Jim Acosta Thread

[_canpakes]

Sooooo... you got nothing.

- Doc

Sarah Rivera Scott had her White House press pass revoked under Obama, and was cold-shouldered by Gibbs when she politely and repeatedly raised her hand to ask why?...but that was indicative of the "transparency" enforced under Obama, correct?

Would that be because she worked in tandem with her husband, and after he died, the pass was revoked?

Did you have a more sinister reason that you’d like to explore?

[Guest]

All you have really managed to establish by this post is reinforce the conclusion that you are a sycophantic supporter of Trump who turns a blind eye to anything bad about Trump no matter how bad or well supported.

... he didn't at all get the kind of nasty treatment Trump is ...

Nor, very much unlike Trump, did he deserve it. Unlike Trump, Obama did not have a history of highly misogynistic remarks and actions against women, nor was he a twice divorced man with with an undoubted history of adultery with all his wives, both prior and present, nor a history of committing frauds (like Trump "University"), nor a record of bankruptcy and deliberate defaults on loans, nor a history of supporting or, at least, apologizing for known racist individuals and organizations, nor expressing admiration for known tyrants like Putin, Kim Jong Un and Rodrigo Duterte.

So, how does anything you list here merit different treatment from the press?...Is it not a journalists' job to simply report facts, asks questions, and avoid becoming the story?
And given the rather odd list you have provided, do you think that someone else who also has a controversial public history, but different political affiliation, would deserve the same "nasty" treatment as you deem as being justifiable for Trump?

What is odd or irrelevant about that list? His misogynistic and racist statements and behavior is not really a matter of controversy except to his sycophantic, loyal base. Nor is the fact of his Trump University Scam, nor his numerous bankruptcies and history of reneging on repayment of debts he didn't want to pay, nor his expressions of praise and support for some of the worst tyrants of our time. Either you have willfully blinded yourself to the evidence of these facts, or you have decided to continue supporting Trump despite them, which is even worse!

Besides that, Obama's history is not nearly as nefarious or controversial as Trump's. Nor was he even close to being as pathologically and blatantly dishonest as Donald J. Trump (which is not to say that he never erred or, perhaps, even shaded the truth a bit in his favor on occasion). If he were, he would indeed have deserved the same "nasty" treatment and criticism that Trump clearly deserves. Yet we can't reasonably deny that even Obama was, on occasion, deservedly criticized by the mainstream media.

Obama was not without flaws, nor did he ever claim that he was, But compared to Trump, who admantly refuses to admit to any flaws or errors of any kind on his part, Obama was a paragon of virtue and highly respected as both a good father and husband who obviously deeply loved and respected his wife.

Again, is it the professional responsibility of the press to treat a story differently based upon their own personal attractions or distastes? Is there a difference, for you, between reporting news and providing editorial opinion?

Is it merely editorial opinion when news media report a difference between an openly and egregiously corrupt regime and one that is not or, at least, much less so?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Sooooo... you got nothing.

- Doc

Sarah Rivera Scott had her White House press pass revoked under Obama, and was cold-shouldered by Gibbs when she politely and repeatedly raised her hand to ask why?...but that was indicative of the "transparency" enforced under Obama, correct?

You didn't read the WND article, did you?

I'll go ahead and answer that for you:

No you didn't. Jesus.

- Doc

[_Kevin Graham]

Would that be because she worked in tandem with her husband, and after he died, the pass was revoked?

Did you have a more sinister reason that you’d like to explore?

The WND blog entry from nearly 10 years ago is quite literally the only reference on the internet to Sarah Rivera Scott's pass being revoked. There are a few other forums that mention it but by referencing this same piece by WND.

She obviously isn't much of a journalist as far as credentials go. Her Twitter account hasn't posted in over a year and her website is defunct.

But seriously. This is supposed to be proof that Obama is "just like" Trump when it comes to the media?

That's substupid for ya.

[_moksha]

Acosta is a hack. His arrogance and insistence for "becoming the story" is his undoing. Trump has manipulated the media consistently for +18months because modern media is ego driven. Acosta neved asked real questions or cared about real answers...Acosta wanted to argue and wanted airtime for his proclamations. Acosta has no professional qualities that can be reasonably defended by anyone on this board....and i challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

If you substituted the name Trump for every claim about Acosta, it would be closer to the truth.

[_subgenius]

But seriously. This is supposed to be proof that Obama is "just like" Trump when it comes to the media?

That's substupid for ya.

What is stupid is your post. The question was for an example for Obama revoking a White House press pass.

And since liberal lemmings want to sidestep the whole Obama transparency era of the prosecution of leakers, persecution of press, and wiretapping reporters as being less horrific than Acosta being bounced, then meh to you and your ignorance.

[_Chap]

CNN sues White House to regain access for reporter Jim Acosta

CNN sued the Trump Administration on behalf of reporter Jim Acosta on Tuesday, asking a court to restore Acosta’s White House press pass after President Trump suspended it last week.

The unusual lawsuit, an escalation of Trump’s longrunning war of words with CNN, seeks a judge’s intervention after Trump banished Acosta from the White House grounds for an indefinite period after a brief altercation between Acosta and a White House press aide.

After a testy exchange between the president and the reporter, the unidentified press aide went up to Acosta to take a microphone out of his hands. As a result, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced a few hours later that the White House had revoked Acosta’s “hard pass,” which enables reporters to enter and leave the grounds each day.

CNN filed suit in U.S. District Court in Washington. “We have asked this court for an immediate restraining order requiring the pass be returned to Jim, and will seek permanent relief as part of this process,” the network said in a statement released Tuesday morning.

