News
"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Napoleon, the Pig, Animal Farm, by George Orwell Freedom of the press is precious. It is axiomatic. It's platitudinous. We all say we want a free press. But we must first define what that means. Does a reporter have a 1st Amendment right to ask a politician a question? If the 1st Amendment carries any meaning at all, it means ANY American may ask questions and demand answers from government officials. The public has every right to know the answers to questions asked and it is only under very special circumstances that answers to questions may be withheld. Whether or not a government official provides a satisfactory answer to the question is another matter entirely. The duty of a free and independent press is to ask those questions and report on the answers. Editors, commentators, and pundits can ruminate the adequacy or inadequacy of the answers, perhaps leading to more probing questions. Are there any obligations requires in order for the 1st Amendment to be honored? The Constitution doesn't explicitly say, but generally accepted public manners and decorum are widely recognized and understood, even if not explicitly stated. When CNN's Jim Acosta participates in press briefings, he has the right to ask any question he'd like to ask. He's under no requirement to ask his questions in any particular way. He is simply free to ask questions. That is his right. It is the President's right to answer the question however he chooses to answer it. That's his right. In the case of Jim Acosta, there have been countless instances where he has monopolized the microphone and engaged in arguments, debates and lectures with Trump Administration officials as well as the President himself. The 1st Amendment does not guarantee the right of the free press to disrupt news media briefings. On numerous occasions, Acosta begins by asking a question and then arguing with the answer. The briefing room in not a place where arguments are supposed to take place. That's the function of editorial columns, opinion pages, or commentary programs. When any member of the media disrupts a press briefing, bringing attention to themselves, the public and the 1st Amendment are ill served. These distractions mean other news agencies will not have the opportunity to ask their questions. It sensationalizes and controversializes these briefings as footage depicting the "principled journalist holding the powerful accountable to the truth" makes its way into the news cycle. The media itself should NEVER be the news. When it becomes the news, as in the case of Jim Acosta, it is shameless, selfish, self-promotion. Does Acosta have a 1st Amendment right to be in the briefing room if he is going to behave in such a disruptive and self-promoting manner? It would seem not. He may have a 5th Amendment right to due process before he is booted, as a court appears to have decided, but a 1st Amendment right? No. And how could it be otherwise? If the Constitution guaranteed Acosta's right to be a member of the White House Press Corps, that would mean every American shares that same right. If they don't share it in equal measure, then we truly have reached that moment in Orwell's Animal Farm where some are more equal than others. The Trump Administration suspended Acosta's access to the White House. In response, CNN filed a lawsuit against the White House on 1st Amendment grounds. The White House is arguing there is no 1st Amendment right to be in a White House briefing to ask questions. They are arguing that the President has the right to block or admit any reporter or news agency he wishes. This is probably true in a strict legal sense, but would be politically unwise to carry out in practice. Having said that, the White House has to make judgments every day with respect to access in the Briefing Room. While Acosta has no 1st Amendment right to the press briefing personally, and the Constitution does not mandate that the President meet with the press regularly or even at all, there have to be terms and conditions for access to a briefing. There is nothing wrong, in fact it is altogether fitting for the White House to have ground rules for such access, which if they are violated, take reasonable steps to discipline the violators. This is at the core of Acosta's suspension. When CNN filed for Acosta's reinstatement citing the 1st Amendment, the claim is frivolous, despite being supported by other news organizations, including Fox News. By joining in the lawsuit, Fox News made it very clear that they support disruptive behavior. Bad idea. The Fox News decision appears to be due to a group think mentality within the DC press corps. Fox bowed to peer pressure, circling the wagons around Acosta in an expression of professional solidarity, wrapping themselves in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, which doesn't even apply to this case. Fox News and the rest of the DC press should be ashamed of themselves. The President doesn't have to hold daily press briefings. But when he does hold them, he has a right to include anyone he wants.