Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
The holidays are just around the corner. Now’s a GREAT time to forward us to friends and family, and not let politics ruin Thanksgiving dinner!
Washington Post
On Tuesday, CNN filed a lawsuit against the White House, claiming that the White House violated the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the due process clause by revoking Jim Acosta’s media credentials.
Reuters
The left thinks Acosta should get his credentials back, but acknowledges that the whole episode involves grandstanding from both sides.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded nearly 41 years ago that the Secret Service cannot deny a journalist White House press credentials absent a compelling purpose—and certainly cannot do so because the president is not a fan of a journalist’s reporting."
Slate
“When the Founding Fathers established freedom of the press as a constitutional right, they didn’t hedge their support with the phrase as long as they’re nice about it. A free press by design is a check on power and often a robust critic of government... Reporters are watchdogs, not trained seals."
Chicago Tribune
Many note that “while nobody thinks Acosta assaulted a White House staffer, plenty of people did find his conduct to be inappropriate grandstanding. And this face-off between Trump and CNN is just one flurry in a larger war between Trump and the mainstream press that has an element of phoniness to it... while there is a real conflict here, there is also a real confluence of interests. Trump is good for CNN’s business, and CNN is a good foil for Trump’s politics."
Vox
“Trump wanted to send a message. In the case of CNN and the rest of the press, the message is that they should be nicer to him. He also wanted to send a message to his supporters that he is tough on the news media, whom he condemns as ‘enemies of the people’... Courts will rule for CNN but Trump has already won."
Bloomberg
The right thinks Acosta’s credentials were justifiably revoked due to his inappropriate behavior.
The right thinks Acosta’s credentials were justifiably revoked due to his inappropriate behavior.
“How can stopping a guy from trying to monopolize the floor at a press briefing which he had no legal right to attend in the first place be a violation of the First Amendment? Disruption, not viewpoint, is the grounds for revoking his press pass."
Hot Air
Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer states, “Jim Acosta... damages himself and the rest of the press corps because he goes too far... nobody else does what Jim Acosta does... Never in my time at the White House was there ever a reporter who acts like Jim Acosta does, by becoming such an editorialist in the room."
The Hill
“The First Amendment prevents the President or anyone else in the federal government from restricting the ability of citizens to report and publish. Does it also require the President to listen to ill-informed lectures for as long as the lecturers choose to speak? Obviously if everyone had the right to refuse to surrender the microphone at press conferences the result would be fewer members of the press corps having an opportunity to ask questions, not more."
Wall Street Journal
“A president does not have to hold press conferences at all and can include or exclude anyone he wants. Franklin Delano Roosevelt used to hold press conferences of selected reporters in the Oval Office and prohibit them from quoting him without special permission. FDR never ranted publicly about fake news, but did refer to ‘the stupidity, cowardice and philistinism of working newspapermen.’"
Newsday
Philly’s first snow: Camel roams highway, winter widens Gritty’s eyes.
The Inquirer
