Jim Acosta

[Benton]

(11-08-2018, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Acosta was out of hand, especially after this incident. He was rude to his colleagues with his behavior. I really don't care much about the way he interacts with Trump or SHS, I expect an adversarial role, but the way he continued on while his colleagues were trying to do their jobs was wrong.

As for the physical contact thing, it's bullshit. She made contact first as she went to grab the mic away, he went to push her away, immediately stopped and said "excuse me, ma'am." This is what came from the head of the White House Correspondence Association who was sitting next to Acosta. This is nothing more than the White House trying to find any reason to get Acosta out of the briefing room.

Agreed on both points.

She grabbed for the microphone and went right while he was talking with his hand going the other right and their arms collided. I'd wager it's impossible to not have physical contact between two people when one person is trying to physically remove something from the other person's hand.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2018, 03:39 AM)jmccracky Wrote: Ok then. That was him being physical? Got it. Still confused a little. 

I value SSF's opinion, because even when I don't agree with him, I respect his answers. My question was directed at him for clarity. I respect your take on it too. 

Honestly, it's not assault, but when you get into anything physical with a woman you're not going to come out of it looking good.  As is also pointed out by others he wouldn't have even been in that situation if he had been conducting himself professionally.  John Stewart said it very well in a recent interview, the press has made it about us vs. Trump.  Their ego is involved and no one typifies this better than Acosta.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2018, 06:57 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: That skank tried to take the microphone out of his hand

How very progressive of you.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2018, 09:51 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Acosta was out of hand, especially after this incident. He was rude to his colleagues with his behavior. I really don't care much about the way he interacts with Trump or SHS, I expect an adversarial role, but the way he continued on while his colleagues were trying to do their jobs was wrong.

100% agree.

Quote:As for the physical contact thing, it's bullshit. She made contact first as she went to grab the mic away, he went to push her away, immediately stopped and said "excuse me, ma'am." This is what came from the head of the White House Correspondence Association who was sitting next to Acosta.

Eh, here I don't agree so much.  I don't think the "encounter" was as bad as portrayed by the WH, but, as I said earlier, anytime a man gets into a physical confrontation with a woman, however minor, he's not generally going to come out of it looking good.

Quote:This is nothing more than the White House trying to find any reason to get Acosta out of the briefing room.

Agreed, and he handed them an opportunity on a silver platter.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

So CNN is calling for all press to boycott the administration until Acosta is allowed back in. While I understand the principle of the request I think it's a bad idea. Not covering the WH will do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of news and will, IMO, expose how irrelevant traditional journalists have been made in the age of the internet. Bit of a lose lose scenario for them.

[Griever]

I like video that was doctored by infowars and released by sanders to prove physical contact

It’s like they forget it was televised for the world to see

[Benton]

(11-08-2018, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, it's not assault, but when you get into anything physical with a woman you're not going to come out of it looking good.  

If only he'd been drunk, too, then he could get nominated for SCOTUS.

(11-08-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So CNN is calling for all press to boycott the administration until Acosta is allowed back in.  While I understand the principle of the request I think it's a bad idea.  Not covering the WH will do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of news and will, IMO, expose how irrelevant traditional journalists have been made in the age of the internet.  Bit of a lose lose scenario for them.

Agreed. 

A colleague got banned from a county courthouse because he was confrontational with the county judge executive (Kentucky has judge exec's which are sort of like mayors for a county) on multiple occasions. The judge was a liar and refused open records requests, so the paper called him out on it. He claimed it was harassment and got a restraining order. Anyway, the paper didn't just stop covering county business because its editor was banned, they just had reporters go instead.

[GMDino]

(11-08-2018, 12:10 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So CNN is calling for all press to boycott the administration until Acosta is allowed back in.  While I understand the principle of the request I think it's a bad idea.  Not covering the WH will do absolutely nothing to stop the flow of news and will, IMO, expose how irrelevant traditional journalists have been made in the age of the internet.  Bit of a lose lose scenario for them.

Did they say don't cover it or don't go?

