Media Perspective

[Seriati]

So Jim Acosta has his white house hard pass taken away, and every member of the media acts like it's the end of the universe, meanwhile an anti-fa shows up in the dark outside of Tucker Carlson's home where is wife and four kids are the only ones there and tries to intimidate and threaten them, and it seems like largely silence?

Acosta has been nothing but rude in almost every interaction with the President.  Any responsible news service would have pulled him from the spot for his obvious hatred of the President.  In this case, there's plenty of video showing the interaction, including him pushing the interns' arm.  Media response?  Claim the video has been doctored - nevermind that if you look at their own versions you still see him do it.

[rightleft22]

I don't pay attention to Jim Acosta so don't know much about what happened or why.
What are the grounds that a reporter can be have there pass taken away or can the WH  give or take away as it pleases? Are their rules?

With what I've seen regarding the Tucker Carlson 'protest' everyone seems to be denouncing it. I don't like Tucker but personally find this event horrifying and stupid. Those responsible should be ashamed of themselves. 

[TheDrake]

Acosta is a jackass. In general, I think any reporter who asks a second question (not a follow up) should be shunned on general principle. And definitely anybody who brushes away a hapless intern just trying to do their job, although making a lunge for the mike wasn't the right way to do it.

As far as "being rude to the President" I'd have to say he set the tone in the first place. I'd be rude to someone who constantly called me an incompetent lying fool.

I'm not sure what you want for the incident at Carlson's, I suppose an hour long piece about the rise of the violent left? Blaming Democrats for secretly coordinating anti-fa actions? Or Soros?

[Seriati]

TheDrake, I just think that between the two events what happened to Carlson is objectively more dangerous and more threatening to a free press, after all there is absolutely no indication that what happened to Acosta is not directly limited to and the result of his own conduct.  Yet the amount of coverage and condemnation of the two events is flipped. 

For example, I looked at CNN and the report on Carlson was a dry report about the facts of what happened, no condemnation of press intimidation, no statement of solidarity.  Anywhere you find Acosta covered its a DEMAND that his credentials be restored, without any acknowledgement of his own role in the events.

[Fenring]

Media response?  Claim the video has been doctored - nevermind that if you look at their own versions you still see him do it.

The doctoring of the video is an outrage, putting aside one's feelings about Acosta. If you watch the two videos in slow motion side by side you'll see that in the one it looks like he preemtively chops her hand away (making it feel more like "get out of here"), while in the other it looks like he responded on instinct to a hand reaching into his space and grabbing the mic he was holding, making it feel a lot more like self-defence if you want to call it that. Before I knew the context of why she was grabbing it away and just watched the videos, it looked like she was borderline assaulting him and that his response was actually quite minor and smooth all things considered. Someone else (let's say it was a woman, and not him, and one who had previously been an assault victim) might well have felt actually threatened by her move and the reflex would not only have been warranted but actually they would have been painted as having been attacked. It all depends on spin, right?

[scifibum]

There have been statements of solidarity and condemnation against the idiots at Carlson's house. Several are here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/08/they-were-threatening-me-my-family-tucker-carlsons-home-targeted-by-protesters

I've seen similar statements from dozens of journalists and pundits on Twitter.

What happened to Tucker Carlson's family is worse than what happened to Acosta in terms of personal impact. But the latter is much more ominous when it comes to freedom of the press.

First, the federal government will always have infinitely more ability to interfere with constitutional rights than small groups of people without official power. That's such a fundamental thing that it underlies the separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Why this incident with Acosta is threatening: WH used a false pretext for banning Acosta. They straight up lied about what happened. Then Sarah Sanders shared a doctored video to bolster the lie.

As international journalists have pointed out, this is a familiar pattern. It's part of a playbook. The lie isn't meant to be convincing, it's meant to separate loyalists from opposition.

Acosta may be a jerk. He may have asked more questions than he was invited to ask. The proper response to this is not to lie about what happened and revoke his security credentials. It might be to skip him the next couple of times? Or turn off the microphone?

WH taking offense at Acosta's behavior is transparently self serving. Insist that reporters be polite while Trump shrieks about "enemy of the people" and insists that documenting his pervasive lies is "fake news". 

But this goes well beyond taking unearned offense at impolite behavior. It's a gambit testing WH's ability to coerce more friendly treatment from journalists.

[scifibum]

Media response?  Claim the video has been doctored - nevermind that if you look at their own versions you still see him do it.

The doctoring of the video is an outrage, putting aside one's feelings about Acosta. If you watch the two videos in slow motion side by side you'll see that in the one it looks like he preemtively chops her hand away (making it feel more like "get out of here"), while in the other it looks like he responded on instinct to a hand reaching into his space and grabbing the mic he was holding, making it feel a lot more like self-defence if you want to call it that. Before I knew the context of why she was grabbing it away and just watched the videos, it looked like she was borderline assaulting him and that his response was actually quite minor and smooth all things considered. Someone else (let's say it was a woman, and not him, and one who had previously been an assault victim) might well have felt actually threatened by her move and the reflex would not only have been warranted but actually they would have been painted as having been attacked. It all depends on spin, right?

