CNN Takes Trump To Court: Is He Winning The War Against Fake News?

Once a model of journalistic integrity and governmental decorum, the White House press conference seems to have devolved into a verbal street brawl of mutual disrespect between President Donald Trump and Mainstream Media. But at a deeper level, it has become Ground Zero for the battle for our collective perception of reality.

The notion that Mainstream Media is in the business of ‘framing’ a perception of events to suit a particular agenda is something that the public is beginning to awaken to in larger numbers. Now this is not to say that the President does not frame a perception of events as well. We have long known that all politicians do this. The difference is that President Trump does it to look good, be popular, and ultimately to be able to do what he believes are positive things for American citizens. The agenda behind the Mainstream Media is the destruction of American sovereignty and the implementation of a global power structure of enslavement. If we look at the ‘Acosta Incident’ through this lens, then an understanding of exactly why this is happening at this time comes into focus.

The Acosta Incident

The ‘Acosta Incident’ essentially involves CNN Journalist Jim Acosta asking questions to President Trump, being told by the President that he is done with Acosta and is moving on to the next reporter, and Acosta resisting attempts on the part of a young White House intern to take the microphone from him, actually using his arm to physically impede her arm from reaching over to take the microphone. Here is a full video of the incident:

[youtube id=”m8rXqqLPbo4″]

As we can see in the video, the journalists (not only Acosta but the subsequent one) are spending most of their airtime building a narrative, finishing their statements with a slanted yes/no question which they already know the answer to. They try to characterize a given situation (i.e. Acosta saying that the ‘caravan’ is not an ‘invasion’) and basically trying to refute the President’s characterization. There is no real attempt here to inquire, to get new information, to listen to what the President has to say. And of course the President also replies with his own narrative-building.

In a way, this has long been the dynamic in White House press conferences, but never in history have journalists tried to single-mindedly frame a narrative in such a combative way. No doubt one could look at Donald Trump’s direct assault on Mainstream news as ‘Fake News,’ it has added much fuel to the fire. Objectively speaking, though, it would be hard to argue that Jim Acosta has not crossed a line of propriety in physically restraining a young woman from taking the microphone from him at the President’s request.

Sarah Sanders’ Tweet

It cannot come as a shock to the objective observer that the White House believes it had grounds to revoke Jim Acosta’s press pass. In this CNN article, which denies any wrongdoing on the part of CNN or any apology for Jim Acosta, we see the narrative-building verbiage in full regalia:

CNN said in a statement that Acosta has the network’s full support. The revocation of his pass “was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference,” the statement said. “In an explanation, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders lied. She provided fraudulent accusations and cited an incident that never happened. This unprecedented decision is a threat to our democracy and the country deserves better.”

I’m sorry–is there anybody reading this article that is buying the claim that the revocation of his pass “was done in retaliation for his challenging questions at today’s press conference.”? Wow, not even a MENTION of Acosta’s physical contact with the intern. A tweet by White House Press Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, without audio, makes graphically clear what the White House, and, it must be said, any objective observer, would highlight as the reason his pass was revoked:

Now as we will see, the ‘source’ of her video, which shows 4 consecutive close-ups to drive the point home, is notable. According to this Wired article,

The video posted by Sanders appears identical to a video shared two hours earlier by Paul Joseph Watson, an editor-at-large at the right-wing media site InfoWars. Both videos were edited in the same way and had no sound. While the White House hasn’t responded to inquiries about the source of the video posted by Sanders, it seems reasonable to say that the chance the two videos were created independently is extraordinarily low.

Claims The Video Was ‘Doctored’

Not long after the tweet, claims that the White House was using a ‘doctored’ video, or that they had ‘doctored’ it themselves, began to pop up widely across Mainstream Media. Video experts were being called on to explain a frame-dropping or frame-pausing technique that was said to have made Acosta’s wrist restraining the intern’s arm look more like a ‘karate chop.’ Here is one of many videos up now explaining this:

[youtube id=”8TSpgB0QS0g”]

And here is Infowars’ Paul Joseph Watson’s reaction to the claims that he doctored the video:

[youtube id=”TAmE3K7nneI”]

Even as a video editor myself, I don’t know whether this video was doctored or not. Either one of the arguments above seem to have some logic, and it would take me a lot more time and effort to get to the bottom of it, time and effort I certainly don’t want to spend. Why? Because it really doesn’t matter.

While it would be possible that Watson would go through the trouble of doctoring a video to have a slight, barely perceptible effect of seeming more aggressive, the fact of the matter is, as Watson points out in his video,

‘The media invented a giant conspiracy theory to distract from a real controversy…Sarah Sanders was right. Jim Acosta put his hands on a woman. He used his strength to overpower her, and that’s clearly seen in the video. Does that mean he assaulted her? No. It doesn’t. But he clearly used his hand, his wrist, and his arm to push her away…don’t take my word for it, go and watch the footage yourself and come to your own conclusions.’

CNN continues to reference Sanders’ tweet as ‘a distorted video clip of the press conference that didn’t show the complete back-and-forth. The same video had been posted by an InfoWars personality two hours earlier.’ To persuade those people who don’t investigate all the facts and rely on the validity of the narrative, these kinds of phrases and talking points are essential.

CNN Sues The White House

Now, it looks like the battle of narratives is headed for court. CNN has filed a lawsuit against the President and top aides for banning Acosta, believing his 1st and 5th amendment rights are being violated.

In an interview on Tuesday morning, [attorney Ted] Boutrous said CNN tried to resolve the matter privately, but the White House was not responsive so “we really had no choice but to sue.” “We didn’t want to have to go to court. We wanted to just report the news,” he said. “Mr. Acosta wants to report the news. CNN wants to report the news.”

If the full clip of Jim Acosta’s tactics and line of questioning are those of a journalist who ‘just wants to report the news,’ I must be missing something. Of course it should come as no surprise that CNN is using all of its rhetorical devices to characterize itself as the victim here. But more and more, those speaking on behalf of the Alliance are also firing up their rhetoric to continue to pound away at the ‘fake news’ characterization of mainstream media, trying to reveal to the public the hidden agenda behind machinations like those of Acosta. Here is the response of Sarah Sanders and the White House to the lawsuit:

“We have been advised that CNN has filed a complaint challenging the suspension of Jim Acosta’s hard pass. This is just more grandstanding from CNN, and we will vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
CNN, who has nearly 50 additional hard pass holders, and Mr. Acosta is no more or less special than any other media outlet or reporter with respect to the First Amendment. After Mr. Acosta asked the President two questions—each of which the President answered—he physically refused to surrender a White House microphone to an intern, so that other reporters might ask their questions. This was not the first time this reporter has inappropriately refused to yield to other reporters.
The White House cannot run an orderly and fair press conference when a reporter acts this way, which is neither appropriate nor professional. The First Amendment is not served when a single reporter, of more than 150 present, attempts to monopolize the floor. If there is no check on this type of behavior it impedes the ability of the President, the White House staff, and members of the media to conduct business.”

This is an interesting fight in that it seems like a flash point whose outcome might indicate the relative strength of the two heavyweights, the Alliance fronted by Donald Trump, and the Deep State as mouthpieced by Mainstream Media. It’s hard to know who is more up for this battle, to be honest. It will be interesting to see how this particular battle plays out.

The Takeaway

As usual, our discernment is required for sifting through these battles of conflicting narratives. The more we are able to find where the truth lies, and the more people that gain this power of discernment, the less we will have to live through the drama that is playing out in front of us. Living our lives in truth is our ultimate destination.