CNN filed a lawsuit against the president and members of his administration when Jim Acosta, a reporter from CNN, was stripped of his press badge shortly after last week's post-midterms press conference. On Friday, Judge Timothy J. Kelly ordered the Trump administration to restore Acosta's press credentials for violation of his right to a fair and transparent process. However, Judge Kelly did not rule that the First Amendment was violated nor did he rule whether Acosta's rude behavior was right or wrong. The ruling simply stated the president can not revoke Acosta's credentials without due process ("a statement of what he did wrong, an opportunity to respond, a final decision"). As a result of Acosta's victory in court, President Trump has announced that the White House will tighten its rules and processes for reporter conduct in order to ensure orderly press conferences and decorum in the White House. CNN vs. President Trump explicitly demonstrates the dynamic between the press and the president.
1. "During the hearing, Judge Kelly appeared to agree with the argument put forth by the administration’s lawyers that the First Amendment did not guarantee a right to enter the White House campus." In addition, press conferences are by invitation. Is getting a press pass a privilege or a right? Is the CNN vs. President Trump case truly an issue of the First Amendment (free press)? Why or why not?
2. Acosta's press pass was removed because of his aggressive behavior and for inappropriately touching a White House intern during the press conference. Do you think the choice to remove Acosta's press credentials was justified? If an individual is dangerous/disruptive during a press conference, should the White House be able to remove the person from the premise without due process?
3. How does the media shape the public's views of the presidency? What evidence has or has not shown that the news media is intent on hurting President Trump's administration? To what extent should the president and his administration be able to hold secrets from the public/press?
Clara Kennedy
ReplyDelete1. I think that a press pass is more of a privilege than a right. The First Amendment, the freedom of the press is protected. Therefore, all news sources should be allowed to publish the content they desire. But, lacking a press pass does not explicitly prevent a news source from publishing content. If they are denied a press pass on the basis of their content, however, that is a violation of the freedom of the press. I think that the CNN v. President Trump case is not so much an issue of the First Amendment because it pertained more to the reporter's conduct than to his content
2. I think that the choice to remove Acosta's press credentials was justified in that he behaved inappropriately. However, I do think that there should be a requirement of due process to avoid an unjustified removal of credentials or this power could be exploited to target unfriendly news sources. But, there should be a clear method to remove dangerous/disruptive individuals from the premise.
3. The media shapes the public's views of the presidency by providing the main link between the people and the presidency and can therefore shape perception by adjusting the tone and perspective of the news. I think that some news sources have demonstrated strong disagreements with President Trump's administration, but others have shown strong support. I believe that some of these news sources with negative content on the administration may intend to hurt the administration, but there is little concrete evidence of intent rather than simply bias. I think that the president and administration should be able to hold secrets from the pubic and the press when it is a matter that could possibly threaten national security. However, unless there is a very specific reason with strong evidence indicating the privacy of the information is crucial, the information should be released to the public.
Joshua Ishimoto
ReplyDelete1. The Trump Administrations adversarial relationship with the media is mostly an excess of a pattern that has long been established since the Watergate Scandal. During this scandal during the Saturday Night Massacre, press reporters were led out of the office of the special counsel of Archibald Cox. That has seldom happened since. Executives had not typically used to issue press passes at their discretion and whether or not they can is not exactly clear. In my opinion, the t Whitehouse Press Secretary could revoke press passes without much limitations on their ability to do so. The same goes for the President's revoking of security clearances of officials of the former administration. However, due process should be a part of this action or else the President could outright refuse to answer questions from media organizations that they deem unsatisfactory. Thus, will the revoke of one press pass may not be an infringement of free speech, if done on a massive scale and with the malice intent of restricting reporters' access to the President then it would constitute a violation of the First Amendment.
2. First of all it is debatable whether Acosta's behavior was improper or at the very least, more so than the President. Acosta asked a legitimate question about whether or not the President was worried whether indictments would be ruled in the Russia Investigation. The President then deflected the question and said "CNN should be ashamed or itself, having you[Acosta] working for them. You are a rude, terrible person". I have a hard time seeing how this there is any equivalency between the President's words and Acosta's question. Furthermore, the White House issued an edited video of the incident that had Acosta touching a White House intern when he really didn't. Therefore I rule that Acosta's actions weren't disruptive and the White House had not justification to revoke his press pass other than the fact that he asked a hard question when the President' power in Congress turned sour.
3. While I admit that there is media bias against the President, I think that the majority of the bad news against him has been his doing. He constantly makes exaggerated and false statements about public policy and other people. When you denigrate certain people then the problem is with you. If your policy is unjust then the news reports on it. When you pit Americans against each other then the problem is with you. The media didn't fabric your tweets or anything like that. National security secrets are the only things that you can with reason withhold from reporters.
1) In my opinion, the press pass is more of a privilege than a right because the press is given permission to film at the White House. However, I am aware that CNN used the argument of the freedom of speech and the press in the Bill of Rights in order to reinstate their press pass. The white house has the ability to revoke press passes and grant them. The argument can be given to other presses who cannot film at the white house and can say that they have been denied their first amendment rights. I do think the reason as to why CNN's press pass was revokes is weird because there was already drama with the White House.
ReplyDelete2) I do not think the reason as to why his press pass was revoked was justified because there was already a shaky relationship with the White House and they could have exaggerated his behavior. In fact, the White House released an edited video of Acosta which shows him in a negative light which means that even though he could be a disruptive, his actions were magnified in order to revoke his press pass.
