Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism - Opinion

Via:  1stwarrior  •  one week ago  •  92 comments

Jim Acosta violated one of the oldest rules of journalism - Opinion

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


By producing a split decision, the election that was supposed to end all elections turned out to be fairly predictable. But it’s the day after that was unlike any other.

The Republican president, the likely speaker of the Democrat-controlled House and the Senate’s Republican majority leader each started Wednesday by talking about working together to get things done. They talked to each other privately and talked separately in public about what they thought they could accomplish for the country.

For most Americans, that would make for a very good day. Given the overheated environment leading up to the midterms and the fear among many that we are drifting toward an era of disunion and spreading political violence, bipartisan pledges to work together for the common good were like the sudden emergence of a bright candle flickering in the wind.

Alas, it was the last thing some members of the White House press corps wanted, so they tried to snuff it out.

The conduct of a handful of so-called reporters during President Trump’s news conference was disgraceful beyond measure. This is not journalism, this is narcissism.

Naturally, the boorish Jim Acosta of CNN was the instigator. As is his habit, Acosta doesn’t ask questions — he makes accusations and argues. Almost daily, he does it with the press secretary; Wednesday, he did it with the president.

“I want to challenge you,” Acosta began after Trump called on him. Trump realized he’d made a mistake, murmuring, “Here we go,” and Acosta didn’t disappoint.

He insisted that despite the president’s use of the word “invasion,” the caravan of Central American migrants “is not an invasion.”





Trump rails against 'rude' media in heated press conference





He adopted a lecturing, I-know-best tone to declare that “they’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away; that’s not an invasion.”

Trump’s response should not have been necessary: “Honestly, I think you should let me run the country, you run CNN.”

After more back-and-forth, he called Acosta “a rude, terrible person” and said “CNN should be ashamed of itself.”

That should have been enough — Acosta got the attention he wanted and got Trump’s goat, giving his network video it could make hay out of for days. Besides, there were scores of other reporters raising their hands to be called on.

But Acosta wouldn’t give up the microphone and kept talking over Trump, trying to lob another grenade.

The president, clearly angry now and stepping away from the podium as if he might bolt the room, pointed at him and said forcefully, “That’s enough, that’s enough. Put down the mic.”

Finally, Acosta sat down, then stood up to argue again, interrupting another reporter. That reporter, from NBC, praised Acosta and picked up the baton by making his own accusation disguised as a question. He mentioned Trump’s attacks on Democrats and “asked” the president: Why are “you are pitting Americans against one another?”

Trump, to his credit, actually answered in a substantive way, but that didn’t satisfy because the reporter didn’t really ask a question. He too just wanted to make an accusation and argue. On camera.

There was a time not long ago when young journalists were taught not to become the story. Apparently, many news organizations have flipped that lesson on its head.

But we are witnessing something more insidious here than media trash talk. Plain and simple, we are watching expressions of personal hatred.

Yes, it’s true that most journalists lean far left and their bias sticks out like so many sore thumbs. That’s been true for a long time, but political bias is an insufficient explanation for the Jim Acostas of our time.

They hate Trump. They really, really hate him. There’s nothing professional about it.

They are not alone. Take a poll of almost any major newsroom in America and the vast majority of those working there, if they are being honest, will confess that they too can’t stand the existence or the sound of Trump.

Or try to imagine Acosta and his ilk behaving in similarly hostile fashion toward Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Keep trying, but you can’t imagine it because it never happened. Both of those pols lied to journalists repeatedly, yet you can bet 90 percent still voted straight Democratic.

Even if they didn’t like Obama or Clinton, the political reporters would never dare accuse them publicly of anything, argue with them or interrupt them. Even when skeptical, they were respectful.

Recall how Obama used to spend 10, 15 and even 20 minutes answering a single question — without interruption.

Many in the press corps may have found him overbearingly arrogant. They may have resented the way he looked down on them and bristled at critical stories or tough questions. They knew he started more leak investigations than any other president, and might have feared him because his Justice Department wiretapped a Fox News reporter during a leak case.

But they would never interrupt him or insult him or refuse to give up the microphone.

White House press credentials are not a universal right. There are implicit expectations of proper behavior, and the White House decision to suspend Acosta’s credential is warranted.

