It's interesting that when the WH yanked Jim Acosta's press credentials, they said it was because he assaulted an intern - and they offered a doctored video as "proof" of this behavior.
CNN sued Trump and several others today on First Amendment grounds, saying that his credentials were yanked not because of this alleged behavior - which he and they deny even happened - but because of his questions and his reporting.
In response, the WH released a statement saying that Acosta was trying to monopolize the microphone and wasn't giving other reporters a chance to ask questions. There was no mention of the alleged assault.
It's true that Acosta didn't yield the microphone, but does that justify pulling press credentials? Many reporters continue to try to ask questions even when someone else has been called on - you rarely see a press conference where that doesn't happen at least once, and it's not just Acosta who does it.
And if hogging the mike was the reason for pulling his credentials, what was the purpose of releasing a doctored video to show the assault they originally accused him of?
Speaking of that video: Kellyanne Conway offered the "alternative facts" version of the video - she said it wasn't altered, it was just sped up, something that's done all the time with sports videos. Huh? Isn't changing the speed of a portion of a video the same as altering it? Also, sports videos are typically slowed down - not sped up - so that you can more clearly see what happened on a particular play; that was not the case here. |
