|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 20, 2018 13:16:06 GMT -5
Y'all heard that? I'm not at all wrong!!! Mark you calender's, cause that don't happen more than once a decade. and I just wasted my not at all wrong on a Trump thread.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 26, 2018 19:02:20 GMT -5
Or then again--Trump being Trump--maybe it will be exactly the opposite: Trump giving Acosta a front row seat and the mic, just so there will be this constant sparring (which in my view isn't helpful at all).You know what else isn't helpful at all? The press being shamed and silenced into meek obesiance and groveling before the president. It is NOT the job of the press to be besties with this or any other administration. Trump happens to be a particularly fragile and thin-skinned person who never accepts any blame, rebuffs any criticism, and takes any attempt to hold him responsible as a personal affront. Add to an already toxic mix how Trump shamelessly makes shit up all the time and calls the press "the enemy of the people," it's only natural there's going to be bad blood between them. Yet it seems Acosta is the one who gets to carry the heaviest part of the weight for having the temerity to call Trump on his bullshit. Well, his decision reflects his view that Trump absolutely violated the constitution by excluding him without due process. That's hardly something to be proud of, is it?
Also celawson, do you now concede that Acosta did not assault the intern as SHS said? And let me ask you a question about how we want our democracy to work: do you, as a citizen, want a president to be able to exclude a reporter for any reason he wants? I appreciate you don't like CNN or Acosta, but how would you have felt if Obama had excluded all Fox News reporters just cos? Forget the letter of the law, do you really want that to be a thing?
I absolutely concede Acosta did not assault the intern. Never thought he did. He even politely said "Pardon me, ma'am" while he held onto his mic. And no, I don't think a POTUS should be able to exclude a reporter because he's wearing an ugly tie, or because he/she asks tough questions. But I do think a POTUS should be able to exclude a reporter who doesn't yield his turn even after having two of his questions answered, and who has shown a long-time pattern of disruptive behavior that does not follow expected decorum. Should he be able to be excluded for singing Bohemian Rhapsody out loud while other reporters ask questions? I say yes. Do you? Do you agree there's a limit to what a reporter can and cannot do to disrupt press conferences? That's basically what he does - he makes statements meant to shame Trump rather than ask questions to obtain information, and he does this after his turn is up, preventing the next reporter's turn. The second part of that sentence is important. Trump has allowed him in all the press conferences until now, and he's called on him and answered his questions time and time again, even though Trump doesn't like him or his questions. I think it's perfectly reasonable for the WH to have decorum rules reporters should follow in the conferences, as well as consequences for not following them. And that seems to be what we're going to see after this is over. But what do I know? (Because - disclaimer - I'm not a lawyer.) BTW I actually DO agree with NT's post just above. I really do. And the reason I believe the final decision on the First Amendment and Fifth Amendment will be fair is because the GOP chooses judges who are impartial constitutionalists, which is absolutely more important than Trump winning here. Do I wish Acosta could remain banned? YES. Do I wish so at the expense of our Constitution? ABSOLUTELY NOT. You can't have it both ways.
You can't ban Jim Acosta from the White House press briefing AND not shred the Constitution in the process. Maybe you can rub your belly and pat your head at the same time while tap-dancing and singing, "Uptown Funk" but you cannot deny a credential journalist from doing their job merely because Trump doesn't like him.
Because in the final analysis, you don't want journalists. You want stenographers. And cheerleaders.
Perspectives on Acosta from former WH press secretaries: thehill.com/opinion/white-house/416966-former-press-secretaries-fleischer-mccurry-agree-on-acosta-behavior-iThe author of the piece sums up Acosta's shtick quite effectively (imo): The former press secretaries' opinions: Though McCurry also says this: I'm not sure if I agree with him, as I like the live briefings, so I can here stuff unfiltered. Yet he does have a point about the consequences of it being live. Anyway, I note this stuff not to justify Trump's move, but rather to note that going forward, Acosta still seems like he's in a tough position (due to his own need for the spotlight, no doubt). Who is going to call on him, whether a given briefing is by Trump or anyone else in the Admin? And if he still seeks the spotlight by shouting out questions and comments--which is exactly what I think he will do--might the live briefings become a thing of the past? I appreciate the fact that Acosta's colleagues, including ones at Fox, supported his lawsuit (though to be fair, there was a fair amount of self-interest there), but I'm wondering if that support will hold up if Acosta's antics impact their collective ability to broadcast briefings. Yeah, it might be tome for some of his colleagues to have a quiet talk with him. He's on the moral high ground, be a shame to cede it now. Nobody is going to pull Acosta aside. Nobody has the right to tell him to sit down, shut up, play nice and cool it before he messes it up for the rest of them.
