New Press Rules

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
The new rules limit journalists to asking one question and allows them to ask follow-up questions "at the discretion of the president or other White House officials taking questions."

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...group-promises-reporters-will-continue-to-ask



The White House outlined the following four new rules that reporters must abide by at press conferences:

1. A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;

2. At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;

3. “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, physically surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;

4. Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.​

"The fact that CNN is proud of the way their employee behaved is not only disgusting, it‘s an example of their outrageous disregard for everyone, including young women, who work in this Administration," Sanders continued. "As a result of today’s incident, the White House is suspending the hard pass of the reporter involved until further notice."


let us see if ol'jimmy can behave himself


I love how the press spins this

'the press has always asked follow up questions'
'the press has always been aggressive in asking questions'



except Acosta is not being aggressive he is being a ass hat
 
Last edited:
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's a sad state of affairs when it has to be documented that one must yield when told to, and not assault the interns.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
This_person said:
It's a sad state of affairs when it has to be documented that one must yield when told to, and not assault the interns.
Click to expand...

That is the mind set of Progressives today ... in YOUR FACE


what is sadder still is the fact the White House cannot just toss this disruptive #### much out on his ear
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
CNN’s Brian Stelter: White House is Using Jim Acosta Fight as ‘Threat That Looms Over’ the Entire Press Corps


Appearing on CNN Newsroom Monday, Brian Stelter stated his belief that nothing has been resolved, and the White House will use their battle with Acosta as something of a message to other reporters.

“I think that the White House wants to string this along, wants to make this a threat that looms over the entire White House press corps,” Stelter said.

The Reliable Sources host referred to a letter the White House sent Acosta informing him of ground rules for behavior at future press conferences.

“The letter to Acosta says, ‘If you refuse to follow our new rules in the future, we will take action in accordance with the rules set forth above,'” Stelter said. “So what’s the new rule? The new rule is, one question per reporter at a press conference. You get to ask one question, and ‘by the discretion of the president or White House officials taking questions, a follow-up may be permitted.’ So what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to establish some kind of ground rules within a press conference setting, so that nobody can act out of order.”
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
When President Obama took office, he broke tradition by telling reporters they couldn't raise their hands and make noises. Instead, Obama would come to the podium with a list of reporters he intended to call on. The press dutifully obeyed, sitting quietly like schoolchildren while Obama worked his way down the list.

And when reporters were called on, they never asked questions like those posed routinely to Trump. Instead, Obama got questions like: "Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats who say you're rewarding Republican obstruction here?" Or "Do you believe Rush Limbaugh's apology to the Georgetown law student was sufficient and heartfelt?" Or "What would you do different to get immigration reform passed through the Congress?"

Reporter rarely, if ever, interrupted Obama while he gave long, meandering answers.

These were the same reporters, mind you, who'd just spent eight years hounding President Bush. Back then it was NBC News' David Gregory who played the Jim Acosta role, repeatedly sparring with Bush and his press secretary. Gregory's reward for showboating was a coveted spot as anchor of "Meet the Press."


https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/jim-acosta-media-bias/
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
In short, the judge said to the White House: You can't throw out a reporter without going through a process. But if you go through a process — which you, the White House, can design — then you can throw the reporter out. In the end, it could be that Kelly's ruling will make it easier for the White House to oust reporters in the future — and to make the decision stick.

Throughout the court session, Kelly referred to the only real precedent in the Acosta matter, a 1977 case from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals called Sherrill v. Knight. In that case, the court ruled that the White House — specifically the Secret Service — could not deny a press pass to a "bona fide journalist" without due process. The court defined due process as "procedures whereby an applicant is given notice of the evidence upon which the Secret Service proposes to base its denial, [and] the journalist is afforded an opportunity to rebut or explain this evidence, and the Secret Service issues a final written decision specifying the reasons for its refusal to grant a press pass."

[clip]

Beyond that, Kelly noted that the White House would be on firm legal ground if it ousted all reporters from the building. "The government also made the point that there is case law for the proposition that the public doesn't have a general First Amendment right to enter the White House," the judge said. "I have no quarrel with that at all."



https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...make-it-easier-white-house-kick-reporters-out
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
"So what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to establish some kind of ground rules within a press conference setting, so that nobody can act out of order.”
Click to expand...

Oh my goodness, I can't believe that we can't act out of order!!!






:sarcasm:
 
Salmon

Salmon

Well-Known Member
These petty rules won’t stand the Constitutional test. Trump can prepare to get knocked down
by another court ruling.
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Salmon said:
A Judge will rule and Trump will lose AGAIN!
Click to expand...

It's getting pretty sorry in this country when the President has no power over some half -assed judge with a hard on for him.
Where is the separation of Powers? It seems the Judicial system has America by the balls.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Salmon said:
A Judge will rule and Trump will lose AGAIN!
Click to expand...

A Judge already spoke ....
the same one that ordered Acosta's pass returned ...


Beyond that, Kelly noted that the White House would be on firm legal ground if it ousted all reporters from the building. "The government also made the point that there is case law for the proposition that the public doesn't have a general First Amendment right to enter the White House," the judge said. "I have no quarrel with that at all."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...make-it-easier-white-house-kick-reporters-out
Click to expand...



A White House Press Pass Has Nothing to do with the First Amendment


Judge Timothy Kelly disagreed. According to the Washington Post:

In explaining his decision, Kelly said he agreed with the government’s argument that there was no First Amendment right to come onto the White House grounds. But, he said, once the White House opened up the grounds to reporters, the First Amendment applied.​

On the due process issue, Kelly is mostly right on this one. But Kelly gets it wrong when he says that the First Amendment potentially applies wherever the White House has opened up access to reporters overall.

[clip]

Thus, if the First Amendment guarantees access to the White House press room, how is it that the overwhelming majority of journalists in the country can never hope to enjoy this right?

If access to the White House is to rise to the level of a right, though, it certainly can't be reliant on the whims of Senators and judges as to who gets to exercise that right. Nor could the White House Correspondents' Association, or any other group, be allowed to limit this right to a few influential reporters.

[clip]

After all, the press room, the communications staff, and the entire White House media apparatus exists to make the president look good. It's not there to offer a frank exchange of information, or to divulge any information the White House doesn't want released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top