this is as Fake news as citizen Trump's facts-free claim for 5 yrs that his expert has evidence that Obama was not born in the US
I know this didn't happen, but do we all agree that there is some line where crossed is worthy of removing credentials? For example, what if he filibustered for 15 minutes and deprived some other reporters their chance? Once you agree that there is a line, it becomes something of a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what is enough to cross that line? Here, I think the removal was justified if temporary. We are not in a situation where he is the only reporter from CNN, much less the only reporter from all organizations, capable of and willing to ask tough questions. Trump really didn't silence tough questions or critics by having the credentials removed. He sent a message that a certain degree of rudeness (not tough questions) would not be tolerated. (yes, trump is rude. And yes, trump probably did Acosta a favor re: increased visibility by doing it). But I'm not willing to buy into the idea that removing credentials from one individual reporter is "silencing or chilling the press.".
You are incapable of thinking for yourself. You simply lap up the liberal talking points. I watched the video from multiple sources.
More than one thing can be true at the same time. Acosta is a narcissistic ******* that hates the President. The President is a lying, scumbag ******* that passes off fake video and was wrong to pull Acosta’s card. At the end of the day I cannot wait for the day that both of them suff from VD or are disgraced and forgotten.
It depends on the reason for removing the credentials. Trump did it because he objected to the content of Acosta's questions. Acosta wasn't rude except that he refused to be silenced. I don't think anyone else in the press was upset because Acosta was hogging the mic.
I'm not sure that the reason was the content of the questions. Trump has had a lot of tough questions thrown at him (whether he answers is a different matter.) If it was the content that was the issue, I agree with you. If it finally became tiresome to have a reporter refuse to acknowledge protocol (and rudeness to a young intern), I think that is something else. You may be right, but I'm not convinced either way by the video.
Ego felt disrespected. Ego lies to ban. Then follow-up with fake video. I guess people debate about other things (what happen in the past, out of line, and other things). But it's pretty simple to me. Sensitive and out-of-control ego can't handle it and boom.
Maybe, but each of them has an ego. I get that a reporter isn't the same as the President of the US so -m not attempting to make an apples to apples comparison. And I don't believe the press should be demure or timid. But, if you take Acosta in isolation -- and leave feelings for trump aside -- he is somewhat of a self-aggrandizing camera hog. I'm sure his fellow members of the press rally around him and prefer him to Trump, but I speculate (admittedly) that a fair number of them view him as an ass as well and are probably simultaneously outraged and amused by the revocation.
Yea, no, there isn't a comparison between a reporter insistence on getting an answer or asking addition question to lies and fake video posting from the WH. One may be at worst rude and not respectful (I don't see it that way at all), the other is... lies and fake video. Not anywhere close to being in the same ball park.
That's kind of my point. I'm trying to comment on Acosta's conduct and whether a President can be justified in revoking credentials for this behavior or worse (where is the line). Respectfully, you respond by taking it as another opportunity to bash Trump. There are plenty of posters in this thread and other threads doing that. You don't really need a comment/question on Acosta to do so. I get that feelings are running high but theb response to every comment/question shoulnt be some form of "Trump sucks" or there is nothing left to discuss.
Bashing is what you did toward the reporter. If you have stated facts, that would just be facts and someone who then think that facts = bashing is having a problem with the facts. As for the reporters behaviors, nothing wrong in my book. It's normal and common. Certainly even if it's deem as rude and disrespectful, I don't know how that reaches a level to justify weakening one of the core of our democracy - freedom of the press. If you want to reform the press, there are ways to do it... abuse by the WH (lie and fake tape) to strip a reporter access is a dangerous precedence.
Banning Acosta is but one straw. I suspect they'll allow him back in...and that his behavior will be mollified somewhat when he returns. Grandstanding isn't very productive if you're removed from the podium. It also plants that same seed in other journalist's minds, and will likely lead them to be at least a bit less biased in their approach. This isn't a problem that is going to get fixed overnight. An incredibly naive perspective. The press hasn't been seeking 'truth' for...decades now. It did use to be true. Then the media outlets decided that their news branch needed to be profit focused, and the game changed. Now what they seek is to sensationalize whatever they can, and run with it for as long as they can. Any little thing, even made up things that catch on, works for this...and this applies outside of the political arena as well. When you then combine this with the inherently liberal outlook of the leadership/ownership of most of the press outlets, as well as the almost totally liberal leaning viewpoint of journalists themselves (usually 98% Democrat), you have the current situation. This may be a natural byproduct of the free press in today's world, but do NOT confuse this with idealistically pursuing truth. That is not their goal or objective at all. I'm pretty sure that if I pointed out this is Fox's motivation, you'd completely agree with me. Why then is understanding it is the same for the other outlets such a reach? Fox only exists because of the bias the MSM had had for so long---they left an untapped market, which Fox filled. The Daily Show used to pan CNN's rush to sensationalize things all the time, and hopefully no one here thinks Jon Stewart is some hidden conservative. That's one of the reasons I liked his show, and even the humor he often poked at conservatives. Because while having a liberal outlook he was able to objectively see many things for what they were, and certainly didn't hold back when liberals in Congress, or the press, did things that deserved to be made fun of. Haha...totally fair point! BUT, as was pointed out long ago in Bias, the problem is bigger than that. If most of the press don't want to print conservative leaning articles,writing them not only doesn't get them published, but it can be very detrimental to your job as a journalist. However, in today's world, there are plenty of ways to get a journal out on your own if you wanted to, and, as B-bob indicated, there are some outlets where such articles would be allowed.
I think for the most part, we are talking past each other. I think where we join issue is that you don't believe Acosta was out of line. I think he probably was. Let's agree to disagree on that point. More importantly (from my perspective), is that I do think there is behavior that would warrant revocation of credentials and that wouldn't be an attack on the First Amendment as long as there were other press members allowed to attend with the willingness and capability of pushing tough questions. I get that you don't believe Acosta's conduct warranted it (and I respect your opinion). But, do you think that if he went further, that some level of conduct (short of physical violence) would warrant his removal? And, if so, would that necessarily be an attack on the First Amendment if others were still pushing the tough issues? Serious question. (I am not arguing with you one way or the other about doctoring videos, etc. Purely a theoretical question that I'm interested in.)
Fair enough. I just think that if it had been a FOX reporter asking questions the President wanted to answer the intern would have never been expected to grab the microphone. I think she was asked to do that because Trump didn't like the content of Acosta's questioning.
that's a fair point. I'm sure he would have welcomed a softball, so I agree with you there. So, I guess content of the question did have some effect on the whole mess, but he certainly didn't react the same way to everyone asking tough questions.
I think the problem isn't that he cuts off all reporters because of their content, but if he's allowed to do it to any reporters is still a problem.
