CNN chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta has been a thorn in the side of the administration ever since Donald Trump was elected president two years ago. He has been one of the most aggressive reporters on the Trump beat, winning him a huge number of fans. Acosta has his critics as well and following last week’s heated press conference, there’s a good reason why he is often criticized.
In the contentious interaction in Wednesday’s White House press conference, Acosta challenged Trump on why he had, in his rallies, described the caravan of Honduran migrants seeking asylum in the US as an “invasion”. “The caravan is an invasion,” Trump said. “It is not an invasion,” countered Acosta. “They’re hundreds and hundreds of miles away. That’s not an invasion,” Acosta said. As Acosta tried to ask another question, a White House intern went to grab the mic from him. Acosta blocked the aide from grabbing the mic, although did say “pardon me, ma’am”. All this time, Trump told the journalist “that’s enough”, “put down the microphone” and “just sit down”. Acosta, still standing, tried another question, this time about the Russia investigation. Trump answered, then called Acosta “rude” and a “terrible person,” and later that day, revoked Acosta’s press badge.
Notwithstanding that the caravan will eventually arrive at the US border, thus qualifying Acosta’s comment on its proximity as silly, he did not like Trump’s answer, a no-no in the old school of journalism. Trump said they differed on the word “invasion” and that it was a difference of opinion. That was not good enough for Acosta even though it’s not up to a reporter to like or dislike an answer. Reporters may try to get a different answer through a follow-up question but if the reply remains the same, it is left up to the viewer or reader to decide for themselves the efficacy of an answer. It’s not up to the reporter to decide for the audience.
Reporters are supposed to report, not opine. Yet Acosta’s refusal to accept Trump’s reply, then the back-and-forth, raises questions about how far a reporter — supposedly a neutral arbiter of facts, not a commenter on them — can and should go.
At the end of the row with Acosta, Trump called him and his network how he usually describes the two: a purveyor of fake news and an enemy of the people. In truth, the press is not the enemy of the people; a free press speaks truth to power. And CNN is too professional to broadcast fake news. But it is undeniably heavily lopsided in its coverage of Trump. On CNN, Trump can do nothing right. Turn on CNN seven days a week, 24 hours a day and it is impossible not to find Trump being bashed in some form or other. His achievements, including a booming economy, are given short shrift while, for example, his tweets - many controversial but blown way out of proportion - are given wall-to-wall coverage.
The problem with Acosta is that he’s not practicing journalistic persistence; he’s grandstanding. He has a way of getting under Trump’s skin, and he knows how to exploit that. He knows that if he makes a big scene on the air he’ll get more airtime and more clicks. Acosta’s profile has indeed risen as he argues frequently with Trump. But he has a showy, aggressive style and appears to be obsessed with fame, not for journalistic skills but by mixing it up with the president. Ostensibly, the White House said Acosta’s ban was not because of his questions but because he put his hand on the intern; he did not. The White House did not need that as an excuse to exile Acosta, at least temporarily. He overdoes it. He’s a showboat. And he has gone well beyond the role of reporter.
