CNBC Article
CNN Official Complaint
Press Conference Video
Trump's Advertisement on Immigration
CNN correspondent Jim Acosta was barred from attending future White House press conferences after he and President Trump had a heated exchange on Wednesday. Acosta had asked a question about the deployment of US troops sent to stop migrants coming into the southern US border and then followed with another question about how Trump "demonized" immigrants in an advertisement released on October 31st supporting the GOP. Trump avoided both questions and when a White House Intern attempted to take the microphone from Acosta, he resisted. According to a statement released by CNN, the White House rescinded Acosta's press pass due to "retaliation for his challenging questions". Today, CNN and Acosta are suing many White House officials, among them President Trump and Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee, for violating the 1st and 5th Amendments. As stated in a 60 Minutes Interview, Trump restricts liberal news outlets in order to "discredit [them] all and demean [them] all so when [they] write negative
stories about [Trump] no one will believe [them]", however, the outcome of this lawsuit will determine if it this restrictive action can continue.
Questions:
1. Were the President's actions unconstitutional?
2. In whose favor will the lawsuit turn out? Why?
3. What can other news outlets do in order to resist the actions of the White House?
The media plays an important role within the government. They provide transparency for the public and relay information from lawmakers that would otherwise be difficult to convey to the public. By keeping the public in the know they are able to judge government and serve as an additional check of sorts on governmental power and decisions. Although Trump banning one reporter may seem insignificant, in reality it opens the doors for future abuses of power and declining relations with the press. The President should not be able to run from media and it is crucial that the leader of the country must face difficult questions as is their duty to the public. I would assume the courts would recognize the potential danger it would pose to allow Trump's actions to be recognized as legal and would defend free speech rights as well as maintaining the relationship between the White House and the press.
ReplyDeletethere presidents actions were constitutional. he did not bar CNN from reporting from the white house just Jim Acosta. CNN has other reporters that can report from the White House press room so they are not forbidden from the White House. I think that Jim Acosta will get his hard pass back on the agreement that he follows white house rules and procedures.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Presidents actions were unconstitutional. The 1st Amendment guarantees Freedom of the Press and Trump took this away from Jim Acosta. Acosta was simply asking the question that everyone has, why its truly necessary for US troops to be on the Southern Border to stop migrants. The total operation cost for the US troops to be there is exponentially growing, and the troops should be being used for more impactful events like the California Wildfires. Therefore, Acosta has every right to ask that question and the fact that he got kicked out shows Trump once again trying to diminish the news sources that report negative things about him. In reality he should be taking the criticism and try to become a more broadly supported President.
ReplyDeleteI think that the President's actions were unconstitutional because he used his personal power to take control over Acosta's First Amendment right. Although it may be true that Acosta acted rudely or a little out of line, this is no excuse for Trump to bar Acosta from doing his job. As a reporter, it is his job to report on the questions that the general public, as well as he himself, may have about Trump's plans and actions. The relations between the press and the President has always been pretty complex, and by banning a reporter, Trump is not setting a very cooperative precedent. Additionally, Trump did this to favor his own agenda, since it was clear that Acosta was questioning and uncertain of Trump's plans. Instead of addressing his questions (which many Americans could also have), it was more convenient for Trump to simply use his power to ban Acosta. However, I think that by doing this, Trump is only bringing more attention to the issue, and endangering his image.
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about this story, I thought it was entirely unconstitutional, but it not be so. It is my understanding that only Acosta is banned, so another reporter from CNN could come. Had the President banned any representative from CNN, that would have violated the 1st amendment. However, he did not ban all of CNN, only Acosta. Therefore, it is not unconstitutional and even if it were, with a mostly conservative Supreme Court, I'm not sure it would go against Trump's agenda. If a case was very apparent that it was unconstitutional, I still believe the Supreme Court would deem it unconstitutional, but if there is a grey area, it is going to go in favor of the conservative agenda. In this case, Acosta being banned from the White House will be deemed Constitutional.
ReplyDeleteThe press plays a vital and important role. It holds the powerful accountable. By reporting and asking tough questions, they hold people, especially politicians to a high standard, which ought to be maintained. Without the press, there will be a lack of truth known by the public and the only story that will be told will be from the powerful themselves, which may be skewed from the actual truth. It is clear that Acosta's actions were maximized by the people in the White House and that he did not actually harm the woman in any way. This taking way of his press pass shows how much the attitude has changed toward the press to be the ‘enemy of the people.’ This logic is very harmful in that people will no longer know what to believe.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was unconstitutional for Trump to ban Acosta.To my understanding he did not ban CNN as a whole just Acosta. Therefore, CNN still is able to attend press conferences and deliver information. I don't think other news outlets care too much about Acosta being banned. In fact, if anything, it is beneficial for their competitors to be banned from press conferences.
ReplyDelete