Donald Trump VS Jim Acosta

Week 4 Newswriting Assignment

            During a presidential press conference, which took place in November 2018, Jim Acosta was called on to ask a question of President Donald Trump. President Trump already had negative opinions about Mr. Acosta, and expressed these quite openly before Mr. Acosta had even finished asking his questions about issues relevant to President Trump’s policies and current events that were relevant to the American public. President Trump has very negative feelings about the CNN, the news corporation that Mr. Acosta was representing. The issue that was being brought up by Acosta was an issue of a group of immigrants attempting to enter into the United States. Acosta was presenting facts to President Trump in a calm and collected way, but wasn’t allowed to speak because he had different political viewpoints from Donald Trump. 

Our Commander-In-Chief said the Cable News Network was full of “fake news,” a term that has become much more popular during President Trump’s time in office. Trump also called Jim Acosta a “rude person” and “a terrible person.” The President attacked his personal morals, values, and work as a journalist. This is most decidedly slander as President Trump was attacking Mr. Acosta’s character. The definition of slander as defined by the Lexico dictionary, a company owned by the Oxford Dictionary empire, is “the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.” Calling a someone rude and terrible is textbook slander, especially when viewed by millions on live television and social media websites after the fact. The fact that Donald Trump also spoke badly about CNN, an enormous media entity, caused the company to file a lawsuit against President Trump himself, as well as several members of his staff. The lawsuit was filed on November 13^th, 2018. The lawsuit was dropped on November 19^th, 2018. Although very short-lived, the lawsuit is a good demonstration of a person or entity standing up for their rights and making a statement to protect their rights. 

            This issue is monumental because a public figure was quite literally silencing someone with opinions differing from theirs.Such a blatant disregard for one trying to exercise their freedoms as not only a journalist, but a citizen, to their constitutionally granted rights to free speech and due process, and especially by the biggest authority figure in the free world, is extremely detrimental to the entire idea of democracy. For the President of the United States to personally berate Jim Acosta by not only attacking his character, but the entire news broadcasting company that he is employed by is setting a horrible example for all public officials and taking a huge step back for democracy as a whole. Without the freedom of speech, the United States would not be the glowing display of differing opinions, arguments, and political party feuding that it is today. The ability to express one’s opinions openly and without fear of persecution is one of the things that defines a democratic state. If journalists and citizens are continually stopped from asking the tough questions or voicing the opinions of the minority people, then the freedoms and rights that hundreds of thousands have fought, died, worked, and cried for will be gone with the wind. 

            On November 19^th, 2018, the White House created four new rules for media writers during press conferences. According to an ABC article by Cheyenne Haslett, the rules are as follows: 1. Reporters will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists. 2. Follow-up questions will be permitted at the discretion of the President or other White House officials taking questions. 3. “Yielding the floor” is defined as ‘physically surrendering” the microphone. 4. Failure to abide by any of the rules may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass. The White House also tried to remove Mr. Acosta’s press pass that allowed him entry into various political press conferences. This selective removal would have been extremely unfair, and the fact that Mr. Acosta represented a news network that actively criticizes President Trump. This kind of discriminating against certain people, networks, or political parties in the White House could have serious consequences. The voices of the minority must be heard for a democracy to thrive. If there are no varying opinions in press conferences, there is no one to ask the tough questions that the viewers at home want to know. 

This sort of slander can cause serious repercussions, especially in today’s 24-hour media cycle. Media is no longer controlled by just a few sources, but by anyone with two thumbs and a smartphone. Anyone can say just about anything about anyone at any time. That’s the beauty of the freedom of speech. For this freedom to be impeded by anyone, especially the President of the United States, is a travesty.