New White House Press Conference Rules Leave Door Open To Future Challenges
from the doesn't-change-much dept
As you've likely heard by now, the Trump administration has restored Jim Acosta's hard pass for media briefings, and CNN has accordingly dropped its lawsuit, returning the battle between Trump and the media to cold-war-status for the time being. But the White House also took the opportunity to issue new rules for its press conferences which, rather than truly addressing any of the issues that formed the basis of the lawsuit, appear to leave the door wide open for future abuses by Trump and challenges by the press:
(1) A journalist called upon to ask a question will ask a single question and then will yield the floor to other journalists;(2) At the discretion of the President or other White House official taking questions, a follow-up question or questions may be permitted; and where a follow up has been allowed and asked, the questioner will then yield the floor;
(3) “Yielding the floor” includes, when applicable, surrendering the microphone to White House staff for use by the next questioner;
(4) Failure to abide by any of rules (1)-(3) may result in suspension or revocation of the journalist’s hard pass.
Basically, the White House seems to be setting itself up with the absolute bare minimum framework that it could kinda-sorta claim constitutes viewpoint-neutral due process the next time it wants to kick out a reporter. Functionally the rules don't seem to change much, since who gets the floor at White House press conferences has always ultimately been at the discretion of the person at the podium, but this formalizes the threat of pass revocation for those who don't play nice enough for Trump's tastes. Though many reporters are (rightfully) speaking out against the clear anti-press tone of the rules, and (correctly) pointing out that followup questions are one of the most critical components of good journalism, the reality is that this just puts things in a holding pattern until the next time Trump kicks someone out.
For one thing, the rules don't actually address any of the due process requirements set out in Sherrill v. Knight and expanded on by the judge's TRO restoring Acosta's pass, so the entire fifth amendment question still falls to how these rules get enforced:
The court in Sherrill held that this process must include notice, an opportunity to rebut the government's reasons and a written decision. And ... although the court in Sherrill did not have occasion to address it, when an important interest is at stake and when the government is able to provide this process before deprivation, it generally must do so.
Moreover, simply stating that the president has discretionary power doesn't eliminate the first amendment issue. Again, it will come down to how that power is used — specifically, whether it's used for viewpoint-based discrimination. If there is another incident and another legal challenge, these rules won't change much, and something like CNN's initial first amendment argument could easily still apply:
Defendants' justifications for impeding Plaintiffs' First Amendment rights are hollow and hardly sufficiently compelling to justify the indefinite revocation of Acosta’s White House credentials. Consequently, the only reasonable inference from Defendants’ conduct is that they have revoked Acosta's credentials as a form of content- and viewpoint-based discrimination and in retaliation for Plaintiffs' exercise of protected First Amendment activity.
The sole justification for Defendants’ conduct is their dislike for Plaintiffs’ coverage of the administration and critique of the President. But that is insufficient to justify such a substantial restriction on Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.
Meanwhile, in the full statement laying out the new rules, Sarah Sanders laments that they were created with "a degree of regret" and are only necessary because they can tragically no longer rely on "a set of understood professional norms."
If only they cared so much about presidential norms.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: due process, fifth amendment, first amendment, jim acosta, journalism, sarah sanders, white house
Companies: cnn
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Too soon?
made the First Word by Gary
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Norms
Professional norm for the propaganda corp is to lob pre-authorized questions and applaud the answers.
Trump doesn't like the press - as any good dictator will tell you, it's better to shoot/torture people who ask questions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Norms
There is no right to get an answer you like to any question you ask. And once you've asked your question, decorum and civility dictate that yield to the next questioner. You don't get to keep harassing until you're satisfied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Norms
Whatever.
Yes, deflect away. Trump's bad behaviour isn't a problem - it's everyone else! :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
To say "Well he didn't actually assault her but he is an ass" is completely ignoring the false accusation that the suspension was over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
The issue is how Acosta acted, which got his pass revoked.
And restored. Seems like once the courts got involved, the white house decided someone might call them on their bullshit so they buckled like a belt. How he acted couldn't have been that big a deal. Otherwise they wouldn't have backed down. Unless they were afraid of Acosta...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Clutch those pearls a little harder why don't you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
The issue is how Acosta acted
Er... howso? This is a constitutional law question. The issue is how the government acted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
The judge didn't.
Guess which one of you gets to make legal decisions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Please ensure to cite your sources. Naming the cases is a good start - even better would be links to the actual cases for others to review.
We look forward to your presentation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.
It's right next to the line that says assault rifles are "arms."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
That your question is stupid is not my fault.
And for the record, you already "wasted your time" with me via your reply. So much for being mentally superior...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
you can't even understand basic dictionary definitions of words
And as we all know, the dictionary is the final arbiter of law, and privately employed lexicographers are the fourth branch of government. You know those big shelves full of imposing books that you always see behind lawyers and judges? All dictionaries, every last one of them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Ah! There's your problem.
You're looking for the meaning of the Constitution in the dictionary.
That's not where the meaning of the Constitution is defined, Mr. Coward. It's defined by 200 years of case law and legal precedents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
How about you show where the constitution guarantees press pass.
The constitution does not "guarantee a press pass".
It does, however, restrict the government from abridging the freedom of speech and of the press. In the nearly 250 years since it was written, there have been many cases big and small heard by many judges from district courts up to the Supreme Court - the final arbiter of what the constitution guarantees. These cases have resulted in thousands of pages of extensive, detailed reasoning about what the First Amendment (and the other amendments) actually guarantees.
If you're not going to engage with that history of jurisprudence in the slightest, and are just going to keep saying "show me where the constitution says that", then you really need to grow up.
