Jim Acosta will get his press pass back.

[fantome profane]

Invasion can imply war but that is not the only definition of the word

It was it one intended. He didn’t mean a musical invasion.

 

[Shad]

It was it one intended. He didn’t mean a musical invasion.

Assumption.

 

[Nakosis]

I think you are making a very valid point. Of course the number of press passes must be limited simply because the size of the room is finite.

This had been done based not on constitutional law, but based on tradition and norms.

I say that if you can use a press pass as effectively as a network reporter (i.e. show up regularly, disseminate the information effectively) then I think you should have one.

But however it is decided it can’t be based on who asked nice or rude questions.

So seating is decided by the White House Correspondent Association. While the press has no right of access to the White House, if access is granted, it should be granted indiscriminately is basically what the current ruling says.

So you are right, you can't be banned for being a jerk though IMO, maybe you should be. I don't see Acosta's antics as being beneficial to the press.

The White House has said it will draft a set of rules for future press conferences. What they should do IMO is work with the WHCA to work out a set of agreed rules. A way of dealing with and providing a process of review for problems like Acosta. It would allow the White House and the press to monitor these press briefings.

Regardless, it will be interesting in light of this situation to see what happens going forward.

 

[Audie]

Invasion can imply war but that is not the only definition of the word

Maybe you can convince him of that.

 

[Shad]

Maybe you can convince him of that.

Him? You mean Trump?

 

[Sunstone]

No, but they certainly should be able to ban "reporters" who are unmitigated jerks.

I'm astonished you now agree with far left radicals who believe that people they consider jerks should not be allowed to have platforms. When will you be moving to Berkeley, Paul?

 

[Sunstone]

This ruling is based only on the due process issue.

I'll be interested in seeing how the judge rules on the first amendment issue.

 

[Stevicus]

Are you a member of the press?


The Constitution gives the press extra rights that the rest of you don't get. Acosta is a member of the press.

And the right isn't a blanket right to attend press conferences, it's the right not to be denied access once a person qualifies in the normal way.

That may not necessarily be true. I did a bit of reading up on this issue, and found this article: The Legality Of Banning Reporters From White House Press Briefings Is A Fine Line

For those wondering if banning reporters from the White House is legal, you might be disappointed to know that the laws around freedom of the press don't explicitly address this. So, there isn't a clear answer to the question.

Though the First Amendment offers a wide umbrella of free speech for all citizens, the level of access it guarantees to elected officials, events, and documents is largely uncertain, according to Frank LoMonte, director of the Brachner Center for Freedom of Information at the University of Florida. LoMonte wrote for the Conversation,

What's more, LoMonte adds that a 1972 Supreme Court ruling established that journalists have no right to insist greater access than the general public. However, there's a distinction here: Though journalists might not have a guaranteed "right" to a press pass, LoMonte also clarifies that the government does not have a "right" to retaliate against a journalist, simply by virtue of their practicing their freedom of speech.

This article goes into the process of how reporters are chosen to get press passes:

Trump not the only president to ban media outlets from the White House

However, banned media outlets don't necessarily get their "hard passes" revoked. To get a press pass to the briefing room, reporters go through a process of approval.

First, the reporter needs to be approved by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, an association of reporters which approve press passes for Congress, according to Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy.

Reporters must also verify the credibility of the outlet for which they work and go through a Secret Service background check. Once a reporter is granted a pass, they can renew it every year without having to go through the approval process, Keating said.

According to Keating, it's unheard of for a journalist to be suspended or barred over the quality of their reporting or behavior. The White House rarely pulls passes unless there's a security threat or an unusual circumstance.

So, they have to be approved by a "Standing Committee of Correspondents," which seems kind of fishy to me. https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=23

I'll bet they don't approve anyone from the People's Weekly World or any other publication outside of the mainstream. That just makes it look like the press corps wants to have their own private little club and lock out anyone else who doesn't conform to their views. They're doing the same thing Trump is doing.

This wasn't the first time it happened either:

But just because the White House historically hasn't made a habit of revoking hard press passes, it doesn't mean presidents and their administration haven't banned media outlets from events and press briefings.

Like Mr. Trump, President Richard Nixon started a notorious war with the media. Nixon banned the Washington Post from the White House after the newspaper broke the Watergate scandal.

As heard in an audio recording, Nixon went as far as to threaten to fire his press secretary, Ron Ziegler, if he ever let a Post reporter into a briefing, according to the Smithsonian.

While Nixon didn't formally pull the Post's press credentials, Post reporters were not allowed at any White House social events.

In 2008, President Barack Obama booted three reporters from conservative newspapers off his campaign plane.

The campaign claimed there were only a limited number of seats on the plane for reporters, who would follow the then-candidate on the last four days of his presidential campaign.

Obama's camp didn't allow The Washington Times, the New York Post or the Dallas Morning News on the plane but allowed non-political media outlets such as Glamour and Ebony magazines to stay.

 

[Estro Felino]

You know...journalists here are much more insolent and impudent than Acosta...
our prime Minister knows how to answer

 

[fantome profane]

You know...journalists here are much more insolent and impudent than Acosta...
our prime Minister knows how to answer

Trump couldn’t handle that. Too much of a snowflake.

 

[Watchmen]

[QUOTE="fantome profane, post: 5860330, member]The White House should not be able to ban reporters because they don’t like the questions being asked.[/QUOTE]

That’s not why he was banned.

 

[Watchmen]

But since Trump picks who asks questions, surely all he has to do is ignore Acosta.

Bingo

 

[Revoltingest]

It could be that Acosta won only a Pyrrhic victory.

'A sword hanging over our heads': Trump discovers new weapon against media
CNN and Jim Acosta may have won their battle with the White House in court on Friday, but President Donald Trump has found a new weapon in his long war against the media.

After a judge ruled that the White House violated the CNN correspondent’s right to due process by stripping him of his press badge, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders declared that the administration was drawing up new rules to govern reporters’ behavior — and a process for booting them if those rules are broken.

"We have to create rules and regulations for conduct,” Trump told Chris Wallace in a Fox News Sunday interview, echoing Sanders’ announcement. “It's not a big deal. If he misbehaves, we'll throw him out or we’ll stop the news conference.”

"If they don't listen to the rules and regulations," he told reporters at a separate event at the White House, "we'll end up back in court, and we'll win."