Because they almost HAVE to cover it even if they don't attend the pressers.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2018, 12:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Did they say don't cover it or don't go?

Because they almost HAVE to cover it even if they don't attend the pressers.

Is there a substantive difference at this point?  You think the Trump WH cares if any traditional sources show up for press briefings?

[GMDino]

(11-08-2018, 12:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is there a substantive difference at this point?  You think the Trump WH cares if any traditional sources show up for press briefings?

Yes there is.

The pressers are more or less asking questions and not getting answers...waste of time.  But you still should report on what was said and if it was truthful or not.

No I don't think the WH cares.  They would rather not be asked any questions at all.

Edit: And I think the press needs to be there. Not being there simply emboldens the lies.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-08-2018, 06:57 AM)ballsofsteel Wrote: That skank tried to take the microphone out of his hand and he pushed her hand away. If that was Joe Nixon holding that mic and she tried that, he would of punched her in the face. Acosta was asking the Orangutan hard questions he didn't want to answer. Obviously a setup.

Oops. A woman who doesn't think the right way.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-08-2018, 01:01 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Oops. A woman who doesn't think the right way.

Someone call Chelsea Handler quick!

[GMDino]

(11-08-2018, 12:22 PM)Griever Wrote: I like video that was doctored by infowars and released by sanders to prove physical contact

It’s like they forget it was televised for the world to see

So while I already said it was petty this really does make it insane.

That the WH and Sanders used infowars as their reasoning is beyond the pale.

https://www.newsweek.com/video-sarah-sanders-used-doctored-infowars-footage-justify-acosta-ban-1206947?fbclid=IwAR194rf0MSKakyzGDme_w19cjTqPo8_z7lHKK_eMO58gK08HZxwdjr6DVqU

[jmccracky]

(11-08-2018, 12:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Honestly, it's not assault, but when you get into anything physical with a woman you're not going to come out of it looking good.  As is also pointed out by others he wouldn't have even been in that situation if he had been conducting himself professionally.  John Stewart said it very well in a recent interview, the press has made it about us vs. Trump.  Their ego is involved and no one typifies this better than Acosta.

Gotcha, and thanks for the answer. I agree that Acosta was being an ass. I guess with the whole "physical" thing, I judge his actions as if that was my wife who grabbed the mic. I still think it was instinctual on his part and was not a big deal. Now if he had slapped her, pushed her down with force or something, I'd be on board. Seeing it live, it happened really quick and stunned him a little. 

WWJT do? (Jake Tapper)

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2018, 12:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Eh, here I don't agree so much.  I don't think the "encounter" was as bad as portrayed by the WH, but, as I said earlier, anytime a man gets into a physical confrontation with a woman, however minor, he's not generally going to come out of it looking good.

But not looking good and actually doing something wrong are two different things. I know we are talking about Washington, which means perception is reality, but that's something we should be pushing against and not acquiescing to.

[Goalpost]

I could live with the fact that Acosta's actions were more reactionary, but the optics still look bad. Again, I think Acosta should apologize to the woman.

[Belsnickel]

(11-08-2018, 02:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I could live with the fact that Acosta's actions were more reactionary, but the optics still look bad. Again, I think Acosta should apologize to the woman.

From my understanding he did, right there on the spot.

Edit: He didn't apologize, he said excuse me. Which I think is all that needs to be said given he did nothing wrong with regards to this contact issue.

[Benton]

(11-08-2018, 02:20 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I could live with the fact that Acosta's actions were more reactionary, but the optics still look bad.  Again, I think Acosta should apologize to the woman.

I'm  sorry your arm hit my arm while you were trying to silence the press?

[*michaelsean*]

(11-08-2018, 02:54 PM)Benton Wrote: I'm  sorry your arm hit my arm while you were trying to silence the press?

Nobody was trying to silence the press.  He is free to report whatever he likes.  

[Benton]

(11-08-2018, 03:06 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Nobody was trying to silence the press.  He is free to report whatever he likes.  

The question was sarcasm.