Federal Judge Orders White House To Temporarily Restore Press Access To Jim Acosta

[RoadRunner79]

Just off hand, I don't really think people are understanding where I am coming from.   It's been brought up twice that my position is politically motivated, when I said nothing of the sort about political affiliation, and that makes no difference to me.   If one wants to argue, that there was no due process in the revoking of the pass, I think that is because there was none established, because having a white house pass is a privilege held by a select few, and not an inalienable right that the founders recognized as being beyond the government and held by all.  If it was said that it was just unfair, and that they did not have just cause to remove the pass, then I can understand that.   Trying to connect it to a amendment that deals with criminal prosecution... not so much.

I do think that for civil discussion, that people should address what was said more, and read into what is not said less.

---

I found this article that seems relevant on decorum at White House briefings.  https://www.dailywire.com/news/38476/cbs...frank-camp 

CBS Reporter Major Garret being questioned on a standard of conduct for White House press briefings.

There is – no question about it. It’s the most majestic political place in America, the White House. The only place second to that in my experience where I spent almost 15 years [is] the United States Congress. It’s a little bit more rough and tumble there. It can be rough and tumble at times in the White House. But it is a place of institutional heft and commands institutional respect – and I will say on my behalf, the previous press conference we had with President Trump in the Rose Garden, the president looked at me, I thought he called on me, I stood up, the White House aide handed me the microphone, I began to speak to the President of the United States, President Trump looked at me and said, "No, behind you. Kaitlan [Collins]," with CNN.

So I said, "Oh," and what did I do? I handed back the microphone. Now, some of my colleagues might say, "What [did] you do that for? You had the microphone; you have a voice; you can speak." The President of the United States said "not you." To my way of thinking, that's enough. The president said, I didn't call on you, I called on somebody else. Alright then – and I didn't get a question that press conference. Some might say, "Well, you laid down," and "you were too deferential." I don't feel that way...

I think that this is a very commendable attitude.  The only thing I would comment on, is after he did that, I would have made sure to call on him next.  I'm a little saddened, that such a person didn't get to ask their question.

He goes on to add:

They very well might, and my interpretation of that, Larry, is all of these questions are best resolved through the political channels that our country has long developed and long relied upon, and that's why...I do my level best to not put myself or make myself part of the story, and I think the best journalists operate that way.

Because, again, I go back to that fundamental point. Why are you standing up to ask a question in the first place? To get an answer. Why's that answer important? Because it tells the country something it didn't already know. That's the whole point of this interaction with the American presidency. To inform the public of what they have not yet learned.

I don't think that a reporters job is to play partisan identity politics and to be the star of the show.   I like this guy!