FOX supports Acosta's lawsuit against President!!! (Page 2): OMG,Bob..You look a little yellow!!!!...Are you ok???..... :sm06: :sm06: :sm06: :sm06: Next thing you know, you will look...

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

OMG,Bob..You look a little yellow!!!!...Are you ok???.....

Next thing you know, you will look like President...

EmilyD

Pennylynn wrote:

I am not arguing that Acosta should not have been banned because of his actions. No doubt in my mind that he and the loud mouthed black woman need to be replaced. Rather than his or her bad behavior, the focus is on if the President's action could be a violation of freedom of press. That is the issue.... not Acosta per say. Had they reached out to CNN and asked for a different correspondent, then CNN would not have a law suite.

But is it a violation of freedom of the press? CNN was not banned from the WH, Jim Acosta was. CNN has lots of other journalists that can represent their organization in the White House. I think they will argue that Acosta's freedom of speech rights were violated. But what I saw was a very thin line between Acosta speaking freely and harassment. And as Proud pointed out - it has not happened just once or twice - Acosta has been on the edge of harassment for two years now, IMO.

EmilyD

Re Fox News, I agree that it has been changing more towards the left. Rupert Murdoch's son, James, has taken over the company as CEO, and James is a Progressive. In fact, I read somewhere that James told employees he was not going to use the words "Fair and Balanced" any more, and if you notice - they don't say that any more when they advertise. Little by little, Fox has moved to a more centrist/l*****t stance, and it's beginning to show. Shepard Smith is a good example of this.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

EmilyD wrote:

Re Fox News, I agree that it has been changing more towards the left. Rupert Murdoch's son, James, has taken over the company as CEO, and James is a Progressive. In fact, I read somewhere that James told employees he was not going to use the words "Fair and Balanced" any more, and if you notice - they don't say that any more when they advertise. Little by little, Fox has moved to a more centrist/l*****t stance, and it's beginning to show. Shepard Smith is a good example of this.

Well, im glad there are bunch of other things yo watch then....Its sad though, but FOX was my favorite channel for yrs!!!!

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

As I said in my original reply.... it depends on what the security said when they took his access badge. And as a reminder, many judges go on "appearance" of circumstances, especially liberal judges that are not "letter of the law" judge.

This could have been avoided if the WH would have reached out to CNN and requested a replacement and if that had been met with a negative then provide him a "limited" access badge, meaning he is in the back of the room and could easily be ushered out if he is disruptive and even be ignored in favor of front row press. There were ways around this had it been brainstormed rather than action without thought of repercussion. Keep in mind, I am not saying Acosta's rights were infringed or that he should not have been booted.... I am saying that this (depending on what the SS said) can be whipped into a Freedom of Press issue. Now the WH has to defend their action. But, this could have been quite different if handled with a cold dispassionate mind.

EmilyD wrote:

But is it a violation of freedom of the press? CNN was not banned from the WH, Jim Acosta was. CNN has lots of other journalists that can represent their organization in the White House. I think they will argue that Acosta's freedom of speech rights were violated. But what I saw was a very thin line between Acosta speaking freely and harassment. And as Proud pointed out - it has not happened just once or twice - Acosta has been on the edge of harassment for two years now, IMO.

EmilyD

Pennylynn wrote:

As I said in my original reply.... it depends on w... (show quote)

That's true. It's more like it was a knee-jerk reaction, rather than a thought-through reaction. It will be interesting what Judge takes this one.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you.... yes, it will be interesting. If the judge is by the book.... then Acosta will be replaced as a WH news person. However, as it seems more often than not, the WH gets a Liberal judge.... then the WH will be told to give Acosta back his access.

EmilyD wrote:

That's true. It's more like it was a knee-jerk reaction, rather than a thought-through reaction. It will be interesting what Judge takes this one.

EmilyD

Pennylynn wrote:

Thank you.... yes, it will be interesting. If the judge is by the book.... then Acosta will be replaced as a WH news person. However, as it seems more often than not, the WH gets a Liberal judge.... then the WH will be told to give Acosta back his access.

I can just imagine THAT scenario: Acosta goes back into the press room and Trump/Sanders ignore him. I wonder how that will play out!

Crayons Loc: St Jo, Texas

EmilyD wrote:

I can just imagine THAT scenario: Acosta goes back into the press room and Trump/Sanders ignore him. I wonder how that will play out!

We should lead by example and ignore all the home grown c*******ta trolls on this board

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

The briefer (President Trump, Sanders...) have a right to ignore questions. There is little to nothing Acosta could do other than complain....and he sure is good at complaining.

EmilyD wrote:

I can just imagine THAT scenario: Acosta goes back into the press room and Trump/Sanders ignore him. I wonder how that will play out!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

woodguru wrote:

I thought it was beyond rude for some little bimbo to try to take a mike out of his hand, it was unacceptable for an aide to touch someone.

Trump is not handling questions he doesn't want to answer well.

Acosta was not asking direct questions, he was trying to dictate the narrative, he was extremely rude and obnoxious. The young intern was doing her job, which BTW was not giving the president blow jobs in the Oval Office.

And, you are just being an arrogant, ignorant Alpha Hotel.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

proud republican wrote:

HIGHLY disappointing!!!!...Im gonna watch less of FOX now!!!!

How about a link to something related to Fox and their support of Acosta.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/business/media/jim-acosta-lawsuit-cnn.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cnn-lawsuit-support/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-stands-with-cnn-passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

You will notice, Fox is not supporting Acosta.... they are supporting Freedom of the Press.

nwtk2007 wrote:

How about a link to something related to Fox and their support of Acosta.

PeterS

proud republican wrote:

HIGHLY disappointing!!!!...Im gonna watch less of FOX now!!!!

Who are you going to watch--CNN, MSNBC? Fox realizes that T***p w*n't be in power forever and what goes around can come around. They are simply trying to protect their future ass.

PeterS

Pennylynn wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/14/business/media/jim-acosta-lawsuit-cnn.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/14/media/cnn-lawsuit-support/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-stands-with-cnn-passes-for-working-white-house-journalists-should-never-be-weaponized

You will notice, Fox is not supporting Acosta.... they are supporting Freedom of the Press.

Too bad the same can't be said for your president...though he is protecting you from the brown horde isn't he...