What Acosta actually did is refuse to let go of the microphone. He didn't push or manhandle the woman at all. The contact with the woman was incidental to her grabbing the microphone.

I'm disturbed to see that Seriati thinks that regardless of which video you watch, "he did it". Because the WH's version of "it" is false.

[Fenring]

What Acosta actually did is refuse to let go of the microphone. He didn't push or manhandle the woman at all. The contact with the woman was incidental to her grabbing the microphone.

I'm disturbed to see that Seriati thinks that regardless of which video you watch, "he did it". Because the WH's version of "it" is false.

Well, he definitely knocked her arm away a little, but it was hardly violent and it mostly looked like what anyone would do to a hand reaching at them without invitation. In my view even trying to physically grab a mike at all is beyond ridiculous. If someone requires physical handling then security should be dealing with it. That she reached right into his zone to grab a thing right near his face...that looks pretty bad to me.

[Seriati]

What happened to Tucker Carlson's family is worse than what happened to Acosta in terms of personal impact. But the latter is much more ominous when it comes to freedom of the press.

Horse *censored*.  Brown shirts threatening to harm a journalist's family is FAR FAR more damaging to freedom of press than Acosta justifiably losing his credentials.  In fact, there is no reasonable world where the contrary would not be true.

Tell me you wouldn't see it as more dangerous to freedom of press if a mob confronted Rachel Maddow's family and threatened them.  You'd be on here saying how Trump inspired it, and tripling down on your meme that Trump is threatening the press.

The only reason for this mob's action was to intimidate the free press into covering only one side of any issue.  We already know that works, or have you seen any insult to Islam cartoons in major papers lately?

First, the federal government will always have infinitely more ability to interfere with constitutional rights than small groups of people without official power. That's such a fundamental thing that it underlies the separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Actions like this are targeted at material voices.  Shut down a view and the public conversation completely changes.  It would take an unprecedented effort for the government to do it, yet terrorism works because a few "examples" are enough to force compliance.

I'm actually stunned and frankly angry at this write up you did.  That's completely unusual for me.

Why this incident with Acosta is threatening: WH used a false pretext for banning Acosta. They straight up lied about what happened. Then Sarah Sanders shared a doctored video to bolster the lie.

I've seen the videos.  BS on them being doctored.  I thought the accusation overstated the case, but frankly, I think Acosta should have been barred long since.  A press pass is not a right to insult the President for your own self promotion.  The fact that CNN has refused to put in place a reporter that doesn't have personal issues is on them.   

WH taking offense at Acosta's behavior is transparently self serving. Insist that reporters be polite while Trump shrieks about "enemy of the people" and insists that documenting his pervasive lies is "fake news".

You have reporters flat out calling him a racist as part of their "questions," and then they get upset that he's not nice to them?  You have to be kidding.  Can you even imagine what would have happened to a reporter that say, called Obama a racist and interrupted him time and again?

But this goes well beyond taking unearned offense at impolite behavior. It's a gambit testing WH's ability to coerce more friendly treatment from journalists.

Trump answered an hour and a half of questions.  There's never been any indication he reacts to tough questions poorly.  He reacts to open insults - as he should - and it's completely unprofessional to send reporters who can't ask a question without trying to make it into an insult.

[scifibum]

Seriati, you're dead wrong. There is clear documentation that the video the press secretary shared was doctored. Not "the videos", but that video. If you refuse to see it, there's not much I can do for you.

Your defensive anger is telling.

[TheDrake]

Interrupting Obama? You mean like this?

A reporter for a conservative news Web site interrupted President Obama’s announcement of a new immigration policy in the Rose Garden on Friday, drawing a rebuke from the visibly agitated president.

The reporter, who later identified himself as Neil Munro of the Daily Caller, shouted out questions while Obama was explaining that his administration will block deportations of young illegal immigrants. That prompted the president to respond: “Not while I’m speaking.”

At the end of his remarks, however, Obama returned to Mun­ro, who was standing in the press corps area of the manicured lawn outside the West Wing and had asked why Obama’s new policy favored “foreigners over American workers.”

“And the answer to your question, sir — and the next time I’d prefer you let me finish my statements before you ask that question — is this is the right thing to do for the American people,” Obama said, before Munro shouted out again. The president added: “I didn’t ask for an argument. I’m answering your question.”

As Obama finished and walked off, Munro shouted: “What about American workers who are unemployed while you import foreigners?”[/url]

Tucker Carlson was Munro's editor, in an odd coincidence.

[Seriati]

Interrupting Obama? You mean like this?

Lol, exactly like that.  Munro was widely called out for his disrespectful behavior, and to my knowledge defended by no one. CNN, ABC, NBC all called it disrespectful.