Just as Acosta can’t go into a movie theater and yell “Fire” when there is no fire, he should not have the right to hijack a presidential press conference to suit his own ego.

It is also long past time for his colleagues, including those from other outlets, to remind him that his shameful conduct is making all of them look bad. More important, scenes like Wednesday’s further erode the public’s already declining trust of the media and fuel resistance to the First Amendment.

The anti-Trump antics are no longer a sideshow. America has serious problems as well as dangerous enemies, and the mere prospect of Trump, Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell working together is the best news we could have hoped for Wednesday.

Instead, it was overshadowed by a few narcissists chasing their own vanity.

By

Michael Goodwin

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
1stwarrior
1  seeder  1stwarrior    one week ago

Guess Jim forgot to change his diapers that morning.

 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one week ago

I know the President didn't have a dictionary available:

Invasion: an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.   The President was right again.

 
 
Eagle Averro
1.1.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    one week ago
The President was right again.

E.A Indeed SO, His " Home " His Microphone, His Choice whom he would allow not only entrance but the right to Speak!

When he asked for HIS Microphone to be returned Failure to do so, and refusal to allow the " Authorized person to retrieve it " amounts to Theft!

IMO

 
 
cms5
1.2  cms5  replied to  1stwarrior @1    one week ago

Trump calls it 'fake news'...in actuality, it isn't news at all. MSM has become an entertainment and opinion driven machine. The five W's are dead. Too boring.

They stoke and encourage rude and obnoxious behaviors towards anything that they 'don't' like. We hear these fire driven opines constantly. They even report unsubstantiated stories - unallowable years ago, now totally acceptable.

They caress and pamper things that they do like. Stories about lying, rude and obnoxious behaviors from someone liked is glossed over and excuses are made...then all becomes quiet.

True journalism is dead. Everyone has an opinion...MSM wants to not only share their opinion, they want to tell you how you should feel.

 
 
MonsterMash
2  MonsterMash    one week ago

ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN have been the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party since G.W. Bush was elected in 2000

 
 
epistte
2.1  epistte  replied to  MonsterMash @2    one week ago
ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN have been the propaganda arm of the Democratic Party since G.W. Bush was elected in 2000

You seem to think that Fox is factual because you believe their ideas/claims, but the facts say that they are the least factual of the news networks. 

People who watch Fox are less informed than even people who don't watch the news at all because they are misinformed. 

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  epistte @2.1    one week ago

Don't troll.  The thread is about Costa's behavior.  Stay on topic.

Actually, if that' is the case then MM is off topic...not Episitte  [SP]

 
 
WallyW
2.1.2  WallyW  replied to  epistte @2.1    one week ago

Do you mean the news, or commentary. I quit watching CNN and MSNBC years ago because they were so biased for the left and made stuff up. FOX presents all sides of a story and have always been more balanced.

 
 
epistte
2.1.3  epistte  replied to  WallyW @2.1.2    one week ago
Do you mean the news, or commentary. I quit watching CNN and MSNBC years ago because they were so biased for the left and made stuff up. FOX presents all sides of a story and have always been more balanced.

Fox presents all sides of the story, from the perspective of the GOP,

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news/

I prefer something a bit more truthful and centerist, such as the BBC/NPR. 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/npr/

 
 
epistte
2.1.4  epistte  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.1    one week ago
Don't troll.  The thread is about Costa's behavior.  Stay on topic.

Don't you dare accuse me of trolling!

 
 
Texan1211
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.1.4    one week ago

Since no one but you mentioned Fox, what else is it?

 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
2.1.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    one week ago

Monster Mash introduced other news outlets and it was not called off topic, therefore news outlet are in play. Epistte is not trolling. 

 
 
MonsterMash
2.1.7  MonsterMash  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    one week ago

[deleted]

[That] is [the only warning before a suspension.]

 
 
Kathleen
2.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.1    one week ago

That is true, I did not realize the post above it.

 
 
1stwarrior
2.1.9  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.1    one week ago

Sorry SP - actually did not see MM's comment - mea culpa.

MM - stay on topic.