3) The media does portray politics in a biased manner. For instance, they try to pack the most interesting stories and scandals in politics into their media. For instance, this whole incident is not really that important, but it made headlines because of his press pass being removed and the fact that the White House's video was edited to portray him in a negative manner. The media is probably hurting Trump and the good parts aren't shown because they aren't interesting.
1. I think the press pass is more of a privilege than a right because it allows for certain members of the press to enter important government places like the White House. If press passes were a right, anyone wanting to cause a scene would be able to enter press conferences and very little would be accomplished. Additionally, preventing a member of the press from entering a press conference does not necessarily prevent them from publishing articles on the topic discussed in these press conferences. I do think the CNN v. Trump case is pushing the limits on the First Amendment, however I don't think it crosses the line of dismissing it.
ReplyDelete2. I somewhat agree with the removal of Acosta's badge because of his disruptive behavior. If he posed a danger towards White House employees and fellow press members than removing Acosta's press pass was justifiably removed. I think if Acosta was being disruptive and potentially dangerous to other press members that the White House had the right to remove his credentials; however, if he was not a danger and the White House staff just disagreed with his questions then he was unrightfully removed.
3.The media greatly influences the public's opinions on government officials and events because of our inclination to trust the broadcasts and publishings that we see every day. It is noticeable how frequently negative stories and stories are broadcasted about President Trump and very little discussing his potential successes or positive effects he's had on the country. The fear of fake news has made it difficult for the public to distinguish what's real and what's fake on the news, which makes it easier for broadcasters to publicize their own personal ideologies and beliefs whether they are factual or just opinion. The media is more focused on getting people to watch their channels rather than broadcasting news events neutrally (scandal is more interesting than facts).
1) In my opinion, the press pass is more of a privilege despite the argument that it is a violation of freedom of the press if the the pass were to be taken away like CNN. The white house does and should have the ability to revoke press passes. I think it is weird that CNN’s press pass was revoked becaus ethey were just following what the press is able to do.
ReplyDelete2) It was not justified and the White House is doing this out of previous controversy with him. The White House pulled a video and put it without context to show Acosta in a bad way and make him seem as if he was disruptive, which he probably was to some extent but not enough. They did this in order to justify their reasoning behind revoking his press pass.
3) Media is biased and they are trying to ultimately make money by making interesting stories and news. The incident was not that important but because the white house made it look like he was bad and it ended up hurting the government and how they deal with people and the press.
1) The press pass is a privilege not a right. This is an issue of a the first amendment because the reason behind the taking of the pass was more of a political issue rather than a true issue. Trump has made it very clear that he hates CNN and all other liberal news outlets. Thus, the fact that specifically a liberal media's pass was taken demonstrates an attack against a specific media company. This means that the press is under attack for its views therefore violating the 1st amendments freedom of press.
ReplyDelete2) I do believe that it was justified to take away his press pass. The reason for this is not his aggressive behavior, he is still human and therefore is bound to get emotional, but in appropriately touching an intern is grounds to be thrown out. In appropriate sexual conduct is not something that should ever be allowed and therefore he must be accordingly punished. If a person is being disruptive it can be grounds to throw them out if it is being a disruption to the point that it can cause imminent danger. Freedom of speech only goes so far and causing a panic or danger should not be allowed.
3) The media will always play an influence on the public's view of the president. This is because there are always good and bad moments of a person. If one only sees the bad they will believe the person is bad and if they only see good they will believe that the person is good. Thus the media does have control of what is shown therefore it plays a big part. The liberal media has been shown to show the side of the president that is not nearly as good. We have seen that they often show the negative parts such as his harsh immigration reform. The president should be able to withhold stuff from the media because every country has secrets and must do well to protect them.
1. Since press conferences are invitation only, press passes should be considered a privilege rather than a right. If they tried to take away Acosta's right to publish information, then it would be an issue, but taking away his privilege does not count as a violation of the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete2. I think the decision to remove his press pass was justified. People with press passes should not exhibit inappropriate and rude behavior during press conferences. Inappropriate sexual conduct is inexcusable and is a perfectly valid reason to take away his press pass.
3. The media can greatly influence whether people support or go against the president. While some news sources have completely bashed Trump, other sources have spread "fake news" by saying that Trump's presidency is the best ever when there are actually many problems with it. Overall, the media makes money off of being biased, so they will likely continue to do it.
1. "During the hearing, Judge Kelly appeared to agree with the argument put forth by the administration’s lawyers that the First Amendment did not guarantee a right to enter the White House campus." In addition, press conferences are by invitation. Is getting a press pass a privilege or a right? Is the CNN vs. President Trump case truly an issue of the First Amendment (free press)? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI think getting a press pass can be considered a privilege, because it gives someone who wouldn't otherwise have access to the White House access. However, the reason behind his removal is certainly a threat to free speech.
2. Acosta's press pass was removed because of his aggressive behavior and for inappropriately touching a White House intern during the press conference. Do you think the choice to remove Acosta's press credentials was justified? If an individual is dangerous/disruptive during a press conference, should the White House be able to remove the person from the premise without due process?
The W.H. can remove someone w/out due process, but they shouldn't expect no public outcry. In terms of having "inappropriate behavior", that's bs.
3. How does the media shape the public's views of the presidency? What evidence has or has not shown that the news media is intent on hurting President Trump's administration? To what extent should the president and his administration be able to hold secrets from the public/press?
The media influences the public greatly, I think the best example of this is FOX News. THey purposefully ignore the major stories about Trump / put a positive twist / say it's the Democrats doing it / whataboutism about Clinton. In other words, If you watch FOX News, you live in a completely differant reality compared to a CNN viewer or MSNBC