Update: The White House gave up and restored CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press pass on Monday, Nov. 19, after CNN threatened to go back to court to prevent the administration from carrying out its threat to resume barring him from press briefings when the temporary order expired. Read story here.
A federal judge appointed by Donald Trump ordered the White House to temporarily reinstate CNN reporter Jim Acosta’s press credentials Friday.
CNN and Acosta argued in court the revocation of Acosta’s press pass violated First Amendment press freedoms, but the judge zeroed in on the arbitrariness of the action by White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and limited his ruling to a finding that suspending Acosta’s pass without notice violated due process.
The contratemps flared when Acosta pressed his questioning of Trump at a press conference the day after the election when Trump wanted to move on and call on other reporters. Trump then dispatched an intern to take the microphone away from him. Trump and Sanders later claimed Acosta put his hands on her, but video of the incident showed he did not. The White House even doctored the video to make it appear he did.
Trump dislikes CNN’s reporting, and frequently verbalizes his animosity toward the network and Acosta, its chief White House correspondent.
The threat of reporters being excluded from White House briefings for asking tough questions or simply being disliked by the president provoked great concern throughout the journalism profession. A multitude of media organizations, including Fox, backed CNN’s and Acosta’s efforts to force the White House to reinstate Acosta’s credentials.
Lawyers for the White House argued Acosta could still do his job without White House access. CNN’s lawyers argued he could not because personal contact is essential to effective reporting. The White House legal team also contended presidents can choose which journalists to give interviews to, and have the same discretion concerning access to White House press briefings. But media lawyers argue that legal precedents holding government can’t discriminate against disfavored points of view protects such access.
Compiled from news sources.