 
 
devangelical
2.1.10  devangelical  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.9    one week ago

>cough< bullshit >cough<

 
 
epistte
2.1.11  epistte  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @2.1.6    one week ago

Monster Mash introduced other news outlets and it was not called off topic, therefore news outlet are in play. Epistte is not trolling. 

 
Thank you.

 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    one week ago

Why is revealing Trump to be a liar a "liberal" thing? 

Are conservatives unconcerned with the truth?

 
 
1stwarrior
3.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago

If your comment had anything to do with the topic - i.e. Costa's pathetic actions under the guise of a "Reporter" - it might be worth responding too.

Reporters do just that - they report things, utilizing facts.  Costa attempted to attack Trump by egging him on with "semantics" - which is where Costa lost because he was voicing "his" opinion not based on facts.

 
 
Ender
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1    one week ago

Acosta was using trump's own words and asking him about it. 

trump called out another reporter calling her remarks racist. A black woman asked about him using the term nationalist, as to some, it has racist meanings.

trump never answers questions, he just tries to turn the table on others.

So what are people saying? How dare they use trump's own words against him.

I am sick of people acting like poor little trump is being attacked. Not one person on the right has condemned trump for his boorish, nasty behavior. Nor anything he said to them.

It is not a one way street yet people are acting like it is.

 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @3.1.1    one week ago

Wow - didn't hear/see that "racist" thing during the press conference.  And, yes, for whatever reason, the journalist did ask about "White Nationalism" - which is racist, whereas "Nationalist" is not.

 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1    one week ago

You are the one claiming this happens because the media is liberal. So again, what does "liberal" have to do with showing Trump is not telling the truth? 

 
 
Ender
3.1.4  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.2    one week ago
"White Nationalism" - which is racist, whereas "Nationalist" is not

Agree to disagree as most racists consider themselves nationalists, but I will not derail your seed with any more remarks on that.

 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @3.1.4    one week ago

Nationalism, as I was taught, is the desire to have political independence within a country.  I'm an Independent, so, using that "definition", does that mean independents are Nationalists since we desire smaller government?

 
 
Ender
3.1.6  Ender  replied to  1stwarrior @3.1.5    one week ago
Patriotism is the love and affection one feels for his country. The feeling of patriotism is based on the values a country espouses and the way it strives to improve. Patriotism is based on the belief in the inherent goodness of the system of government in a country, and the goodness of its people. The word patriotism is derived from the word patriot, from the Latin word patriota meaning fellow citizen, and the suffix -ism, meaning a system or doctrine.

Nationalism is the love and affection one feels for his country. However, nationalism is rooted in the belief that one’s country is superior to all others, and carries the connotation of disapproval of other nations or a rivalry with other nations. While patriotism does not disparage other countries, nationalism builds up one’s own country by tearing other countries down. Nationalism supports dominating other countries. The word nationalism is derived from the word nation, which comes from the Latin word nationem meaning origin or tribe, and the suffix -ism.

https://grammarist.com/usage/patriotism-vs-nationalism/

These two words may have shared a distinct sense in the 19th century, but they appear to have grown apart since. Or rather, it would be more accurate to say that only nationalism has grown apart, since the meaning of patriotism has remained largely unchanged. There are still obvious areas of overlap: we define patriotism as “love for or devotion to one’s country” and nationalism in part as “loyalty and devotion to a nation.” But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism.

A somewhat subtler difference between the two words may be found in their modifiers and the ideas to which each is connected. When we examine large bodies of recent text we see that patriotism is more often used in a general sense, often in conjunction with such words as bravery, valor, duty, and devotion. Nationalism, however, tends to find itself modified by specific movements, most frequently of a political bent.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/patriotism-vs-nationalism
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.7  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Ender @3.1.6    one week ago

Hmmm - thanks for the information.

 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.8  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.3    one week ago

And I said "Liberal" where?

 
 
WallyW
3.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one week ago

What lies are you talking about, and by that I am talking about "substantial" lies or misstatements that have serious ramifications. Every politician lies and stretches the truth, it comes with the territory. Trump is no worse at this than Clinton, Bush, or Obama were.

In this press conference Acosta starts right off lecturing and arguing with president. He never asked a legitimate question and continued to grandstand and ended up bullying and aggressively touching and pushing the young female intern whose job it was to pass the mic around...that's the physical act that got him booted, hopefully permanently.