Legal experts say the network’s chances of winning in court are favorable. The First Amendment protects journalists against arbitrary restrictions by government officials.

“I think it’s a really strong lawsuit,” Floyd Abrams, a noted First Amendment lawyer, told CNN on Sunday. “I think [CNN] should sue, and if it’s not about Acosta, this is going to happen again...So whether it’s CNN suing or the next company suing, someone’s going to have to bring a lawsuit, and whoever does is going to win” unless the White House can show that Acosta is violent and disruptive.

Disputes have occasionally flared over which members of the press corps are qualified to receive a “hard pass.” But Trump’s action appears to be unprecedented; there’s no record of a president revoking such a pass from a reporter because he didn’t like the questions the reporter asked.

During Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, the Secret Service denied a credential to reporter Robert Sherrill of the Nation magazine. The agency said Sherrill, who had been in a fistfight with one of Johnson’s campaign aides, was a physical threat to the president. Sherrill sued and won in 1977, though he declined to apply for a pass afterward, according to journalist George Condon.

Another possible parallel: A federal judge last year struck down Trump’s blocking of critics on Twitter. She ruled that the First Amendment prevented him from denying access to presidential statements due to a would-be follower’s opinions and views.

The same principle applies in the Acosta case, said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which brought the Twitter suit last year.

“The government cannot exclude reporters from [the White House] because of their views,” said Jaffer. “Once the government created a general right of access it cannot selectively withdraw it based on viewpoint. Viewpoint is not a criterion that establishes a media organization’s right to be at a news briefing.”

CNN’s lawsuit, he added, “is critical to preserve the media’s ability to ask hard questions and hold the government accountable...It would be intolerable to let this kind of thing go unchallenged. Other reporters would end up hesitating before asking sharp questions, the White House would be able to use the threat of similar revocations for critical coverage and media coverage of the White House would be distorted because of fear of official retaliation.”

Journalists have been widely supportive of Acosta since Trump pushed him out last week. In a statement Tuesday, the White House Correspondents Association’s president, Olivier Knox, said the organization “strongly supports” CNN in regaining its access. He said the revocation of Acosta’s credential was a “disproportionate reaction” to the press conference incident. “The president of the United States should not be in the business of arbitrarily picking the men and women who cover him,” Knox said.

Others have urged even stronger action in response to Trump’s retaliation against Acosta.

Richard Toffel, the president of Pro Publica, the nonprofit investigative news organization, suggested in an interview that journalists band together and walk out of the White House press room.

“If favorable coverage is the price of operating with the [White House] gates, then we can cover it from outside the gates,” said Toffel, a lawyer who was once an intern in the White House press office. “I think that as a matter of press freedom, the press corps in the room should say, ‘If you’ve redefined the rules to hand out passes only to those whose coverage you don’t object to, we’re all leaving.’ This isn’t principally a legal question. It’s a question of editorial independence.”

Staff writer Deanna Paul contributed to this article

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The question was for an example for Obama revoking a White House press pass.
And since liberal lemmings want to sidestep the whole Obama transparency era of the prosecution of leakers, persecution of press, and wiretapping reporters as being less horrific than Acosta being bounced, then meh to you and your ignorance.

The problem with having a discussion with subgenius is it's like having a discussion with EA, except subgenius is the Bizarro to EA's Superman. While EA knows how to play the game adeptly, subgenius just kind of shows up, fumbles around, and then flies off thinking he won something.

So. Noting his statement above I'll remind the participants that this was the original statement:

I remember Obama revoking access on occasion, and don't remember anybody accusing infringement of constitutional rights over it.

When you say 'on occasion', you really ought to provide examples. Perhaps the board could use some balance on this thread. And some facts.

- Doc

So, subgenius, after making a HUGE stink about someone's professional qualities, whatever that means because apparently being a legitimate journalist with nearly 30 years' worth of experience and promotions doesn't count, finds one WND example of some no-name correspondent who got her press pass revoked for some reason, which he can't explain.

This is what it's like to discuss anything with a Trumper. It's just an impossible task to reason with them, and it's a constant game of not evaluating facts to determine a truth, but a game of absurdity to be played.

The demagogue is indispensable to any fascist movement if its members are to be inspired, or to hold firmly to their commitment to support an authoritarian. Fascism doesn't arise from rational sources. It doesn't require rational argument to sustain its followers. Fascists are impervious to reason. They sneer at reasonable argument. It's the role of the partisan to arouse and direct their rage towards a scapegoat, which here in America is The Liberal.

That's damned subgenius. It is what it is.

- Doc

[_canpakes]

That's damned subgenius. It is what it is.

- Doc

In his world, having a wife complain that she can no longer attend press conferences under her recently deceased husband’s pass is the exact same situation as Trump throwing a public shartfest and revoking a pass because someone asked a question that he didn’t like.

[_subgenius]

That's damned subgenius. It is what it is.

- Doc

In his world, having a wife complain that she can no longer attend press conferences under her recently deceased husband’s pass is the exact same situation as Trump throwing a public shartfest and revoking a pass because someone asked a question that he didn’t like.

Naw, i never made any false-equivocation that is your hobby. The poster asked and received. But yeah, she should have at least thrown a tantrum and touched an intern first.

Because according to Doc, Acosta is a poster-child for professional qualities because Acosta has professional quantities...kinda like arguing that Bill Cosby is family friendly because - "look at his resume and ignore the date-rape drugs".

You guys stick with Acosta, he sure is breaking the hard stories for ya.