A Slant, a Standup, a Reality Check
Any agency or individual can twist text (including religious and
statutory texts) to justify any act or even atrocity but that does not mean
either that the interpretation, translation or recitation is accurate in itself
or, as a pretext, rendered more than a clever yet pathetic and egregious abuse
to justify and escape reprimand for the original abuse.
Thus
CNN
v. Trump
A lawsuit filed by Cable News Network (CNN) and their chief White House
correspondent Abilio James “Jim” Acosta (plaintiffs) against members of U.S.
President Donald J. Trump, members of his administration, and United States
Secret Service (defendants) November 13, 2018, in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia. At court plaintiffs sought and received
immediate relief from damage to CNN and their White House correspondent
reporter Acosta; the preliminary injunction orders return of Acosta’s press
pass, at least temporarily, while the litigation proceeds.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Timothy
J. Kelly on November 16, 2018 after having “granted a temporary restraining
order … allowing CNN reporter Jim Acosta to regain his White House press pass,
pending a later ruling about broader constitutional issues in the case” was
directly quoted as heard by the press present in the court:
“‘I want to emphasize the very limited nature of this ruling …. I have not determined that the First Amendment was violated here.’”
Press reports and reports of reports and interpretations of in-court
reports attribute the judge with speculating that CNN would “likely to succeed
on Fifth Amendment claims about the notification process used to revoke (Jim)
Acosta’s ‘hard pass,’” a requisite credential of a member of the press corps to
cover the President of the United States.
Beyond the Fifth Amendment issue, the
press said, the judge “wanted additional filings” over the coming two weeks
from attorneys for Plaintiffs and Defendants in the case.
|
M
|
ass media coverage has provided non-stop, exclusive focus on CNN’s
slant and wide-ranging parroting of applications, interpretations and
misinterpretations of U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment which, in their view,
gives a member of the press corps or media personality — seen as the
“embodiment” of “the press” — license, carte blanche, unchecked liberty to act
out or say, do and perform in any way he or she chooses during press conferences
or interviews. This is one side.
But smothered under the skewed ranting is another side
of interest that was presented by the attorneys for the Defendants in CNN v
Trump.
|
D
|
efendants’ arguments (briefly excerpted) citing precedent, prior
rulings or settled law
“The First Amendment does not restrict the President’s ability to determine the terms on which he (the president) does, or does not, engage with particular journalists.
Sherrill v. Knight:
“The President may of course ‘grant interviews or briefings with selected journalists’ and deny that opportunity to others; any other result would ‘certainly be unreasonable.’”
The President may choose the journalists he calls on at press conferences or which journalists he invites to an interview in the Oval Office or a press conference (just a large - form interview) in the East Room.
That discretion extends to his White House staff; the President is free to instruct White House officials to respond positively to particular journalists’ requests for information, interviews, or questions”; (the president) is equally free to instruct White House officials to do the opposite by declining similar requests from a different journalist.
If the rule were otherwise, courts frequently would be called on to police the daily give – and take between public officials and reporters—an arena that is defined by discretion and where public officials routinely grant or deny interviews to specific reporters based on their judgment about how the reporter’s viewpoints will color the interview.
Baltimore Sun Co. v. Ehrlich
“… [T]he court explained that providing ‘relatively less information’ to one reporter was permissible, even when done ‘on account of [that journalist’s] reporting[.]’
Such decisions regarding the level of access a journalist receives to public officials are ‘a pervasive feature of journalism and of journalists’ interaction with government.’”
First
Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States
Zemel v. Rusk
“…[T]here is no First Amendment right of access to the White House. As the Supreme Court recognized decades ago, even though any restriction on a citizen’s access to the White House ‘diminishes the citizen’s opportunities to gather information he might find relevant to his opinion of the way the country is being run, . . . that does not make entry into the White House a First Amendment right.’”
“The President is generally free to open the White House doors to political allies, in the hopes of furthering a particular agenda, and he is equally free to invite in only political foes, in the hopes of convincing them of his position.”
The First Amendment simply does not regulate these decisions. And the
First Amendment does not impose stricter requirements when journalists, as a subset
of the public, are granted or denied access to the White House.
Pell v. Procunier
“… ([J]ournalists do not have a First Amendment right to ‘information not available to members of the public generally’).
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission U.S. Supreme
Court
“(‘We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.’”
Issue
of the “Hard Pass”
“The President and White House possess the same broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists (and other members of the public) that they possess to select which journalists receive interviews, or which journalists they acknowledge at press conferences.”