Being able to stand and ask the president questions is a privilege, and not a right. There is no law that says a president is required to even give press conferences. I suspect that the majority of the reporters in the room were glad to see him go....maybe they can now get a question in themselves. Trump cleverly gave Jimbo enough rope and the arrogant idiot hung himself with it.

 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @3.2    one week ago

Wally, we have been over this with you over and over again. In my opinion the heavy repetition of thoughts and themes that you constantly engage in is trolling. I guess be happy I am not a moderator. 

There are countless lists of Trump lies. Take a break from repeating the same thought 100 times a day and look Trump lies up on Google or Bing. 

 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one week ago

And Trump stated last week that he "tries" to tell the truth, but, sometimes to avoid battles, he hedges, but doesn't "lie" - no, I don't quite understand it, but I see what he means in his position.

 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @3.2.2    one week ago

Jesus H - Trump has been a pathological liar for DECADES. How long as he been "trying" to tell the truth ?  , lol. 

 
 
1stwarrior
3.2.4  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.3    one week ago

Probably just last week - but, he's not the topic :-)

 
 
WallyW
3.2.5  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.1    one week ago
Wally, we have been over this with you over and over again. In my opinion the heavy repetition of thoughts and themes that you constantly engage in is trolling. I guess be happy I am not a moderator. 

Who is "we"? Have you another name?

And what would you call the constant and heavy repetition of the same thoughts and themes and memes by certain frequent seeders? It's the same inane crap repeated over and over again. I could mention names and give examples but that would just result in tickets.

 
 
Texan1211
3.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  WallyW @3.2.5    one week ago

See, Wally, daily doses of "Trump lies" and the seeds that are nothing more than "Hate Trump" hit pieces are acceptable.

But don't YOU fucking DARE to defend your own thoughts!

 
 
MonsterMash
4  MonsterMash    one week ago

Lying about the President is a liberal thing

 
 
devangelical
4.1  devangelical  replied to  MonsterMash @4    one week ago

repeated assaults on the 1st is a fascist thing

 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  devangelical @4.1    one week ago
repeated assaults on the 1st

With regard to the press, the 1st Amendment is doing just fine. Jim Acosta is free to go on CNN and vomit his biased opinion all he wants.

 
 
Texan1211
4.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @4.1    one week ago

Then aren't we fortunate to live in a country not run by fascists!

 
 
Sean Treacy
5  Sean Treacy    one week ago

Jim Acosta is Sean Hannity. The only difference is that Hannity is open about his bias and doesn't pretend to be objective. 

 
 
Tacos!
5.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @5    one week ago

I think that's a fair assessment. Acosta looks like a man who wants his own show.

 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    one week ago

An amusing part of the story is watching CNN, so self righteously vocal about Trump's lying, protect Acosta's lying.

Acosta claimed on Anderson Cooper's show that he never touched the intern, despite video evidence that he did. Anderson Cooper of course, didn't offer any pushback to Acosta's lie. Then CNN, like a the third world propaganda machine it so desperately wants to be, shows an edited clip of Acosta and takes out the part where he touches the intern. 

 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    one week ago

Man, have you ever lost it. 

The young lady tried to grab the mic out if the reporter's hand. End of story. 

When someone is holding a microphone, and talking into it at the time, they instinctively reject anyone's attempt to take the microphone from them. This effect is seen thousands of times wherever people try to take the mic from one another in order to be heard. 

Acosta could have been a little less persistent in trying to probe Trump, but the business with the microphone is entirely on the White House. Entirely. 

Once again the right just make bald fools of themselves. 

 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    one week ago

Let's keep this simple.

Did Acosta touch her or no? 

 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    one week ago

It looks like he placed his arm over hers. She was the aggressor. 

What the hell are you looking at? 

 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    one week ago

Did he touch her or not? 

 
 
Raven Wing
6.1.4  Raven Wing  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.3    one week ago

Did she touch him or not? 

 
 
1stwarrior
6.1.5  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    one week ago

She reached for the microphone - he brushed her off.  She reached and placed her hand on the mic and he pulled away and "nudged" her away.