Anyone who even tries is carrying water for Trump, Sarah Sanders, and the nicey-nice neutered "let's be lapdogs, not watchdogs" suck-ups of the Washington press corps and Acosta should tell them to their face, "Fuck off, man. I'm doing my job. Do yours."
You guys are making the common mistake non-journalists make all the time. You focus on the effect and lose sight of the cause. If you really think Acosta is the problem here, who made him the problem? The grandstanding reporter or the grandstanding POTUS? Did CNN pick a fight with Trump or did Trump pick a fight with CNN? Don't say "both are equally guilty." The press NEVER has a bigger bullhorn than any president. Every president hates their press coverage, but Trump has escalated it to turning his hatred of a curious press into cursing them as the scum of the earth.
That's fine. On any day of the week, I'd rather be disliked for telling the hard truth and informing people so they can be informed and make intelligent decisions than be liked for how meekly I sit down in my chair and pass the mic when Trump snarls and barks at me. Too many people in this country and definitely on this board and in this thread seem to think the press should never piss off the president. I think exactly the opposite. To get to the truth and not the spin, you have to do the work, check the facts, verify the reliability, and ask the questions those in power would prefer not to be asked. And why? Because as Anna Politkovskaya, the brave and murdered Russian journalist observed, “What matters is the information, not what you think about it.”
So think whatever you like about how Jim Acosta does his job. The information he digs out is what matters primarily. What you think about it is secondary.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 27, 2018 7:59:46 GMT -5
I don't think he digs out all that much information; he's not telling "hard truths," he's acting like a jackass more often than not and--yes--descending to Trump's level, which is a terribly awful thing, that the sitting President behaves like a jackass as well, Acosta or no Acosta.
But as a consumer of news, I get no benefit from Acosta because again I don't think he's being effective as a reporter at all. He's more like a talking head, really.
As to telling Acosta to cool it or the like, people certainly can make such suggestions to him; they do in fact have that "right." Acosta isn't required to listen, of course.
As to journalists and non-journalists, imo when journalists make the story all about themselves, they'e not doing a good job and I'm supremely uninterested in stories where such is the case. There's no "mistake" being made here by non-journalists; if a journalist is turning off their audience, they're the ones making the mistake imo.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Nov 27, 2018 10:21:06 GMT -5
I don't think he digs out all that much information; he's not telling "hard truths," he's acting like a jackass more often than not and--yes--descending to Trump's level, which is a terribly awful thing, that the sitting President behaves like a jackass as well, Acosta or no Acosta. But as a consumer of news, I get no benefit from Acosta because again I don't think he's being effective as a reporter at all. He's more like a talking head, really. As to telling Acosta to cool it or the like, people certainly can make such suggestions to him; they do in fact have that "right." Acosta isn't required to listen, of course. As to journalists and non-journalists, imo when journalists make the story all about themselves, they'e not doing a good job and I'm supremely uninterested in stories where such is the case. There's no "mistake" being made here by non-journalists; if a journalist is turning off their audience, they're the ones making the mistake imo. Correction: You are not the audience. You are part of the audience and you are entitled to your opinion CNN's Chief White House Reporter is a "jackass," it remains only one man's opinion. If you dislike reporters who are confrontational to liars, there's always Faux News, where they pucker up whenever Trump backs up. It is the job of the press to serve the governed, not the governors as Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said and the governed are ill-served by a cowed and cowardly press. There will be some who do the work quietly and objectively and without drawing attention to themselves and we never talk about them because we never notice. Then there's the others who do the work loudly and put objectivity aside when it gets in the way of doing the work. That's where Jim Acosta lives and you don't like it much. Okay, that's cool. Got a TV remote? Then you can click "mute" or surf away when Acosta's mug pops up on your screen. Problem solved. I don't believe for a second Acosta sought this spotlight, but now that it's on him he hasn't wilted under the heat. Acosta is not making the story about himself. He's entered a no-fly zone where most Washington reporters are afraid to go. Being on a president's Shit List is not always a fun place to be, but if people like April Ryan, Katy Tur, and Acosta weren't good at what they do, they'd be replaced by someone who might do better. Non-journalists are well within their purview to tell journalists they don't like how they are doing their job. They fall outside of their purview when they try to tell journalists how to do their jobs better.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Nov 27, 2018 10:46:27 GMT -5
Acosta is not making the story about himself. He's entered a no-fly zone where most Washington reporters are afraid to go. Lol.
|
|