Tag: James Burnham

In a case whose title sums up the hostile relations between the Trump administration and the media – Cable News Network, Inc V Donald J Trump – rival lawyers for CNN and the US government tussled over two hours of argument about the nature of political reporting and free speech. Play Video 1:41 The dramatic courtroom battle was prompted by the contentious decision of the White House last week to revoke media access to CNN’s chief White house correspondent, Jim Acosta, following a confrontation at a press conference between the reporter and Trump. James Burnham, a justice department attorney presenting the White House case, told the court: “As for CNN, I don’t think there’s any harm at all.” He said that Acosta had had his credentials removed not for reasons relating to his coverage or views, but because of his objectionable and disruptive behavior at the press conference. Soon after the press conference, Acosta’s pass was suspended until further notice. The cable network said the move was the “culmination of years of hostility by President Trump against CNN and Acosta based on the contents of their reporting – an unabashed attempt to censor the press and exclude reporters from the White House who challenge and dispute the President’s point of view.” The news outlet cast its legal action in the broadest context of press freedom, arguing that Trump had violated the first amendment of the US constitution guaranteeing press freedom. CNN warned that “the revocation of Acosta’s credentials is only the beginning; as the President explained, there ‘could be others also’ who get their credentials revoked.” A few hours before Wednesday’s hearing, Trump further inflamed the row by telling the rightwing news site The Daily Caller that “guys like Acosta” were “bad for the country”. Fox News broke ranks with the president, putting out a statement in support of its cable news rival that said that White House press access should “never be weaponized”. The Department of Justice filed a 28-page memo with the DC court hours before Wednesday’s hearing in which it dispensed with decades of precedent and tradition by arguing that it was entirely up to the US president to decide which journalists could gain access to the White House. How Sarah Sanders became Trump's liar-in-chief Read more “The President and the White House possess … broad discretion to regulate access to the White House for journalists,” the memo said. “The broad discretion necessarily includes discretion over which journalists receive on-demand access to the White House grounds and special access during White House travel.” The White House justification for taking such a hardline against Acosta was notably different in Wednesday’s court filing than in previous public statements.