Yes - he touched her.

 
 
epistte
6.1.6  epistte  replied to  1stwarrior @6.1.5    one week ago
She reached for the microphone - he brushed her off.  She reached and placed her hand on the mic and he pulled away and "nudged" her away. Yes - he touched her.

Why are you trying to ignore the fact that she initiated the contact? 

 
 
arkpdx
6.1.7  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @6.1.6    one week ago

You do know that it was her job to retrieve that microphone and pass it on to the next reporter, don't you? 

 
 
MUVA
6.1.8  MUVA  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.7    one week ago

You mean it wasn't just some random chick grabbing mic's?

 
 
MUVA
6.1.9  MUVA  replied to  epistte @6.1.6    one week ago

Don't you think Acosta should have just asked one question and then pass the mic after his 6th follow up so the wonderful young woman could do her job.

 
 
epistte
6.1.10  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.7    one week ago
You do know that it was her job to retrieve that microphone and pass it on to the next reporter, don't you? 

That would happen after his question was answered.

 
 
arkpdx
6.1.11  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @6.1.10    one week ago

He had asked his question, it was a answered and was told he was done. He didn't like the answer and held a tantrum to attempt to get his way .

 
 
Texan1211
6.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.11    one week ago

Acosta is a little punk-ass bitch.

CNN should suspend him without pay or just fire him.

 
 
epistte
6.1.13  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.11    one week ago
 
 
arkpdx
6.1.14  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @6.1.13    one week ago

Oh please,  the press corps and CNN would support Acosta in this if he actual hit her with a closed fist and tore her dress. I saw what happened as it hapoened

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.15  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.11    one week ago

I watched the "press conference" live.

I saw no tantrum,  stubbornness maybe, ( it's the hallmark of good journalism, aka Woodward, et al )

I saw no assault.

The President did not need to match stubbornness with rudeness and ridicule,

He diminished the office of the Presidency, not Acosta or any other reporter he insulted, cut off or talked over repeatedly.

If you are having trouble remembering what you saw, here is the WH transcript, so you yourself can count how many times he was interrupted versus how many times

he interrupted others and never answered their questions...

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-conference-midterm-elections/

 I do believe the point of a press conference is to answer questions, this one was clearly called to divert attention from how many seats the GOP lost in the House

and declare a clear loss a "victory".

 
 
epistte
6.1.16  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.14    one week ago
Oh please,  the press corps and CNN would support Acosta in this if he actual hit her with a closed fist and tore her dress. I saw what happened as it hapoened

Nobody would support that action, so stop being dramatic.

 

 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.17  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.15    one week ago
I saw no tantrum, 

If someone from the right laid there hands on some intern /aid the left would be going nuts.  Now if you accosted them with a cigar ...they might let it go.

The President did not need not match rudeness with rudeness and ridicule,

What? He got his question and then had a tantrum after President Trump didn't respond to his second bated question.

If you are having trouble remembering what you saw,

Obviously you only seen what you wanted to.

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.18  Split Personality  replied to  arkpdx @6.1.14    one week ago

I can pretty much guarantee that if that happened everyone in that room would have kicked Acosta's ass.

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.19  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.17    one week ago

I have several children and many grandchildren,

I can assure you that what I saw may have been unnecessary and easily avoided,

but does not qualify as  a tantrum.

 
 
WallyW
6.1.20  WallyW  replied to  epistte @6.1.10    one week ago
That would happen after his question was answered.

He never got around to asking a relevant question, dear.

Went right off the bat lecturing Trump and then starting an argument with him.

 
 
KDMichigan
6.1.21  KDMichigan  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.19    one week ago
but does not qualify as  a tantrum.

That doesn't change the fact that he laid his hand on her, and as I said if someone from the right did that we would have the Liberal snowflakes having a epiphany.

His actions were like ….mansplaining tenfold. 

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.22  Split Personality  replied to  KDMichigan @6.1.21    one week ago

What next, describe it as a karate chop? It was clearly his wrist which "landed" or brushed on the inside of her elbow, hand open with palm exposed to the camera.

After she clearly completely covers Acosta's hand with hers - she instigated contact and he flinched first.

I don't see assault in either action. 

