This kind of defence is pretty funny. It's the press' job to be rude and confrontational.
It's pretty bizarre how we've entered a world where the press must handle politicians with kid gloves. I recall not long ago (before Trump's presidency) that that wasn't the case at all. Last I checked in a sane world a politician crying about mean press would be mocked and told to go home.
It's also pretty ironic that the one side yammering on about how feelings don't matter keep crying at every little nasty thing said about their precious president and increasingly use emotions to win arguments over facts.
It can be both, or not. I mean it really depends on who we're talking about and what/how they're reporting.
Personally, I wish media/news entities were forced to make a much clearer distinction between their entertainment and news divisions. For instance if you ever watch FOX's main 'cable' TV station, then it's like a serious case of bi-polar disorder which changes every hour or so. You get an hour of hard news then an hour of various opinionating that often contradicts the hard news. It's so weird. And FOX isn't (obviously) the only ones doing this. They really need to sort this out because it's all muddied together. Whereas it didn't used to be like this apparently - there wasn't all of this opinion crap mixed in with the news and where there was opinions, it was either explicitly stated as an editorial or those doing the opinionating were actually experts in whatever was being discussed.
At least, that's how it seems to me at the moment.
Trump can't ban anybody he don't likes at White House Conferences, just because they ask questions, well Journalist's job is to ask questions. Really, Trump? You have already banned Journalists from Washington Post and New York Times. In any other western democracy that would be scandalous to do.
Well, that is result of shutting down a Council for good Press ethics first, digging trenches in political system next, load the cannons and making the press give up good ethics for the sake of money and accidently end up helping a maniac in succeding being president. Sadly I don't think the press, nor politicans realise that they made a perfect recipe for disaster.
I saw that scene on tv. Acosta didn't touch the woman; if that's what he's accused of, it's just not true. The girl was ordered to rob him of the microphone, and he wouldn't give it to her because he hadn't been answered properly, and Trump just wouldn't answer and instead started insulting him in his typically childish way. 'You're a terrible person, and CNN should be ashamed to employ you" and stuff like that. So undignified... and it's not an answer.
In fact, I've seen him do that many times: as soon as anyone asks him a question that's not something he likes, he gets angry and attacks either the person himself, or the organisation he represents. Or calls everything he doesn't like "fake news". But he never ever really gives a proper answer or an argument that can be seen as relevant. When he fired one of his coworkers because this person wouldn't jump when he whistles, or refused to enfringe the law or cover up the investigations on his tax frauds or corruption by Russia, he says "he wasn't doing a good job". That's not a reason, is it?
Whatever it is about, he always sounds like an argumentative child. This is just no president. A president of a democratic state should be able to handle opposition, that's the essence of democracy!
This is an indicator of Trump going into Dictator Mode 2.0 You have some media for or against... I prefer media that isn't politically bias and just reports facts and events. Fox and CNN BOTH report a mix of facts and BS... Thats why it is best to look at all of them and you soon see what is what. The two party system is a circus.
Bias hate is something I can get behind. Although I long for robotic journalism, that strips out all hyperbole, buzzwords and illogical falsehoods/twistings, for now, I can only recommend these 2 sources.
No website is unbiased. The best bet is to have multiple sources, ideally pick ones you know have slight biases in opposite directions rather than trying to find an "unbiased" source. Generally a person is more likely to think something is unbiased when it fits what they already believe so you have to make a choice to intentionally view sites that you know have a slight bias the other way.
I say slight as sources with a known extreme bias don't simply twist stories but will outright lie. There is nothing of worth to be gained from something like Breitbart or Fox for example.