FOR NEWS FRIENDS: We should be united because someone recently tried to send a bomb to our fellow brother and sister journalists, but that shouldn't prevent us from discussing the ethics of the @Acosta issue, because I actually feel pretty strongly that Jim Acosta's actions (1/)
were highly ethical and in line with the highest standards of our profession. Here's the factual basis for my beliefs:
PREMISE: The part of the SPJ code of ethics that says don't become the story is the part where it says "avoid conflicts of interest." (2/)
PREMISE: The part of the SPJ code of ethics that says don't become the story is the part where it says "avoid conflicts of interest." (2/)
FACTS ONE: Jim Acosta asked a pretty standard question trying to give Trump an opportunity an incorrect assertion that Trump had made earlier, then asked a follow-up question. A woman approached him and tried to wrestle the microphone out of his hand.
ANALYSIS: Jim gave the president the opportunity to clean up a previous incorrect remark he'd made earlier. When it became clear that the President wouldn't answer the question, he gave the microphone to another reporter. This is in line with my personal ethical code. (4/)
FACTS TWO: Trump begins beating up @PeterAlexander for defending @Acosta. Peter is flabbergasted and silent. Jim jumps in to ask a question, asking Trump if he regrets calling CNN an enemy of the people after one of his supporters sent them a bomb. (5/)
ANALYSIS: If a fellow human being, regardless of circumstance, is stunned to silence by verbal abuse from another, I would jump in to defend them, and I would hope that you would too. In this instance, Jim's actions are strongly aligned with my personal ethical code. (6/)
Aside from @Acosta's actions: Sarah Sanders' statement is an outright lie. A woman approached Jim, reached out, and made physical contact with his body while trying to wrestle an item out of his hand. Legally, that sounds like battery.
