

 

Quote

Could Acosta or CNN sue?

Some experts say yes. "Acosta and CNN have legal grounds to challenge the White House's decision," Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN. "Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences. In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Small footnote from the earlier discussion with @NolaAuTiger about what rights the press have with regard the 1st Amendment in situations like this.  Saw this at the bottom of an article this morning on CNN:

 

Show me the “relevant” precedent and let’s dissect the case. A White House press pass is conditional and subject to temporary and permanent revocation. The pass itself isn’t guaranteed to all members of the press on a constitutional basis. 

[homersapien 11,373]

9 hours ago, Mikey said:

I was most certainly NOT talking about the clip in the OP.  This was my first statement "I happened to be watching when this incident happened. (watching NBC )". That was to differentiate from any clip that might have been altered one way or the other. Can you not understand simple statements?

Oh.  Something that wasn't caught on tape.  Gotcha. 

[homersapien 11,373]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong, like always. Your basis is invalid and I called you on it.

I guess you WIN!

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

Just an observation here, but this stance is such a one sided point of view. The guy was wrong, has been wrong for a long time, and to defend him as freedom of the press is so one sided. Isn’t that point of view what we need to get rid of between all of us. Don’t you argue that when it is in your favor. No one treated Obama this way.  Fox did not send someone to make an ass of himself at every press conference. Forget what Trump thinks, think about all the staffers and workers and other press people there and how this guy is just a jerk on camera all the time. He shows no respect for anyone’s time. Who cares where he works or who he works for, if it wasn’t made such a big deal by him and CNN, anyone like him would have been run a long time ago. This should be an obvious one here but go ahead and make it political, why change. 

Acosta asked reasonable questions at this press conference.  Trump avoided them with overreacting hostility. 

Whatever Acosta's prior behavior, it was irrelevant in this press conference. 

[homersapien 11,373]

9 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Wrong, like always. Your basis is invalid and I called you on it.

What is my "basis"?  What exactly about my statement below represents an "invalid basis"?

Please point out the part that "abrogates the constitution", as you claimed.

 

  21 hours ago, homersapien said:

Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

45 minutes ago, homersapien said:

What is my "basis"?  What exactly about my statement below represents an "invalid basis"?

Please point out the part that "abrogates the constitution", as you claimed.

 

Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student.

The record is clear. You made a Constitutional appeal, flowing from ignorance.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

4 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

Just an observation here, but this stance is such a one sided point of view. The guy was wrong, has been wrong for a long time, and to defend him as freedom of the press is so one sided. Isn’t that point of view what we need to get rid of between all of us. Don’t you argue that when it is in your favor. No one treated Obama this way.  Fox did not send someone to make an ass of himself at every press conference. Forget what Trump thinks, think about all the staffers and workers and other press people there and how this guy is just a jerk on camera all the time. He shows no respect for anyone’s time. Who cares where he works or who he works for, if it wasn’t made such a big deal by him and CNN, anyone like him would have been run a long time ago. This should be an obvious one here but go ahead and make it political, why change. 

I'm arguing from the POV of a guy who has sat in newsrooms (including election night 2000), written articles, and has a degree in broadcast journalism.  For once, I'm trying to take my partisan hat off here.  I'm on the side of legitimate media, period.  If the Obama admin had done something similar to a Fox reporter, I'd have the same stance.  However I can't find information that the Obama admin revoked access to the White House grounds to anyone of a mainstream, legit news source.

Are Acosta's questions tough and sometimes contentious?  Yes.  But that's not a reason to take away his WH credentials.

[homersapien 11,373]

4 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

Just an observation here, but this stance is such a one sided point of view. The guy was wrong, has been wrong for a long time, and to defend him as freedom of the press is so one sided. Isn’t that point of view what we need to get rid of between all of us. Don’t you argue that when it is in your favor. No one treated Obama this way.  Fox did not send someone to make an ass of himself at every press conference. Forget what Trump thinks, think about all the staffers and workers and other press people there and how this guy is just a jerk on camera all the time. He shows no respect for anyone’s time. Who cares where he works or who he works for, if it wasn’t made such a big deal by him and CNN, anyone like him would have been run a long time ago. This should be an obvious one here but go ahead and make it political, why change. 

What was he "wrong" about at this press conference? 

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The record is clear. You made a Constitutional appeal, flowing from ignorance.

Nonsense.  I didn't mention the constitution.  You are making things up wholesale.

Here's my statement:

"Your willingness to support the POTUS in resisting questions from the press is very disturbing considering how a free press is a bedrock of our liberty.  Especially coming from a law student."

Please explain how that is a "constitutional appeal".