Talk:Jim Acosta/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unititled

A member of the media that has been invited to attend the White House press briefings has never called a White House Press Secretary a disparaging word on air like "useless" and hasn't mockingly tweeted pictures of her/his sock attire during the no audio/no video meeting as did Jim Acosta. Business Insider and other publications are reporting on Jim Acosta today, as it happened yesterday June 19, 2017. It would be fair to mention this exchange considering the other exchange was mentioned. // All of the below are accurate as according to all the research I have just completed pertaining to the sources cited. //
pretty much got embarrassed at the trump press conference.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IDF-8khS3w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja247 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Children count

How many children does Acosta have? His personal life section says he has two, but his bio box says he has three?Doghouse09 (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

2018 Hearst Award Presentation Media

Hi,

Jim Acosta came to my university, and sat for interviews and gave a speech. I've uploaded nearly all of my media to c:Category:2018 Hearst Award Presentation. Legoktm (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

Please replace with honest non liberal text: On November 7, 2018, Acosta was involved in a verbal altercation with President Trump during a White House press conference following the 2018 midterm elections.[19][20] "I will tell you that CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them", President Trump said. "You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN."[21] As a result of MR Acosta putting his hands on a female intern, MR Acosta's White House credential was removed.[22][23] please remove original liberal text On November 7, 2018, Acosta was involved in a verbal altercation with President Trump during a White House press conference following the 2018 midterm elections.[19][20] "I will tell you that CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them", President Trump said. "You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN."[21] As a result, Acosta's White House credential was removed.[22][23] 208.79.104.89 (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Aquillion (talk) 02:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017

A member of the media that is invited to attend the White House briefings has never called a White House Press Secretary "useless" and mockingly tweeted pictures of her/his sock attire during the no video/no audio press meeting as was done yesterday. I think it would be appropriate to add this information about Jim Acosta to this page considering a prior exchange was mentioned.

I watched the broadcast and it was Acosta interupteing and speaking without being chosen. 104.58.189.37 (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The article makes it seem as though Acosta is a victim and Trump is the bad guy. An impartial observer might watch a video of the verbal exchange and have a different opinion.173.72.115.21 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)William Jefferson Clinden

This was obviously never addressed, while this article is still locked. Either Wikipedia editors cares about facts over emotion, or they are pushing an agenda. There is no third option.50.35.67.82 (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yeah, because nothing specific was proposed, and the comment was grammatically garbled and semantically empty. Allow me to point you to WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
• It was answered; edit requests are for specific changes that have gained consensus, not for general discussion of problems people have with the article. "The article should address this broad topic" isn't an appropriate use of the tag - as it says, it's for specific and complete changes like "add this exact sentence." Beyond that, they didn't provide any reliable sources for the request they were making. To the extent that they discussed it at all, it looks like original research (I watched the broadcast and... isn't a usable source, certainly not for an obviously-controversial accusation like this; we need secondary sources to provide that sort of analysis.) Anyway, I'm setting it back to yes, since it's now been answered three times. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Why not mentioning his Jewish heritage?

Telling that he is partial European is only the half truth. There is even a Wikipedia arctile dealing with this kind of Jews: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:74:CF3A:43C1:FC81:86F2:4700:632A (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I gotta say, the timing on this suggestion is pretty suspect. I'm not gonna say you're definitely a Nazi, but if it looks like a Nazi and quacks like a Nazi... well, you know. Also, apropos of nothing, your IP address is located in Germany. 2620:119:5042:900:0:0:0:21B (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

WH shares doctored video

https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/White-House-shares-doctored-video-to-support-13374634.php BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It was not doctored. That is fake news. The few seconds of the shoving incident was zoomed in and the video lost resolution due to compression. I saw it with my own eyes. The video was not accelerated or slowed and nothing was changed in the video data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Competing cites re doctoring

