CNN has made it official, announcing that it is suing the Trump administration for what it terms the “wrongful revocation” of network correspondent Jim Acosta’s White House press credentials following a combative post-midterm exchange during a presidential press briefing.
“While the suit is specific to CNN and Acosta, this could have happened to anyone,” CNN warbled in an official statement, warning that silencing Acosta’s attention-seeking theatrics threatens to “create a dangerous chilling effect for any journalist who covers our elected officials.”
Leave it to CNN to issue a grandstanding statement defending a “look at me” reporter who, instead of doing his job, chooses to portray himself as a dashing musketeer challenging the president of the United States to a personal duel.
The most laughable suggestion in what is just another tiring media-manufactured circus is the notion that CNN would be hesitant to sue a sitting president. As if CNN cared one whit about any commitment to unbiased journalism.
Floyd Abrams, a frequent CNN contributor touted as a “First Amendment expert,” appeared on the network before the lawsuit was filed to declare unsurprisingly that the outlet with which he has an obvious working relationship had “a really strong lawsuit” if it chose to pursue legal action.
Cue the laugh track.
“I can understand CNN being reluctant to sue because the president keeps saying CNN is the enemy of me, and CNN might have reluctance to have a lawsuit titled ‘CNN vs. Donald Trump,'” Abrams inconceivably uttered. “That said, yes, I think they should sue.”
“…a cable news wrestling match, where sides shout at each other.”
CNN devotes pretty much its entire run of programming to attacking Trump 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That it would somehow be averse to a “CNN vs. Donald Trump” lawsuit is pathetic. CNN’s business model since August 2015 has been devoted to bringing down Trump, and it relishes the chance to assume the mantle of No. 1 Enemy of the White House.
This is the work environment in which the clownish Acosta operates.
It is amusing to see a media organization well-regarded by the “mainstream” coterie attempt to criticize Acosta’s indefensible Nov. 7 actions, yet still manage feed in to CNN’s illusions along the way.
The Poynter Institute, a non-profit school for journalism, posted a commentary on its website by faculty members Al Tompkins and Kelly McBride that correctly scolds Acosta for making political statements (the migrant caravan “is not an invasion”) instead of asking questions. The authors go on correctly to chide Acosta for treating a White House press briefing “the same as a cable news wrestling match, where sides shout at each other.”
The two journalism faculty members then reach the startling conclusion that administration officials being outraged by Acosta’s bullying “makes us wonder if the White House was looking for an opportunity to pick a fight.”
A so-called “reporter” is making political statements, acting like one of the cage-match-talking buffoons regularly featured on CNN every night, and it is the White House spoiling for a fight?
The inability of today’s journalists to honestly critique themselves is the biggest indicator of the spoiled, warped perception they have of themselves as champions of … whatever. Merely passing on information is not what they do. They are called to higher illusions that just so happen to feed their ever-growing egos along the way.
“The White House punished Mr. Acosta and CNN for the contents of their reporting,” CNN’s statement reads. Given Acosta’s actions, this can be read only as the wording of a belligerent. The White House is well within its right to strip the false cloak of neutrality from what is a clearly partisan and unprofessional television network.