Just exactly how they've called Acosta.... oh wait....

Seriati, you're dead wrong. There is clear documentation that the video the press secretary shared was doctored. Not "the videos", but that video. If you refuse to see it, there's not much I can do for you.

I don't see it when I watch the "doctored" video and the non-doctored video.  In any event, like I said in my first response, his conduct wasn't okay in EITHER video and turning it into an argument over doctoring is an intentional distraction.

I'm happy to concede it was doctored, if you'll concede I don't see it.  What does your documentation show?  The link that was provided here compared a slo-mo version to the doctored version.  The link I saw on CNN I couldn't see a difference.

Your defensive anger is telling.

I'm not angry about a doctored video.  I'm angered by the blatantly "teamist" argument that a mob threatening a conservative commentator's family is less threatening to a free press that Jim Acosta losing his press pass.  By that logic, the mail "bomber" wasn't a threat either since he didn't work for the government.

[TheDrake]

I think part of this is that there's not a lot to talk about when you are speaking about the horrendous action taken at Carlson's house. What are they going to do, have a panel with everybody agreeing that it was awful?

Meanwhile, there's quite a bit to discuss in the Acosta case. Where is the line? Has it been obliterated? Has Trump's behavior helped to lead to this? Obama didn't call Munro by disparaging insults, he politely but firmly made him look like an ass. Was a ban a reasonable response, or should it have been a suspension? Is it going to have a "chilling effect"? If it means that reporters will be less likely to make bald insulting accusations, isn't that a good thing?

[scifibum]

I'm not angry about a doctored video.  I'm angered by the blatantly "teamist" argument that a mob threatening a conservative commentator's family is less threatening to a free press that Jim Acosta losing his press pass.  By that logic, the mail "bomber" wasn't a threat either since he didn't work for the government.

I don't think it's OK to mob reporters' houses. I don't think what happened to Carlson was OK. I am glad law enforcement got involved, if people engage in that behavior they should be charged with crimes, etc. It's a problem, and I believe it will be acknowledged as a problem and addressed to the extent that freedom of the press is not curtailed.

Does that make sense?

I think the actual leader of the country banning reporters from his press briefings using false pretenses is a more dangerous thing, because there's no clear way to address the problem - there are no police to call, no charges that can be brought - and because it's a recognizable step in the direction of authoritarian domination of the press. It's happened in other countries.

[scifibum]

Tell me you wouldn't see it as more dangerous to freedom of press if a mob confronted Rachel Maddow's family and threatened them.  You'd be on here saying how Trump inspired it, and tripling down on your meme that Trump is threatening the press.

Who am I supposed to blame for the mob at Tucker Carlson's house? I don't have a liberal president repeatedly calling him the enemy of the people. They are apparently stupid extremists, but there's no leader calling them to these actions. If there were, I'd consider that worthy of condemnation.

Trump has a unique responsibility that he ignores, and poses a unique danger with his rhetoric. He's also uniquely bad in various ways - whatabout fails because none of his predecessors have done the things he is doing.

[scifibum]

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I want to concede that if the issue was simply whether Jim Acosta gets to go to the White House, you would be right that it would not be a big deal.

But that's not the issue.

Trump today has been insulting more reporters, calling them stupid/losers, and indicated he might be suspending more press passes if people aren't more respectful. This for reasonable questions about his intentions with regard to Whitaker and Mueller.

It's where he wants to go with this that is the issue. He wants to control the media. He openly admires autocrats in countries where that is exactly what happens, he has repeatedly floated the idea of using the FCC to punish media companies that aren't friendly to him, and now he's escalated to banning reporters from the WH and threatening to ban others. It's going to be bad if the only people allowed to ask him questions are working for sycophantic outlets.

[TheDrake]

But make no mistake. The media also does well when they are baiting the bear. The urge to poke can sometimes seem irresistible.

So let's take a step back. What happened in that room was not the ultimate fight for press freedom. This wasn't someone risking life and limb against a regime where freedom of speech is forbidden. This was a bloke sitting in a room full of colleagues who were all trying to ask questions too.

This was a man who'd had his turn and had been told he couldn't hog the whole time.

I've been in high-pressure press conferences. And the art is to ask the single most succinct question that will land you the best possible response.

The achievement is not meant to be one of endurance.

BBC Journalist

[Pete at Home]

The constitution kind of requires a point of view where any action by the government is inherently more potential threatening to civil liberties than action by private individuals.  Nevertheless, I think Seriati's got a good point that this should not be our only point of view.

The only reason for this mob's action was to intimidate the free press into covering only one side of any issue.  We already know that works, or have you seen any insult to Islam cartoons in major papers lately?

Ah, but those mob actions were backed by the president's look what you made them do speech after Benghazi.  To my knowledge, no member of the government has come out and endorsed the anti-Tucker mob as the will of the people and the voice of God.