Jim Acosta, recently separated from his gig at CNN, is calling for a boycott of the current administration over its treatment of the Associated Press.
The AP has been banned from the White House after they refused to use the Gulf of America’s new name, opting to continue referring to the body of water as the “Gulf of Mexico.” Much has been made of this ban, including those who screech about it being an unconstitutional infringement of the outlet’s First Amendment rights.
Acosta has launched himself into the arena, ready to do battle on the AP’s behalf. In a Substack post, he criticized President Donald Trump and defended the outlet.
“Don’t be fooled by pundits who dismiss the controversy as inside-the-Beltway navel-gazing. The matter remains a crucial test for the free press in the U.S. Bow to the demands of the president and news organizations will signal that Trump suddenly can control the flow of information in American society. Refuse to buckle to Trump’s actions and journalists will suffer the consequences,” he wrote. “It’s a simple choice: the truth or access.”
“The AP chose wisely and stood its ground by calling the Gulf of Mexico by its name for centuries. For that, the venerable news cooperative paid a price, losing its spot in the coveted pool of reporters permitted to cover the president in the Oval Office and on trips aboard Air Force One,” he added. “That access is critical for the AP which supplies wire reports to outlets around the world, in the same way Reuters and Bloomberg inform millions of news readers.”
He likened what is happening to the AP to his own experience with having his press credentials seized under the first Trump administration.
“Protections under the First Amendment were not the only issue in the case. My rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment were also under assault. Simply put, the White House had never informed journalists of the rules of the road that could put press credentials in jeopardy. Without such guidelines, the administration could easily target journalists it did not like. At one point during the case, the Justice Department’s own lawyers attempted to argue that the White House could determine who covers the president, a chilling precedent had Trump been successful,” Acosta wrote.
He then listed ways for news organizations to “unite in opposition” to Trump.
“For starters, the AP should consider challenging the White House harassment of its reporters in court. News outlets then must rally to the cause, by offering supportive statements to the court hearing the case, writing op-eds backing the AP, and, if necessary, refusing to cover presidential movements in solidarity, until Trump backs down,” he suggested.
“News organizations in Washington should be banding together to send the message that members of the press will determine how they cover the news. Not the White House. Not the man behind the Resolute Desk, no matter how he redraws the world’s maps. The presidential Sharpie is not mightier than the pen,” the piece concluded.
Writers and editors can be contacted at [email protected] with feedback, tips, or corrections.
Sierra Marlee is a millennial whose hunger for the truth in a world of fake news has led her to write. Marlee also contributes to BizPac Review.
- Social Security Administration announces new requirement for ID verification - March 19, 2025
- DOJ pushes back at ‘digressive micromanagement’ of interfering judge and his 5 questions - March 19, 2025
- Dem City Council members hold hands, cry during vote against helping ICE, AG follows with swift justice - March 19, 2025
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.