CNN's Acosta kicked out of the Press Room - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14961506
XogGyux wrote:The "president" has been behaving like a baby since... well since he was an actual baby. He never outgrew his ego centered phase.


Irrelevant.

XogGyux wrote:And again with the distractions. That is what happens when you run out of sensical things to say and fair points to discuss. You jump straight to confabulating flame wars and offending your opposition.


Not an argument. Sounds like bitching to me, in point of fact.

XogGyux wrote:No fking body said anything about RIGHTs.


I did, so you are incorrect.

XogGyux wrote:His credentials can be revoked for any reason or no reason at all


Glad we agree.

XogGyux wrote:That does not mean the media is not wrong by calling foul in what it is obviously a retaliation for well diserved bad coverage.


They have the right to report whatever FAKE NEWS they want. That is correct, just like the president had the right to throw Acosta out of the WH press corps.

:lol:
#14961513
Rescinding his press pass could just be a temporary measure. There was probably a reason why Jim Accost'em was given such leeway for so long. The Trump administration was using him as much as CNN was using the White House's tacit permission extended to his antics. To my knowledge, his conduct has been of such egregious nature for such a prolonged period of time, that no other reporter could even come close to his history of unprofessional conduct.

It was like extending a press pass to a hooligan.
#14961521
jimjam wrote:censorship = fascism


Well, it equals authoritarianism. So you are against banning words and silencing views on the internet and in media opinion pieces? You are against banning far right speakers on campus?
#14961527
Wikipedia wrote:Histrionic personality disorder (HPD) is defined by the American Psychiatric Association as a personality disorder characterized by a pattern of excessive attention-seeking emotions, usually beginning in early adulthood, including inappropriately seductive behavior and an excessive need for approval. Histrionic people are lively, dramatic, vivacious, enthusiastic, and flirtatious.

Sure, who else than Obama could be a typical histrionic personality? :lol:
#14961537
Well, it equals authoritarianism. So you are against banning words and silencing views on the internet and in media opinion pieces? You are against banning far right speakers on campus?


It depends. Certainly right wing speakers should usually not be banned on campus.

ALL campus speakers should be screened to be sure there is something to be learned from them. That is why ANYONE should be screened before being allowed to speak on campus. If, for example, the grand dragon of the KKK wanted to speak on the campus he should have to be able to show that he is offering something that enhances the education of the students. I think he might be able to do that. If on the other hand, a fundamentalist Christian wanted to speak putting forth a Biblical argument for banning abortion I believe there would be little to be learned from that. That person might be excluded. Campus time though is valuable. There is not unlimited time to allow anyone who wants access to students. Further. If I am to have a speaker come to my class I would have to show that he/she is valuable and enhances the goals of the class. It would be wrong, for example, to have an astronomer speak to a Public Health class unless the big one is headed our way. (Then I suspect a brief recess may be more to the point.)

The internet is another thing. It is comprised almost entirely of privately owned domains. They should no more be forced to put something on their internet site than you should be forced to put an Obama political sign on your front lawn. Some sites may feel that they have an interest in allowing diverse opinions. Others not. I would not allow a car dealer so advertise on my consulting page. (Or worse. A child molester, lawyer or anti-vaxer.)

You see how complicated your "zinger" is One Degree?
Last edited by Drlee on 09 Nov 2018 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
#14961539
You know how Europeans would have dealt with Jim Accost'ems outbursts? Answer: they wouldn't have, because there is no European equivalent. (That I know of.) Jim Accost'em is an American hooligan pretending to be a 'journalist'. What's the hallmark of an absolutely terrible reporter? When the reporter makes the story about himself.

Trump on Jim Accost'em.

#14961540
Drlee wrote:It depends. Certainly right wing speakers should usually not be banned on campus.

ALL campus speakers should be screened to be sure there is something to be learned from them. That is why ANYONE should speak on campus. If, for example, the grand dragon of the KKK wanted to speak on the campus he should have to be able to show that he is offering something that enhances the education of the students. I think he might be able to do that. If on the other hand, a fundamentalist Christian wanted to speak putting forth a Biblical argument for banning abortion I believe there would be little to be learned from that.

The internet is another thing. It is comprised almost entirely of privately owned domains. They should no more be forced to put something on their internet site than you should be forced to put an Obama political sign on your front lawn.


If we are going to allow companies more powerful and influential than many countries to exist, then they need to be held to the higher standards.
We object to government censorship, why should we not object to the censorship of corporations as powerful as countries. We are not talking about companies with limited influence.
#14961544
If we are going to allow companies more powerful and influential than many countries to exist, then they need to be held to the higher standards.
We object to government censorship, why should we not object to the censorship of corporations as powerful as countries. We are not talking about companies with limited influence.


I am glad that you will be happy to join with me in banning all contributions to political candidates and issue advertising by any company. That is a fairly liberal position for you to take.

I am, however, curious about what you consider "higher standards". Surly you would not want news outlets to stop asking the hard questions and to press hard when they are being stonewalled.
#14961547
Drlee wrote:I am glad that you will be happy to join with me in banning all contributions to political candidates and issue advertising by any company. That is a fairly liberal position for you to take.

I am, however, curious about what you consider "higher standards". Surly you would not want news outlets to stop asking the hard questions and to press hard when they are being stonewalled.