1. "No Evidence the White House Video of Jim Acosta Was Doctored, Forensic Expert Says" - "the entire video was, of course, slowed down and zoomed in to focus on the moment of physical contact, he does not see any evidence to suggest that it was selectively edited to exaggerate Acosta’s motion. [...] Jeff Smith, the associate director of the National Center for Media Forensics at the University of Colorado, Denver, came to a similar conclusion. Smith told Motherboard via email that he could detect duplicate frames in the White House video, which could indicate it was doctored. 'There are duplicate frames at the moment of contact; 2 additional frames for no apparent reason but one could surmise that it could give the false impression of a split second more contact then there actually was,' Smith wrote. 'Otherwise, the video is not slowed down and doesn’t appear to be altered on the pixel level as many people in the twitter-verse are claiming. [...]'"
2. "Expert: Acosta Video Distributed by White House Was Doctored" - "Abba Shapiro, an Independent Video producer who examined the footage at AP’s request[...]noticed that frames in the tweeted video were frozen to slow down the action, allowing it to run the same length as the AP one. The tweeted video also does not have any audio, which Shapiro said would make it easier to alter. It’s also unlikely the differences could be explained by technical glitches or by video compression — a reduction in a video’s size to enable it to play more smoothly on some sites — because the slowing of the video and the acceleration that followed are 'too precise to be an accident'[...].”
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Source of Doctored video

Some sources claimed that Infowars first published the doctored video later published by Sarah Sanders in her tweet. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, yes, the Wired article explains the exact timing of the various releases of the video, from original C-Span video, through its various releases and alterations. It was clearly doctored to dramatize an otherwise innocuous touch. Otherwise they wouldn't have doctored it. This isn't rocket science. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Watson objects to "conspiracy theorist" label, asserting he "loathes most conspiracy theories".... LINK. Maybe Watson is a master BS artist; then, maybe, again, it's but that the MSM herd that must by habit drink only from water coolers supplied with its own koolaid(???). It is true that the AP's video expert's opinion--that the clip was doctored--itself would seem to cast Watson within the role, ironically, of principal conspirator. Anyway, Watson shows the clip minus the two paused frames and asks if there is much if any difference in the viewing. (I myself was shocked that there wasn't. Have I been bamboozled by Watson, yet again? So many media reports state that there would necessarily be a real difference. Hmmmm.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

• Verge The White House used a doctored video to tell a lie
• Wired HOW AN INFOWARS VIDEO BECAME A WHITE HOUSE TWEET
• Are the 2 sources that mentions that. Please take a look--DBigXrayᗙ 05:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

That Wired article examines the process quite well, with expert analysis which describes how the editing created a very misleading impression. Come to think of it....duh!...why else would they edit it? Their logic is pretty straightforward: They are friends of Trump and enemies of the MSM, so this was another (keep in mind these characters are known for this type of thing) attempt to mislead the public. Well, they got busted. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

The White House's Exaggerated Acosta Videos from The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Hmm. Interesting. The above Wired link says a close up that dialed into a screenshot from Watson's YouTube, where Watson posts footage of some kind of page giving the edit history or whatever it is of the clip in question, seems to indicate that the limeyU.K. gent (or someone?) had fiddled with frames.

In a screenshot Watson tweeted of the editing track he used to make the video, there are two strange markings at the 0:08–0:09 and 0:10–0:11 marks that suggest a still frame or something else could have been added. Watson’s screenshot indicates that the added footage or frame was introduced just before the 0:09 mark, the moment Acosta’s hand touched the White House intern’s arm.

Don't know if folks at the non-partisan Poynter Institute's PolitiFact were privy to this sleuthing when they wrote their take (a snip-from-which follows).

Dan Voshart, a cinematographer based in Toronto, said it boils down to bad sourcing. When Watson took the GIF, which had half the frames as a video, and then turned it into a video, the software likely blended the missing frames. The choppy images might make it look quicker. "They took the C-SPAN video, threw away half the frames and reblended them back together to make it seem full. [...]. Upload that to a video editing software, then to Twitter, and lose even more quality, and what you end up with is a conspiracy."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Press conference 11/7/18 incident

I removed the you tube citation because we don't accept you tube citations. It is irritating in this case because it clearly does not (in my opinion) support CNN's position. Trump told Acosta that his turn was over and Acosta clearly physically prevented the woman in the red dress from reclaiming the microphone. So the incident did happen. Op47 (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

• Huh. Is anyone saying the incident didn't happen? Drmies (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