“A rule that limits the White House’s discretion to grant or deny journalists hard passes would thus risk requiring the White House to grant full access to any member of the public who would like to ask the President or his staff questions.Accordingly, the decision to provide a journalist a White House hard pass takes place at the intersection of two realms the First Amendment does not reach:
Access to the White House, andWhite House interactions with particular journalists.
And where, as here, the White House has determined that it wants to
scale back its interactions with a particular journalist, denying that
journalist a hard pass is a permissible way to accomplish that goal.
Sherrill v. Knight:
Plaintiffs rely on Sherrill for the broad proposition that press ‘access [should] not be denied arbitrarily or for less than compelling reasons.’ … But Sherrill is not so broad. In that case, the sole question was whether the Secret Service had permissibly denied a hard pass to a journalist, who the parties agreed was otherwise eligible to receive it, for concerns over presidential security.”
Common Decency, Respect, Proper Behavior
“The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional.
“The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor.
“If there is no check on this type of behavior it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.”
|
T
|
he public should understand (and I believe most people do understand) that whether standing before us are “the
press” (as organization or individual) or public officials, there is always their vested
interest and angle, likely not corresponding with either the public interest or
the public good. Therefore, the people must always be wary, question, scrutinize, study,
think independently.
It is also true that those who appear before the public—whether
as members of the media, government or neither and just ordinary people—should use
proper language and tone and otherwise conduct themselves with care and proper
decorum.
Propriety is indicative of neither weakness nor failure to properly perform one’s job or
duties. It is rather demonstrative of intelligence, proper ethics, maturity, good
judgment, common decency.
Sources
Constitution Center “CNN gets temporary due process ruling in Trump
case” November 16, 2018, Scott Bomboy,
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cnn-gets-temporary-due-process-ruling-in-trump-case
Wikipedia
CNN v Trump: Citations: 1:18-cv-02610-TJK; Judge sitting: Timothy J.
Kelly ● Counsel for plaintiff(s): Theodore Boutrous; Plaintiff(s): CNN, Jim
Acosta ● Counsel for Defendant(s): JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General;
JAMES BURNHAM Deputy Assistant Attorney General; ERIC R. WOMACK Assistant
Branch Director /s/ Michael H. Baer MICHAEL H. BAER (NY Bar No. 5384300);
JOSEPH E. BORSON (Va. Bar No. 85519) Trial Attorneys, U. S. Dept. of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 1100 L St., NW Washington, D.C. 20005
Tel. (202) 305 – 8573 Michael.H.Baer@usdoj.gov; Joseph.Borson@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants ● Defendant(s): Donald Trump, John F. Kelly, William
Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, United States Secret Service, Randolph Alles, John
Doe, Secret Service Agent
CNN v. Trump: lawsuit filed on November 13, 2018, in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia; plaintiffs Cable News Network
(CNN) and their chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta; defendants members
of the Donald Trump administration and United States Secret Service.
Citing Sherrill v. Knight, Pursuing America’s Greatness v. Federal
Election Commission, and Elrod v. Burns, the suit argued that the White House
wrongfully revoked Acosta’s press credentials in violation of the First
Amendment right to freedom of the press and Fifth Amendment right to due
process, respectively; and, additionally citing federal regulations (namely, ‘Fed.
R. Civ. P. 65(a) and Local Rule 65.1’)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_v._Trump
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/WHITE-HOUSE-ACOSTA-1.pdf
Abilio James Acosta, son of a Cuban refugee, credentialed in mass
communication and political science, employed as a CNN “chief White House
correspondent” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Acosta
Judge Timothy J. Kelly of the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia; graduate of Duke University (A.B.1991) and from
Georgetown University (J.D. 1997)
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/content/district-judge-timothy-j-kelly
The Hill “Judge orders White House to reinstate Acosta’s
press credentials” “A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration
to reinstate press credentials for Jim Acosta, CNN’s chief White House
correspondent” November 16, 2018 https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/416935-judge-rules-against-white-house-in-cnn-dispute
RT “Fake news feud: A brief history of Trump and CNN's Jim Acosta
yelling at each other” November 8, 2018
https://www.rt.com/usa/443482-trump-acosta-cnn-news-feud/
A federal judge granted a temporary restraining order on Friday
allowing CNN reporter Jim Acosta to regain his White House press pass, pending
a later ruling about broader constitutional issues in the case.
Insight Beyond Today’s News, CLB - © All Rights
Reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment