CNN senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta phoned into Sunday afternoon’s CNN Newsroom to offer his latest meltdown/rallying cry for his liberal media cohorts, demanding that they and the rest of the country “stand up to” President Trump following his slams against the media, or journalists will be “hurt” and “silenced.”
After telling host Fredricka Whitfield about the calls to ignore or brush aside the President’s tweets, Acosta forcefully proclaimed that “we have to try the other approach, we have to stand up to this” by “confront[ing] this and say that it's wrong.”
“[M]y concern is, and I know it's shared by others, is that this kind of rhetoric, this kind of behavior is going to lead to a journalist being hurt and that's the thing I worry about. I hate that I'm worried about that on 4th of July weekend when we're all supposed to celebrating our freedoms, including the First Amendment, the right to free speech and a free press. That's what I'm concerned about,” Acosta added in the same tone Brian Stelter used all day.
Acosta then used an either-or fallacy to demand that everyone “on all sides of the political spectrum” decide whether they will stand with Trump or Acosta, Stelter, and company in the media:
[P]eople have a choice on all sides of the political spectrum, on both sides of the political aisle. Where are you going to stand in all of this? Are you going to say well, it's okay for the President to engage in this kind of behavior to attack the new media, try to intimidate the news media. He's trying to silence us, Fredricka. That's what's going on here or are people going to say, you know, enough is enough? And, you know, I just think that we've reached where people need to say, enough is enough, it doesn't matter what party you're from, what side of the political spectrum you’re on[.]
Whitfield interjected with a softball question, expressing concern about Acosta’s ability to question the White House on policy when he must “press the points about the press place in asking probative questions verus being able to ask the probative questions of policy.”
The man Rush Limbaugh compared to a cat chasing a laser pointer doubled down, acknowledging the belief that he shouldn’t lose his mind all the time before arguing that “we've reached the point where the behavior has to be labeled for what it is, and it is just wrong.”
For a media industry that largely wasn’t concerned about things like the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017, it’s rich listening to Acosta whine about the lack of policy discussions:
It is unhealthy behavior, it's unbecoming for the President of the United States to be doing all this, I would love to be focused on policy, I would love to be focused on health care, the environment, foreign policy, we're going to be going on this foreign trip with the President. He’s going to be in Warsaw and in Germany at the G-20, meeting with Vladimir Putin after that. That is going to be a fascinating encounter between the two leaders. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was lecturing us in the briefing room earlier this past week saying, you know, you don't spend enough time on the policies, but is the President who is tweeting about Mika Brzezinski, it’s the President who is tweeting videos of him taking down CNN in a pro-wrestling match.
“I think we're well beyond that and now we just have to stand up, confront it and say, this is wrong. There's no right side. There’s both sides of this issue. There’s no, well, on one hand and on the other hand. It's just wrong,” he concluded.
Here’s the relevant transcript from July 2's CNN Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield:
CNN Newsroom with Fredricka Whitfield
July 2, 2017
4:04 p.m. Eastern
JIM ACOSTA: I think our statement really sums it up. You know, the are two approaches to this. One is, we can just sit back and be silent and just take it. There are some people who say, you know, don't take the bait, you are going to encourage this behavior even more. But I think we're well past that now. I think we’re at the stage where we have to try the other approach, we have to stand up to this. We have to confront this and say that it's wrong. And I know, speak for myself, I can't speak for everybody who has covered Donald Trump since he was a candidate, but, you know, I covered him throughout that campaign, and now that he's President of the United States, my concern is, and I know it's shared by others, is that this kind of rhetoric, this kind of behavior is going to lead to a journalist being hurt and that's the thing I worry about. I hate that I'm worried about that on 4th of July weekend when we're all supposed to celebrating our freedoms, including the First Amendment, the right to free speech and a free press. That's what I'm concerned about, and I think where we stand right now is people have a choice on all sides of the political spectrum, on both sides of the political aisle. Where are you going to stand in all of this? Are you going to say well, it's okay for the President to engage in this kind of behavior to attack the new media, try to intimidate the news media. He's trying to silence us, Fredricka. That's what's going on here or are people going to say, you know, enough is enough? And, you know, I just think that we've reached where people need to say, enough is enough, it doesn't matter what party you're from, what side of the political spectrum you’re on, this is just not the kind of information you expect to come from the President of the United States.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD: So, Jim, how concerned are you now — this point forward or maybe a continuation that you will be spending more time in the pressroom there at White House arguing or having to press the points about the press place in asking probative questions verus being able to ask the probative questions of policy. Where this white house stands on certain issues. You are being put in a position and it's a question. Are you being put more in a position of defending your place as a member of the press in the White House versus trying to get to the bottom of where policy -- what the directive is of this White House, where it is the nation?
ACOSTA: Well, I can tell you, Fredricka, I know from talking to a lot of people in Trump world, people who have worked in the White House, on this campaign, there is some strategy behind this and make no mistake, when the President does this sort of thing, when his adviser encourage this sort of thing, it's because they know it provokes this kind of response, and makes the conversation about us in the news media and less about the President and his policies and so, I completely understand the point from some of my colleagues who say — in press who say, if you engage in this, then you’re encouraging this behavior which is really aimed at provoking a conversation about the news media instead of the President's policies. I totally get that, but at the same time, we've reached the point where the behavior has to be labeled for what it is, and it is just wrong. It is unhealthy behavior, it's unbecoming for the President of the United States to be doing all this, I would love to be focused on policy, I would love to be focused on health care, the environment, foreign policy, we're going to be going on this foreign trip with the President. He’s going to be in Warsaw and in Germany at the G-20, meeting with Vladimir Putin after that. That is going to be a fascinating encounter between the two leaders. Sarah Huckabee Sanders was lecturing us in the briefing room earlier this past week saying, you know, you don't spend enough time on the policies, but is the President who is tweeting about Mika Brzezinski, it’s the President who is tweeting videos of him taking down CNN in a pro-wrestling match. So, they can't have it both ways. It's a little too cute by half, if you ask me. But I think we've moved beyond the academic discussion of, well, what should we do about the tweets? Should report on the tweets? I think we're well beyond that and now we just have to stand up, confront it and say, this is wrong. There's no right side. There’s both sides of this issue. There’s no, well, on one hand and on the other hand. It's just wrong.
