The White House revoked the hard press badge of Jim Acosta, CNN’s Chief White House Correspondent, on November 7 following a contentious exchange. The exchange resulted in President Trump calling Acosta a “rude, terrible person.” You can watch the full video here.
The event started during a regular press briefing when Trump refused to answer Acosta’s follow-up question regarding the investigation of possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. As Trump moved on, Acosta kept trying to ask his question until Trump had enough. “I tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself, having you working for them,” President Trump said. “You are a rude, terrible person,” Trump continued, adding “the way you treat Sarah Huckabee is horrible, you shouldn’t treat people that way.”
Later that evening, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders the White House revoked Acosta’s press badge in a series of tweets, stating the decision was made due to Acosta’s behavior and his physical interaction with the White House intern.
On November 16, the court ruled in favor of Acosta and CNN, ordering the White House to reinstate Acosta’s press pass.
The White House’s stance
The White House defended its actions in an opposing memo to CNN’s lawsuit, saying the president and his staff have “absolute discretion” over which journalists have access and interviews. Press Secretary Sarah Sanders posted a video to support the White House’s decision to revoke the press pass; however, experts say the video was altered to exaggerate Acosta’s movements.
The White House’s original stance, which stated that Acosta’s pass was revoked due to his physical altercation with an intern, changed to say that the pass was revoked because Acosta asked too many questions.
After Acosta’s press pass was reinstated, President Trump said that rules and regulations would be written in order for reporters to practice decorum. Trump continued to say that if reporters interrupt, he will leave the press briefing. While Trump described freedom of the press as very important, he also said reporters must show respect.
CNN’s stance
CNN filed a lawsuit on November 13, stating the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the due process clause of the Constitution providing fair treatment through the judicial process. CNN also requested a temporary restraining order and for Acosta to receive his press badge back until a final verdict can be reached. While Acosta was given his press pass back, it is only temporarily. There still needs to be a final ruling on the underlying case, although the judge who ruled in favor of CNN and Acosta said he believes they will likely win the overall case as well.
Media outlets support CNN
Multiple media outlets have expressed their support for CNN and Acosta’s case, including Fox News, CBS News, NBC News, the New York Times and the Washington Post. These outlets said they will file a joint amicus brief in support of CNN.
The White House Correspondents’ Association issued a statement in support of Acosta, saying it objects to the “use of Secret Service security credentials as a tool to punish a reporter.” The WHCA also later issued a statement regarding CNN’s legal battle, stating “the President of the United States should not be in the business of arbitrarily picking the men and women who cover him.”
What this means
This case could decide if presidents have the right to decide who covers them and reports on their actions. This could mean all sorts of things, but most importantly if the court rules in favor of the president, it means he can pick and choose who reports on him, and in a way pick and choose how the American people hear about him. If White House reporters are hand-selected by the president, then there will always be the chance that the news will be biased in favor of the president.
Reporters and media outlets are all coming together to support CNN and Jim Acosta, including Fox News, which might be surprising to some people. Fox News has historically reported on Trump in a favorable manner, with Trump being especially comfortable with Fox News hosts and even campaigning with Sean Hannity at times. The media support stems from the belief that the freedom of the press is an inherent right and that the president cannot pick which reporters are granted the right to cover him.
The first amendment of the Constitution states that “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” If the president is able to choose which reporters are allowed to report on him, then it may call into question how far other constitutional rights will be protected.
I love that you chose this event to write about because even though I’m not going into politics as a career, current events is the next topic I would’ve chosen for my blog. That being said, I’m a Newhouse Student so of course I think about every new story that pops up from the perspective of public relations or journalism. Just on a superficial level of this event, Trump is obviously hypocritical in nature. He berates Acosta for how he treats Sarah Huckabee Sanders and the quote you referenced to anyone who keeps updated on Trump’s public statements and speeches is absurd. He is basically blaming one reporter for the coverage of an entire news network, yet in reality, he can’t take any blame for the words that come out of his mouth. Politics has always been a somewhat corrupt profession, but to criticize the rhetoric of others when you have used the same rhetoric — in this context, Trump has inappropriately criticized women countless times—is a new form of corrupt. Perhaps the bigger, more crucial subject that you raise in your post is the way that this event could set a precedent for future media relations with not just the White House, but government officials in general. It seems to me like Trump already views those who don’t cover him in the way he likes as terrible people. The thread that journalism as a reputable, trustworthy profession is hanging by at this point will snap if this precedent is set. We live in an age where selective observation and retention undermine the objective nature of journalism. I truly believe that hope for reestablishing a fact-based reality in this country will be lost if people aren’t able to even get the information from a news source they trust, no matter how shaded in bias and how much ratings-driven hype it has.