 
 
Skrekk
6.1.23  Skrekk  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.15    one week ago
I do believe the point of a press conference is to answer questions, this one was clearly called to divert attention from how many seats the GOP lost in the House and declare a clear loss a "victory".

Bingo.

 
 
Tacos!
6.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.1.6    one week ago
Why are you trying to ignore the fact that she initiated the contact?

Should that matter?

 
 
epistte
6.1.25  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.24    one week ago
Should that matter?

It must be taken into consideration. The situation would not have happened if she had not reached for the microphone while Jim Acosta was still speaking.

 
 
Split Personality
6.1.26  Split Personality  replied to  epistte @6.1.25    one week ago

She did 2 things at once.

She put her hand over Acosta's hand on the microphone and

she was moving in between Acosta and the POTUS.

Acosta reacted by moving slightly to his right to maintain eye contact with the President

and he reached out to block her with his left hand/arm from moving further into his space facing the President.

He did not grab, push or touch her, at most his wrist brushed the inside of her elbow, saying "stop".

 
 
epistte
6.1.27  epistte  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.26    one week ago

I've seen the video clip. To say that it was assault is laughable.

Apparently I was also assaulted with a shopping cart last evening...................

 
 
Tacos!
6.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  epistte @6.1.25    one week ago

He was told to give up the mic and he wouldn't. So, she didn't have a lot of choice.  In my opinion, a real man doesn't put up a physical fight with a woman in that scenario. It doesn't matter if she touched him incidentally first. He's a bully.

 
 
epistte
6.1.29  epistte  replied to  Tacos! @6.1.28    one week ago

How can he possibly be a bully if she initiated the situation?  Jim Acosta was polite but firm with her.  Trump was telling her to muzzle the press and Acosta wasn't going to go without a fight.  You agree with Trump and he has told you to not like CNN, so it isn't surpising that you are taking her side. 

He was pushing Trump for an answer to a question that was inconvenient to his current talking point, but that is part of a job for the White House press pool, especially when the POTUS is as evasive and intellectually dishonest as Donald Trump is.  If he didn't do it then he wasn't doing his job as a member of the 4th estate.  Those reporters aren't there to mindlessly swallow every claim that the White House feeds them without question. Politicians and the press have a naturally adversarial relationship and the Constitution is on the side of the press so that we the citizens are kept informed of the activities of those that we elect and who govern the country.   

 
 
lib50
6.1.30  lib50  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1.1    one week ago
Did Acosta touch her or no? 

SHE touched Acosta, invading his space.

 
 
Raven Wing
7  Raven Wing    one week ago

I have watched the video of the event, even the one that the WH is supposed to have doctored to show evidence for their reason to suspend Acosta's pass, and the all clearly show that when the woman reached for the mic in Acosta's hand, she also grabbed part of his hand while trying to pull the mic out of his hand, as which time he pulled away from her. He never initiated touching her in any way. 

It is one thing to belittle and ridicule Acosta for being pushy in his questioning, but, making false accusations of accosting and inappropriately touching the woman is over the line. And there are witnesses who have already attested to the fact that Acosta never initiated any touching toward the woman.

But, in order to show their devotion to their King Trump, the GOP lemmings and lap dogs will go along with any lie that Trump & Co. throw out there.

And NO!! I am NOT a Democrat, so don't embarrass yourself by making that false accusation about me as well.

 
 
Ender
7.1  Ender  replied to  Raven Wing @7    one week ago

It is all a lie.

The fact the the White House press secretary is actually promoting a doctored video (from a known conspiracy theorist) and a lie should be grounds for termination.

 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Ender @7.1    one week ago

I totally agree.  Trump will trump up any kind of lie that will draw attention away from him and put the blame on someone else. Lying to Trump is as natural as the breath he draws.  And he uses his lies to further his own agenda, even at the expense of those who are most loyal to him. He demands loyalty from everyone else, but, extends none to anyone else. There are many who are now beginning to see him for the A-hole he really is, and others turn a blind eye in order not to feel disappointed in their expectations of him. 

Trump sees himself as President being above the law and the Constitution. He snubs his nose at both, and laughs at his base who put their party loyalty before loyalty to their country. 

Sad.

