The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Judge restores reporter’s White House press pass

by Lynde Langdon
Posted 11/16/18, 12:38 pm

A federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to return the White House press credentials of CNN reporter Jim Acosta immediately. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said the White House explanation for revoking the credentials came too late and did not respect Acosta’s right to due process. The Secret Service took away the reporter’s press pass after he refused to yield his time or the microphone at a news conference with the president on Nov. 7. CNN sued, and Friday’s ruling temporarily orders the press credentiuals reinstated while CNN and the White House argue the matter in court.

“Let’s go back to work,” Acosta said outside the courthouse following the ruling.

CNN and other news outlets claimed the revocation trampled on freedom of the press. The Trump administration said the president has broad authority to direct his interactions with journalists. “There is no First Amendment right of access to the White House,” the administration said in a court filing Wednesday. It pointed to the large contingent of other CNN reporters with access to the White House grounds and said Acosta had other means of continuing his coverage from afar.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Lynde Langdon

Lynde is a WORLD Digital’s managing editor and reports on popular and fine arts. She lives in Wichita, Kan., with her husband and two daughters. Follow Lynde on Twitter @lmlangdon.

Read more from this writer


  • Janet S
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 01:08 pm

    Hopefully Trump will just ignore him and not let him ask questions.  He tries to completely dominate the questions.

  • West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 01:32 pm

    And when has Mr Trump ever been able to ignore anything? He places his hand in every pot, both large and small.

  • CarolinaJay
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 01:20 pm

    If the President just walks out of the room when Acosta gets agressive, maybe the other reporters in the room will put pressure on Acosta to behave.

  • West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 01:36 pm

    Absolutely! There's any number of things he could do rather than trample upon America's need for a free and aggressive press. And I'm not saying that the press needs to be rude to accomplish its objectives. Although people tend to get back in their face what they throw out. The overwhelming support of the entire press corps, including Fox, indicates that the president far exceeded his boundaries here.

  • news2me
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 03:12 pm

    West Coast Gramma

    Where were you when the press were stifled by Obama? He actually went to news studios to get in their faces and told them to back off. In the beginning there was a video of him barging in on them. As usual, long since forgotten. 

    If a reporter wanted to investigate something, like fast and furious, they removed the reporter. Gone.

    Fox seemed to be a thorn in Obama's side. They never were conservative. He said that if they were the only media he would never have been elected Pres. 

    Where were you when Obama barred reporters from his white house for not printing what he told them to? 

    Where were you when Obama had the media and his minions relentlessly go after Sarah Palin?

    Where have you been? Oh, that's right, you have been doing Obama's bidding. He told all his followers to get in people's faces if they were against him and HIS agenda. Is that why he gave everyone a phone? So he could send his out his latest orders?

    Like Hitler, Obama's minions have selective memory. Nothing bad ever happened during his 8 years reign.

  • Web Editor
    Posted: Sat, 11/17/2018 02:59 pm

    news2me: Please argue the facts and not the person. Please see our Website Policies regarding commenting.

  • JerryM
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 04:45 pm

    Acosta is more a showman and propagandist than a true reporter.  If possible, he should simply be ignored. 

    "...the explanation for revoking the credentials came too late and did not respect Acosta’s right to due process".  This sounds like incompetence.  Can you expand?

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 08:12 pm

    News2me, I reported your comment, because your implication that West Coast Gramma is a "minion" of Obama, and your comparison to Hitler's minions, crossed the line.

  • not silent
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 09:04 pm

    Full disclosure: I did not see the exchange that caused Mr. Acosta to lose his press credentials-I only read about it.  What I seem to be seeing on both sides is that people are shaking their heads at what they see as the bad behavior of the "other side" while simultaneously justifying the same or similar behavior by people on their side.  This seems to demonstrate a general attitude of "the end justifies the means," or "the rules only apply to the other guys."  Does being right (or thinking you are right) give either side a pass on good behavior?

    My personal feeling is that the president has a huge responsibility to set an example of good behavior because of being in a position of leadership in the nation.  A true leader knows how to take the high road and be the better man.  Should we be okay with the behavior of any president if we can come up with something worse that another leader has done?  Doesn't that set a very low expectation, basically a race to the bottom?  If we get the leaders we deserve, then we aren't going to get much.  Why can't we stop pointing to the "other side" and start demanding that "our side" clean up its act?  THEN maybe we wouldn't have to vote for the "lesser of two evils."

