One for All, and All for One: Media v. the Administration
tl;dr: It took a lawsuit filed against President Donald Trump’s administration to unite polarized media united under law and ethics.
At the post-midterm elections press conference on Nov. 7, 2018, Jim Acosta, Chief White House Correspondent and reporter for CNN, questioned President Donald Trump about the alleged interference by Russia in the 2016 presidential elections in the U.S. In response, President Trump asked Acosta to put down his microphone.
Hours later, Acosta’s “hard pass” allowing him to enter the premises of the White House was revoked. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders pointed that the incident was not the first occasion when Acosta behaved inappropriately and disrupted the working process of the other reporters present.
Furthermore, Sanders blamed Acosta for mistreating an intern trying to take his microphone. Sanders later posted on Twitter a video of Acosta and the intern at the press conference, using it as an argument for revoking Acosta’s pass. CNN representatives then denied that Acosta acted aggressively and argued that the video, originally posted by conspiracy theories Paul Joseph Watson, was manipulated.
Days later, the reporter’s access was reinstated following a court hearing as part of the lawsuit filed by Acosta and CNN on Nov. 13. In a statement, CNN emphasized that the organization filed the lawsuit on behalf of all journalists as the action taken against Acosta poses a threat to any journalist.
CNN and Acosta listed as defendants President Trump, Sanders, White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications William Shine, the United States Secret Service and its director, Randolph Alles, as well as an unknown Secret Service Agent.
Following the hearing on Nov. 16, Acosta’s pass was restored as Judge Timothy Kelly ruled in favor of CNN saying that Acosta was denied his right of due process established by the Fifth Amendment. The Judge did not address questions on Acosta’s rights under the First Amendment. Following the ruling, Sanders issued a statement that the White House plans to establish rules ensuring that press conferences are fair and orderly.
In the meantime, media outlets joined forces despite their differences in coverage of political parties previously demonstrated in an effort to protect their rights and assert their role as watchdog.
As the lawsuit related to Acosta’s rights under the First Amendment, the process raised concerns about journalists’ rights and press freedom. Saying support a free press, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, First Look Media Works, Gannett, the National Press Club Journalism Institute, The New York Times, Politico, Press Freedom Defense Fund, EW Scripps Company, USA Today and The Washington Post supported CNN’s position. Though favorable in their coverage of President Trump and the administration’s actions, Fox also expressed support for CNN by filing an amicus brief, that is, supporting CNN’s purpose and rationale before the court despite not being a plaintiff.
Although CNN withdrew the lawsuit following the court decision, the process still bears implications for the future for journalists working in and outside the White House. While laws and constitutions, and the First and Fifth Amendments in particular in the context of the CNN v. Trump lawsuit, ensure that any citizen’s rights are protected and upheld, media professionals have additional duties to society that are equally important.
The social responsibility theory of the press, dating back to the 1940s, was developed by a panel of journalists called the Hutchins Commission and funded by the founder of Time magazine, Henry Luce. The press, the theory argues, serves five purposes in society: it provides a truthful account of current affairs; it serves as a forum for discussion; it represents constituent groups in society; it presents and clarifies the goals and the values of that society; and it provides citizens with the full access to the account of current events (Patterson & Wilkins 2014). This theory relates to the lawsuit as it explains the role of journalists in society and the need for journalists’ work as a representation of that society’s values.
For a media professional working in any country, those responsibilities are at the core of the work media do. With respect to the CNN v. Trump lawsuit, a media professional should understand and uphold their duties to society which are further protected by law regardless of institution-specific rules and guidelines which serve the interests of those institutions but jeopardize citizens’ right to a free press.
Furthermore, the media outlets who expressed their support for CNN’s lawsuit highlighted the universality of media responsibilities which unite journalists regardless of their or their respective institutions’ political leanings and opinions. A contemporary media professional then can view this case as a guideline to one’s rights and duties which underlie their work and are independent from political and institutional interests.
References
Patterson, P. & Wilkins, L. (2014). Media Ethics: Issues & Cases (8th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education.