At this time, the article says that CNN says the incident didn't happen. The cite I removed appeared to have been included to support that. I wish there was a contrary citation available so that we can say "but that is not true here is the cite to verify that" I am not having a go at any one as such, I just thought I ought to explain why I removed the cite. I trust we can continue to be friends. Op47 (talk) 12:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link to the washington post article statinf Acosta contacted the woman intern. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/08/white-house-suspends-press-pass-cnns-jim-acosta-after-testy-exchange-with-trump/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6341b2f15e30 It also says that CNN still denies it. Another citation from fox news: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sarah-sanders-accused-of-circulating-doctored-video-of-jim-acostas-interaction-with-white-house-intern. And yet another from the daily Mail. It is ORWELLIAN to say Acosta did not push his wrist against the young woman's arm. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6369001/Jim-Acosta-DID-touch-intern-says-Sarah-Sanders-doubles-claim-CNN-reporter.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

CNN filed a lawsuit against the Whitehouse for revoking the presspass to Acosta. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/13/cnn-sues-president-trump-and-white-house-for-banning-reporter-jim-acosta.html

This is good. Now a impartial judge will review Jim Acosta swatting the intern's arm. Freedom of the press does nor permit reporters hitting people. I hope the intern sue's Acosta. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Citiques

Of Jim

1. Todd S. Purdum (The Atlantic LINK) - "The last thing Trump—or the press, or the public—needs is another convenient villain in the performative arena of the long-running reality show that is his administration. Acosta’s broadside [v. Sarah Sanders, Aug. 2, 2018--hodgd] blurs the line between reporting and performance, between work and war, at a time when journalists have a greater obligation than ever to demonstrate that what they do is real, and matters—and is not just part of the passing show."
2. Jason Shwartz (Poltico LINK) - "Acosta, has a showy, aggressive style[.... ...'H]e’s a divisive figure among White House reporters,” one member of the press corps said[...]."
3. Paul Farhi (WaPo LINK - "'Grandstanding' or Truth Teller? CNN's Jim Accosta Walks a Fine Line with Trump"
4. Emily Maitlis (BBC LINK) - "[...W]hen he attempted his third question[...] the president got angry and asked him to sit down. There ensued a tussle with the mic. [...I]n high-pressure press conferences[...] the art is to ask the single most succinct question that will land you the best possible response. The achievement is not meant to be one of endurance."
5. Al Tompkin/Kelly McBride (Poynter LINK) - "If Acosta had asked 'What about that seems like an invasion?' he could have both sought an answer and avoided becoming bigger than the event he was covering." -- "Things got uncomfortable when Acosta refused to turn over the microphone to an intern who reached out to remove it from him, and then stood up to continue his banter without the microphone. [...] Acosta should have handed over the microphone. That said, The White House accusation that Acosta manhandled the intern trying to retrieve the microphone is nonsense."

   Perhaps some mention of this nuanced criticism could find mention in blp(?).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Of Jim/CNN suing

1. As reported by Joe Concha (The Hill LINK) - "Woodward on CNN: Remedy Isn't a Lawsuit, 'It's More Serious Reporting'" --- "[Bob] Woodward has cautioned reporters covering the president in recent months, once telling The Atlantic that the American people 'see the smugness' of some in the press and that 'following the facts' without injecting feelings and opinions into reporting is one way to help regain the trust of the public."

---

See this diff.

Reply - Neil Munro was a WH press corps member who was reported as grandstanding by his fellow reporters as well as by none other than then-print reporter/media critic Brian Stelter (& nowadays on-air broadcast journo @ CNN), this due Mr. Munro's argumentative questions with which he peppered US pres Barack Obama re the "administration's dramatic policy shift on immigration" (2012 CNN link).

(Note the following take, according to Stelter's reporting, in the June 15, 2012 NYT):

"... The interruption stunned White House correspondents and television viewers. And it clearly surprised President Obama, too.
"... ... ...
"By shouting out and repeatedly interrupting the president during a speech, Mr. Munro violated decorum at the White House and generated online shouts of disapproval from other reporters, analysts and historians. The incident took place two weeks after the president’s top strategist, David Axelrod, was nearly drowned out at a campaign event by hecklers who had come to support Mitt Romney.