    The press has a different role from the president-they are going to tend to push boundaries because they are looking for a story.  Because it seems that some of them have abandoned almost ALL boundaries these days, I agree that there should be some way to show when someone's behavior has crossed the line.  However, I don't think revoking press access is the best way because it looks defensive and seems to show a lack of transparency.  

  • OldMike
    Posted: Fri, 11/16/2018 10:22 pm

    I’ll go with Carolina Jay on this: when Acosta (or any reporter) gets rude or belligerent, “OK, folks, that’s all for today. Thank you very much.”  

    If Acosta doesn’t get it, I’m sure his fellow reporters will, and probably can police the behavior of miscreants far better than the President or his Press Secretary. 

  • not silent
    Posted: Sat, 11/17/2018 08:39 pm

    I agree that shutting down the news conference would probably be the best way to handle a situation like this.  Although the press needs to be able to ask uncomfortable questions, it is essential to maintain standards of behavior if we are to have an orderly society. 

    I have heard friends and people close to me trying to justify behavior that could only be described as bullying from those who agree with them by claiming that WORSE things were supposedly done by their opponents-or by claiming that is the only way the other side will listen.  As soon as inappropriate behavior is justified by either side, however, the behavior on both sides starts to go down and it becomes a race to the bottom. 

    Judging from recent events, it seems to me that the race to the bottom is already well underway.  Although I suspect the average person doesn't like the way things are going, I think many people feel helpless to stop it.  We can all do our part, and I think a lot of people are trying; but government leaders, the press, and leaders in other fields need to step up and start leading.

  • Xion's picture
    Posted: Sun, 11/18/2018 12:45 pm

    I am curious to see what the new press rules will be.  Apart from civility and decorum, I think they should institute a tiered seating system.  If a reporter can't follow the rules his seat is reassigned to the back of the room where he won't be called on.  If he continues to shout uncontrollably, then there should be a second room with video access for the press.  He can sit in there and write down his questions.  Actually, maybe all questions should be pre-written.  That would end the shouting and follow ups.

  • West Coast Gramma's picture
    West Coast Gramma
    Posted: Sun, 11/18/2018 04:22 pm

    When you act like them and speak like them, you are them. The color of your political persuasion is not the deciding factor.

  • OldMike
    Posted: Mon, 11/19/2018 04:11 pm

    Sorry, Ma’am, but I have to disagree. Using the same low tactics as the other side IS unseemly and distressing to see. 

    But when the motivations and goals of the two opposing forces are SO DIFFERENT, it’s simply untrue that the two sides are the same. 

  • not silent
    Posted: Mon, 11/19/2018 09:27 pm

    I have to agree with West Coast Gramma because I think she was talking about actions; and I think bad actions are bad no matter who does them.  I am hearing BOTH sides of the political aisle saying that THEY are different and that it's okay for them to act unseemly because THEY are "right" about the issues.  It seems to me that both sides have picked certain issues that excite their bases and they keep pounding those issues to keep the base loyal.    

    For the Republican Party, it's obviously abortion.  A lot of Christians I know will never vote against a Republican because the party is pro-life, and they justify other things candidates do or the party itself does.  However, if being pro-life (or "right" on any important issue) automatically means that a group or person is "different," how do we apply that to the Catholic priests who are guilty of child abuse?  (Sorry to bring up a different issue, but it's the only way I can think to illustrate my point...)  Surely these priests were pro-life. It's not just priests, either.  (World did stories on this issue in 2002 and this past September, and the recent article talked about evangelical leaders who were guilty of abuse.)  Does the fact that these leaders were motivated to serve God and believed in protecting the unborn mean we should view their actions somehow differently from someone who commits abuse and is pro-choice? 

    No one is perfect, and no human group if perfect; but I think we have to be willing to hold our leaders accoutable when necessary, even if they get other things right. King David, the man after God's own heart, was held accoutable by the prophet Nathan for adultery and contract murder.  What if Nathan had done like I sometimes see Christians doing with our leaders? ("But the PHILISTINES do things that are MUCH worse!" or "David was chosen by God!" or "David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem!" or "Remember when Saul did so and so!")  What if Nathan had decided not to confront David since he was better than other leaders and got most things right?