Press Personalities and the President, Propriety and Public Interest

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, and

White 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

Press Secretary to the President of the United States Sarah Huckabee Sanders

“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