As a journalism professor, I have mixed feelings about Friday’s federal court ruling that the White House must reinstate Jim Acosta’s press credentials. Ultimately, it may prove to be a pyrrhic victory as the entire press could lose much greater access from the fallout.
To be clear, Acosta is no First Amendment hero. His antics set a bad example that makes it harder for me to teach students responsible reporting. The CNN White House correspondent has been rude and unprofessional for President Trump’s entire time in office, and purposely so, to make himself a front-page story.
Most recently, on Nov. 7, he disrupted the flow of a press conference by physically preventing a White House intern from taking the microphone so Acosta could continue berating Trump.
[Read more: Trump calls CNN’s Jim Acosta ‘a rude, terrible person’]
It’s normal for reporters to ask hard questions and press politicians for a more in-depth answer. But using the president’s press conference to grandstand your own opinions and monopolize the mic is not.
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that a journalist doesn’t have respect for decorum when the president himself doesn’t. But using someone’s misconduct to justify your own is childish.
The bottom line is: You give up the mic when you’re asked. It wasn’t Acosta’s place to essentially say, “No, this is my mic!,” let alone put that White House intern in such an awkward spot.
It’s understandable that the White House responded by banning Acosta. Trump has tried the shaming approach ad nauseam, and if anything it’s emboldened Acosta. I doubt any sort of intermediate sanction would have gotten through to him.
But under the Fifth Amendment, the government can’t seize a person’s property without due process. Having passed the required security clearance to get a White House press badge, Acosta was entitled to be informed of the charges against him and to have the opportunity to respond before it could be revoked.
Trump supporters who decried the subversion of due process and the rule of law during Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation process should applaud the Acosta outcome.
But many journalists may end up ruing this ruling. Not only did U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly not address whether Trump violated the First Amendment, but his ruling could inadvertently undermine press freedom.
Rather than risk future confrontations, Trump may just call on journalists who he knows will ask softball questions or avoid the press altogether. All it took was a couple of controversies with basketball teams for Trump to curtail the presidential custom of honoring champions. Press traditions could go next.
Trump has already abandoned the longstanding presidential participation in the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner. There’s no law requiring the president to field questions from a particular reporter or to even hold a press conference. For three years, President George W. Bush froze out Helen Thomas, a legendary White House correspondent who was known to ask tough questions. Like Thomas, Acosta only has a right to be on the White House premises, not to be recognized at press conferences.
Then again, he probably wouldn’t ask any worthwhile questions even if called on.
Mark Grabowski (@ProfGrabowski) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a lawyer and a journalism professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.