Like, imagine something for me for a moment: let's say you were at dinner with a decorated judge from a federal appeals court who hears constitutional matters related to free speech and due process. Is this how you would talk to him about your opinions on law? Or would that be enough to cow you into a tiny bit of humility so you stop acting like your facile two-sentence takes make you the smartest person in the room?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
I'll do one better and show where the Constitution says "show me in the Constitution where it says you have a right to..." is a bullshit argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Given the lack of supporting arguments to your position, I will simply move on, as your input is apparently mere uninformed opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Show me where in the Constitution where it says someone cannot ask an elected official "dipshit questions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
Judges can be wrong, but their opinions are legally binding. Yours aren't.
Further, "judges can be wrong" is a worthless statement. Yes, it's true. In the same way that, to borrow an analogy from Ken White, "some snakes are poisonous" is true.
If you've been bitten by a snake, and you ask a doctor if it was poisonous, "some snakes are poisonous" is a useless, ridiculous answer.
Similarly, if you're discussing a legal decision, and you ask if it was correct, "some legal decisions are wrong" is a useless, ridiculous answer.
Unless you can explain why this judge was wrong in this case, you are not making a relevant argument.
(Note: "Show me in the rulebook where it says a dog can't play basketball" is also not a relevant argument.)
That is the effect of the order, yes. It is not the substance of the order.
Judges don't just issue orders without explanation or legal justification. The judge granted a temporary restraining order based on the constitutional justification that the White House failed to follow due process in its decision to revoke Acosta's press pass. Further, he outlined a list of steps that due process would entail.
The judge's order was not the simplistic difference of opinion that you're making it out to be.
The judge issued an order. It was specific and it was grounded in case law. "I think it's bullshit" does not refute the argument, and your "show me in the Constitution where it says..." deflection demonstrates that you're either being disingenuous or have a child's understanding of how constitutional law works.
Put up or shut up, Mr. Coward. Address the actual arguments in the legal case and why you believe they were decided incorrectly, or be quiet and let the grownups talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
I think the whole constitutional thing is bullshit. A press pass is not constitutionally protected, only the freedom to speak/write/express.
You just expressed an opinion on constitutional law. Welcome to the whole point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Norms
Neither is likly to please the one who did not answer. Neither is actually uncivil. At some point, however, when it becomes clear that an answer is not forthcoming, then the questioner should just report the non-answer and speculate like hell about reasons why is might not have been answered. Which will likely piss the one who did not answer off greatly.
Things might move from civil to uncivil once it becomes apparent that no answer is going to be given, and grandstanding just becomes rude, for both. The solution to this is just not call an that person for questions, not revoke access. In the instant case the 'cure' was worse than the 'disease' as one of the two involved could have been the bigger person and realized their other options.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Norms
The reason he feels entitled is that he is entitled.
The First Amendment has no "unless you act like an ass" exception.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Norms
If it did, we’d have a hell of a lot of silenced bigots on our hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, Anonymous Commenter, OK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Norms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the conferences are dog & pony shows, where alleged journalists always fail to gather any worthwhile news. The WH staff/President use them as a PR tool to spin current issues.
The job of the WH Press Secretary is to make the boss (any President) look good, by trumpeting good news and minimiziing/ignoring bad news. Citizens and taxpayers get nothing out of this expensive stage show.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wouldn't say always. But I'd agree that that's been the case for decades.
I'd be fine with a cessation of the daily gaggle; I agree with your point that it's largely kabuki and spin. But as long as we're going to have it, the White House is subject to the First and Fifth Amendments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop the leftist drivel... please...
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
If you show me ANYWHERE in that text where it says "...unfettered access to the President and Press Room", we can talk... until then... don't try to convince me that access to the press room has anything to do with the 1st amendment.
Just like you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater - even though it's FREE SPEECH - you can't act like a fool in the press room and expect there not to be consequences.
Geez people... grow up and put on the big boy pants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
END OF DISCUSSION.
Well I guess that's it then folks - I mean he put it all in caps and everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
And he cited Schenck v. United States, too, which everyone knows is the definitive SCOTUS ruling on the limits of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
If you can't see how the first amendment would be related to the place in the White House called THE PRESS ROOM, then I agree, there's no point in trying to convince you of anything.
Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
What happens if the Nazis yell "Fire!" in a crowded press room?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
What happens if the Nazis yell "Fire!" in a crowded press room?
RICO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
You should have phrased it as a Betteridge violation:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
How about: if you pull that quote out the government forcibly sterilizes you as an imbecile, as per the ruling where that quote comes from, which said they could legally do so ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
END OF DISCUSSION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don’t go away mad... just go away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop the leftist drivel... please...
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-w rong-about-the-first-amendment/
I think the guy with the miter MIGHT know a tiny bit more than you...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thank you for coming!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "new" rules....
Where's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The press decides, not the person giving the "conference".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too soon?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Hard" pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Hard" pass?
Conjecture:
"Hard pass" represents more permanent access, usable for multiple events. All press conferences, etc.
"Soft pass" if that's even the term uses, would probably represent a one-time pass for a single event.
If anyone can confirm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Hard" pass?
Journalists can also get passes to individual briefings, in which case they have to wait in line to go through security every time, and then be escorted at all times by secret service members.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Hard" pass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new rules...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'No trying to hold our feet to the fire.'
Given followup questions are all but required if the original answer is a dodge, this will effectively allow them to completely ignore any questions they don't feel like answering by prohibiting anything aimed at 'explaining' a (non-)answer and/or a rephrase to highlight the flaw in an 'answer'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'No trying to hold our feet to the fire.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]