$1000 limit on all political donations. No loopholes. No PACS. No government funding.
I already said not allowing censorship is the ‘higher standard’. Personally, I would break these companies up so they were too small to matter.
You don’t find it strange the companies most capable of influencing our elections are banning people who don’t have a millionth of their own influence? The things people swallow today is amazing. The worse abusers are monitoring the system. Yeah, that makes sense.
#14961549
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Only in a clown world is zooming-in and speeding-up a video "doctoring."

This was media spin.

Even Buzzfeed came to the defense of the PJW's video release.


If you object to the term “doctored”, then let us say “deliberately manipulated in order to provide misleading information” or “fake news”.

Nonetheless, acting like this in a presidential press conference has never been acceptable.


From what I understand, he said “Pardon me, ma’am” when an intern reached for the microphone he was using, and did not relinquish the microphone when she attempted to pull it away.

This seems well within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.

Likewise, CNN will still have a representative in the press room so this isn't some sort of "Attack" on the first amendment.


If Mr. Acosta was banned because the POTUS did not like being held accountable, then it is an attack on freedom of speech regardless of who else is in the room.
#14961551
If you object to the term “doctored”, then let us say “deliberately manipulated in order to provide misleading information” or “fake news”.


I will assume you never watched both videos. They are identical. There is no excuse for someone calling them doctored that has actually seen them.

From what I understand, he said “Pardon me, ma’am” when an intern reached for the microphone he was using, and did not relinquish the microphone when she attempted to pull it away.

This seems well within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.

Hardly, when it is her job not his to make that decision. Who gave him the right to decide anything? Journalists only speak when called on or they are out of line. No reason it should be different under Trump.


If Mr. Acosta was banned because the POTUS did not like being held accountable, then it is an attack on freedom of speech regardless of who else is in the room.

He was banned because his behavior was unacceptable. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech.
#14961555
One Degree wrote:I will assume you never watched both videos. They are identical. There is no excuse for someone calling them doctored that has actually seen them.


    Expert: Acosta video distributed by White House was doctored

    NEW YORK (AP) — A video distributed by the Trump administration to support its argument for banning CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House appears to have been doctored to make Acosta look more aggressive than he was during an exchange with a White House intern, an independent expert said Thursday.

    White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted the video, which shows Acosta asking President Donald Trump a question on Wednesday as the intern tries to take his microphone away. But a frame-by-frame comparison with an Associated Press video of the same incident shows that the one tweeted by Sanders appears to have been altered to speed up Acosta’s arm movement as he touches the intern’s arm, according to Abba Shapiro, an independent video producer who examined the footage at AP’s request.

Hardly, when it is her job not his to make that decision. Who gave him the right to decide anything? Journalists only speak when called on or they are out of line. No reason it should be different under Trump.


So, his behaviour was “unacceptable” because he was asking questions even when the lady or Teump did not want him to do so?

He was banned because his behavior was unacceptable. It had nothing to do with freedom of speech.


That is what Trump’s administration is saying. I have no reason to believe it is true.

Edit:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/ ... index.html

Apparently, Trump promised to never ban reporters from the press room if he was elected. Another campaign promise unfulfilled. Not really surprised.
#14961556
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Expert: Acosta video distributed by White House was doctored

    NEW YORK (AP) — A video distributed by the Trump administration to support its argument for banning CNN reporter Jim Acosta from the White House appears to have been doctored to make Acosta look more aggressive than he was during an exchange with a White House intern, an independent expert said Thursday.

    White House press secretary Sarah Sanders tweeted the video, which shows Acosta asking President Donald Trump a question on Wednesday as the intern tries to take his microphone away. But a frame-by-frame comparison with an Associated Press video of the same incident shows that the one tweeted by Sanders appears to have been altered to speed up Acosta’s arm movement as he touches the intern’s arm, according to Abba Shapiro, an independent video producer who examined the footage at AP’s request.



So, his behaviour was “unacceptable” because he was asking questions even when the lady or Teump did not want him to do so?



That is what Trump’s administration is saying. I have no reason to believe it is true.

Edit:
https://money.cnn.com/2016/06/14/media/ ... index.html

Apparently, Trump promised to never ban reporters from the press room if he was elected. Another campaign promise unfulfilled. Not really surprised.


I don’t care what some biased source says. I watched them. Their accusations are bullshit.
I know how he feels. Sometimes we are forced to abandon our position due to the unscrupulousness of others.
#14961572
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your accusations of bias and refusal to answer questions are not arguments.


You only asked one question and it was so deliberately misleading I did not feel it needed an answer. My earlier comments made it clear I would not accept the question as asked.
#14961587
Pants-of-dog wrote: From what I understand, he said “Pardon me, ma’am” when an intern reached for the microphone he was using, and did not relinquish the microphone when she attempted to pull it away.

This seems well within the bounds of acceptable behaviour.


Lol. Mic hogging at a time limited press conference is never acceptable.

He was Mic Hogging.... Do you not understand how rude that is when there are other journalists present who want to ask questions also??

He had been warned several times not to hog the microphone!

The Intern was doing her job trying to stop a rude as fuck mic-hogger stalling the fucken conference. Usual standards call for him to have gotten the message by that point and hand it right over.

Oh and Sab this happens in press conferences everywhere, you just don't hear about it because THAT'S NORMAL. Michoggers get kicked out. They did the standard proceedure but the "Trump is Hitler" brigade obviously is so uneducated that have no idea what Michogging is.

You really have no clue what goes on there. Just […]

I think you can keep the money without being charg[…]

I agree with POD. Mental health treatment is not […]

@Drlee While I don't disagree in principle, the R[…]