"Another incident that came to mind to some was when Representative Joe Wilson, Republican of South Carolina, shouted 'You lie' during an address to Congress by Mr. Obama in 2009.

"The White House press office did not immediately comment on the exchange. But it quickly became evident that Mr. Munro had distracted from the president’s point by becoming part of the story himself. ..."

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Not seeing any connection. By that logic any reporter who ever had a disagreement with any President could be listed, which seems absurd. Possibly there's even a WP:SYNTH issue if you're implying the two events are comparable or similar (do we have a source for that?) Anything in the See Also section must have an unambiguous and immediately apparent connection to the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 07:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, also see diff.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2018

Note - I have commented out a duplicate of this edit surrounded by "nowiki" tags - while the poster may have been well intentioned in adding the exact text they want to have added, it makes it very hard to read --DannyS712 (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

ADD

"they sped up the clip to emphasize the motion"..."You can see the hand raised in the background moves more quickly, an (sic) and her face turns more quickly, and the guy on the left drops his mic down to waist level more quickly"..."This is not just frame blending, which would happen if you transcoded from different frame rates,"..."it’s a sloppily-done speed change on the footage itself."
- Jamison Hermann, Video cinematographer, director, producer, editor

"A frame-by-frame breakdown by Storyful, a social-media intelligence firm that verifies media content, found that the edited video included repeated frames that did not appear in the original footage. The repeated frames were shown only at the moment of contact and made Acosta’s arm movement look more exaggerated, said Shane Raymond, a journalist at Storyful." - Drew Harwell, Washington Post

References

69.181.23.220 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Where, and why, would this be added? DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 12 Nov 2018: CNN sues to regain Acosta access

New lawsuit names Trump, Sanders, Secret Service, and others... https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/cnn-sues-white-house-to-regain-access-for-reporter-jim-acosta/2018/11/13/afc3423c-e6bf-11e8-bbdb-72fdbf9d4fed_story.html?noredirect=on 24.193.39.186 (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Already added. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede says that he "was" the Chief White House correspondent. I have not seen a source to state that he was removed from this position since the removal of his press pass. He may not have his pass, but his position at CNN has not changed to my knowledge.

Thanks to Hodgdon's secret garden for adding the lawsuit (and its speedy outcome) on Nov. 13. 24.193.39.186 (talk) 20:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Change "not overly you-know horrible" to "not overly... horrible" 73.157.86.72 (talk) 01:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done and I supplied a source for "wasn't overly horrible". NiciVampireHeart 20:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

Jim Acosta consistently attacks Trump, often using loaded questions (source - https://www.foxnews.com/media/cnns-jim-acosta-accused-of-mansplaining-after-interrupting-dr-birx-to-attack-trump).

Why don't you "unbiased" wikeppl have the guts to point out the obvious? Acosta is just a reporter, blatantly left-wing, who wants Trump out of office just like other hard-core left-wing media and politicians. What a joke. 45.51.162.242 (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: Just a rant. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Jim A. Costa" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jim A. Costa. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 19#Jim A. Costa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Source doesn't seem to be saying the same thing as the article.

Under the "Trump delivers a press conference full of skeptical facts and the denial of questions from the press" section, it says "Trump's rhetoric regarding immigration and Trump's television advertisements which have been described as racist." however the Politico article cited as a source to support the statement doesn't seem to mention anyone describing it as racist. A 'ctrl F' of the article reveals the term "racist" being used 5 times, none of which were to describe Trump's rhetoric regarding immigration or his television advertisements. I'm not saying people haven't described them as racist, but what we need if we want to include this in the article is a source which clearly describes them as racist or mentions some person or entity describing them as racist, and we need to say in the Wikipedia article exactly who or what entity is describing them as racist. Another option if no one wants to do that is just not including it in the article. JMM12345 (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

Is Jim Acosta a liberal?

Is Jim Acosta a liberal and should he be described as such in the lead? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry

According to Finding Your Roots, Acosta also has some ancestry from England. https://www.pbs.org/video/anchormen/ 173.88.246.138 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)