 
 
1stwarrior
7.1.2  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Raven Wing @7.1.1    one week ago

This is about Acosta - not Trump.

 
 
pat wilson
7.1.3  pat wilson  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.2    one week ago
This is about Acosta - not Trump.

Yes, it's about Acosta but we wouldn't be talking about Acosta if it weren't for Trump, his vile behavior and his gas-lighting, lying staff. 

 
 
1stwarrior
7.1.4  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  pat wilson @7.1.3    one week ago

Sorry Pat - that dog don't hunt.  Stick to the topic which is Acosta please.

 
 
Raven Wing
7.1.5  Raven Wing  replied to  1stwarrior @7.1.2    one week ago

Ooops...sorry, I forgot this was your article. 

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8  Buzz of the Orient    one week ago

Well, if the comments on this article don't make Abbott and Costello look like Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Shayne - it's more fun than watching a movie.  He did!  She did!  She did first!  He touched her!  She touched him!  He assaulted her! I saw it live! You saw an edited version! CNN edited it! No, the WH edited it! .....jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

Now to watch the kids in the primary school next door for relief.

 
 
Eagle Averro
8.1  Eagle Averro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8    one week ago
Now to watch the kids in the primary school next door for relief.

E.A  Yes you are absolutely right jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 But can we " Play a game " and talk a little about the " Legalities " here?

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Eagle Averro @8.1    one week ago

I would be in a position to talk about the legalities if I had seen the clip of the press conference - my comment was based on the back-and-forth commenting above.

 
 
Eagle Averro
8.1.2  Eagle Averro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.1    one week ago

ok My Apologies I thought you seen the  Video posted, maybe after you get a chance to do so, take care!

 
 
Eagle Averro
8.1.3  Eagle Averro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.1    one week ago
if I had seen the clip of the press conference

E.A  Here is the CGTN, from where I am I can see Previous post video in their library, maybe you can also ::

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Eagle Averro @8.1.3    one week ago

Sorry E.A. I should have told you - YouTube is blocked where I am. I'm a Canadian expat and have been living in China for more than 12 years.

 
 
Eagle Averro
8.1.5  Eagle Averro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.4    one week ago
Sorry E.A. I should have told you - YouTube is blocked where I am.

E.A ok is this Site Blocked also?

https://www.cgtn.com/

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
8.1.6  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Eagle Averro @8.1.5    one week ago

Thanks for that link - it worked for me and is quite interesting although there seems to be a lot of Chinese propaganda on it.  I watched the video of the Melbourne terrorist knife attack on it. The previous thing you posted was a YouTube, which is blocked here, even if it was on that same site.

 
 
Eagle Averro
8.1.7  Eagle Averro  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @8.1.6    one week ago
Thanks for that link - it worked for me and is quite interesting although there seems to be a lot of Chinese propaganda on it.

E.A You are most  welcome, what Site is " propaganda free " :-)

 Yes and if you go to the Video Search  you might be ably to see  what might not be available to you elsewhere, have Fun!

 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    one week ago

Every time Acosta gets the mic, it's clear he knows he's on television because the performance starts. It's supposed to be his job to report the news, not get in an argument with the president or press secretary, not try to ask 3, 4, or more questions when it's supposed to be 2. The microphone does not belong to him. Getting in a tug of war with a female intern over a microphone that is not his just makes him look like a bully. Monopolizing the press conference over his colleagues does the same thing.

 
 
Buzz of the Orient
9.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tacos! @9    one week ago

There are rules that the reporters are to follow in a Presidential press conference, and if they refuse to follow the rules, then being banned is justifiable, even though the leftists do their damndest to politicize it.

 
 
JBB
10  JBB    one week ago

So, it turns out that the doctored edited misleading video that rightwngers have been harping, wringing their hands and blathering about for days now was a no good fake straight from Info Wars. Talk about your false flag operations! The Right is now having to manufacture their daily doses of patented fake outrage out of whole cloth. Many commenting above above plainly must be either fools or liars...

 
 
1stwarrior
10.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  JBB @10    one week ago

Yawnnnnn.  Now that you're done, stick to the topic.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

ArkansasHermit-too
Galen Marvin Ross
arkpdx
TTGA


58 visitors