Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia

[PapaG]

Add this to the "if Bush had done this" file...

The hip, transparent and social media-loving Obama administration is showing its analog roots. And maybe even some hypocrisy highlights.

White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci - who, like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times -shot some protesters interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.

She was part of a "print pool" - a limited number of journalists at an event who represent their bigger hoard colleagues - which White House press officials still refer to quaintly as "pen and pad" reporting.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1KvY13Ebq

 

[PapaG]

Great comment from the SFGate link:

“If you voted for Hopey McChange in 2008 to prove that you were not a racist, you will have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove that you are not an idiot.”

 

[PapaG]

White House calls lib rag SF Chronicle liars, SF Chronicle strikes back!

Control the message, and you control the masses. Obama is on his way to being Hugo Chavez. Next step? Jail the reporter.

Update: Chronicle responds after Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia, then claims they didn't


Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle's report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

I was on some of those calls and can confirm Ward's statement.

Messy ball now firmly in White House court.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1Ky8ldEjS


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978#ixzz1Ky8BbELo

 

[PapaG]

Seems to be an obvious case of censorship by the President of the USA against a press pool reporter.

Libs, where is the outrage? Or, is the San Francisco paper not telling the truth?

 

[barfo]

Seems to be an obvious case of censorship by the President of the USA against a press pool reporter.

Libs, where is the outrage? Or, is the San Francisco paper not telling the truth?

Who knows whether they are telling the truth or not?

My guess is that they more-or-less are, although the story seems a little shaded towards their point of view.

My guess is that someone in the administration went a bit overboard, and may very well get fired as a result.

I doubt this is a result of a direct order from the top, but rather the result of bit players thinking they have more power than they do, and probably lack of experience, too much ego, etc.

Doesn't seem like something to get outraged about, but then I'm not quite as prone to outrage as some. Probably due to my GIGANTIC UNION PENSION, I suppose.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/08/bush-bars-media-speech/

 

[MARIS61]

Seems to be an obvious case of censorship by the President of the USA against a press pool reporter.

Seems akin to JQ peeking through the blinds.

Unprofessional behavior/rule breaking by the reporter violates the arrangement she had agreed to in exchange for special access to the Pres. Stupid move on her part to play paparazzi and blow her career.

 

[MARIS61]

Seems to be an obvious case of censorship by the President of the USA against a press pool reporter.

I fail to see what was censored?

 

[PapaG]

Seems akin to JQ peeking through the blinds.

Unprofessional behavior/rule breaking by the reporter violates the arrangement she had agreed to in exchange for special access to the Pres. Stupid move on her part to play paparazzi and blow her career.

A reporter recording video of an anti-Obama protest is stupid and against the rules? That's the story you libs are going with on this one?

Censorship, pure and simple. The truth is that we have a very small and thin-skinned President, and if he can't control the message, he will ban reporters.

Sickening that he does it, and sickening that people would be opposed to a free press reporting any and all activities related to a visit by the President.

 

[PapaG]

When you lose San Francisco, and you're a Democrat, well, that's noteworthy.

The comments are brutal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978&tsp=1

 

[julius]

When you lose San Francisco, and you're a Democrat, well, that's noteworthy.

The comments are brutal.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978&tsp=1

You're aware that people who aren't from San Francisco can post comments, right?

 

[PapaG]

You're aware that people who aren't from San Francisco can post comments, right?

Wow, thanks for the insight!

I'm just amazed at how many of the hundreds of comments are so negative, from posters who claim to be from both the left and the right.

I find citizens paying to attend the fundraiser, and then protest Obama at the fundraiser, to be newsworthy.

 

[julius]

Wow, thanks for the insight!

I'm just amazed at how many of the hundreds of comments are so negative, from posters who claim to be from both the left and the right.

I find citizens paying to attend the fundraiser, and then protest Obama at the fundraiser, to be newsworthy.

Post stupid stuff, and you'll get smart ass comments.

 

[barfo]

I'm just amazed at how many of the hundreds of comments are so negative, from posters who claim to be from both the left and the right.

Yes, it is amazing that cranky people post political comments on the internets.

I find citizens paying to attend the fundraiser, and then protest Obama at the fundraiser, to be newsworthy.

Yes, it is newsworthy that Obama's political opponents have money.

barfo

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I am in full agreement with the intention of this post. If the evil republicans had done this, fuck oh mighty, there would be an outcry from coast to coast. I think even the press overseas would be banging on the Whitehouse for the breach of freedom of the press.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Yes, it is amazing that cranky people post political comments on the internets.



Yes, it is newsworthy that Obama's political opponents have money.

barfo

Ha ha ha, that was good barfo cranky people post on everything, its the safety behind the monitor thing.

Oh, are you implying that the left is underfunded?

 

[Minstrel]

I am in full agreement with the intention of this post. If the evil republicans had done this, fuck oh mighty, there would be an outcry from coast to coast. I think even the press overseas would be banging on the Whitehouse for the breach of freedom of the press.

Yes, truly the Republicans are an oppressed minority in this country, brutally subjugated by the citizens, media and foreigners. A ragtag rebel outfit that has little money, influence or power but continues to speak truth to power.

It's both sad and noble, that hopeless Republican cause against all the odds. Maybe one day they'll find an avenue to win the presidency, or a majority in either the House or Senate. Perhaps one day, they'll dominate radio talk and have a cable news network that largely favors their causes. One can dream.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Yes, truly the Republicans are an oppressed minority in this country, brutally subjugated by the citizens, media and foreigners. A ragtag rebel outfit that has little money, influence or power but continues to speak truth to power.

It's both sad and noble, that hopeless Republican cause against all the odds. Maybe one day they'll find an avenue to win the presidency, or a majority in either the House or Senate. Perhaps one day, they'll dominate radio talk and have a cable news network that largely favors their causes. One can dream.

Yes, sadly one can hope.

In all seriousness, The Republican party is in shambles. They are fragmented and ineffective. The Tea Party has more pull with the right and middle leaning folks. I believe that the pendulum has swung so far to the left, that it soon has to head back around. I dont think we will ever see the days of the Reagan strengths, but damn I miss that guy.

 

[julius]

I am in full agreement with the intention of this post. If the evil republicans had done this, fuck oh mighty, there would be an outcry from coast to coast. I think even the press overseas would be banging on the Whitehouse for the breach of freedom of the press.

It's amazing to me how much the right thinks that "if the right did this, XYZ" would happen, even though when the right WAS doing it, what they claimed would happen, never did.

it's why the left considers many of the media spineless cowards (as they do the democrats in office). They let things happen, and are as guilty as those who do it.

 

[barfo]

Yes, sadly one can hope.

In all seriousness, The Republican party is in shambles. They are fragmented and ineffective. The Tea Party has more pull with the right and middle leaning folks. I believe that the pendulum has swung so far to the left, that it soon has to head back around. I dont think we will ever see the days of the Reagan strengths, but damn I miss that guy.

The good news is that with the aging of the population, it should be easier than ever to find candidates with Alzheimer's.

I agree with you about the state of the Republican party - in fact I'm starting to think that the Republican nominee won't even be a factor in the race. It may end up being Obama vs. Trump vs. that other guy, the Republican, what's-his-name.

barfo

 

[julius]

The good news is that with the aging of the population, it should be easier than ever to find candidates with Alzheimer's.

I agree with you about the state of the Republican party - in fact I'm starting to think that the Republican nominee won't even be a factor in the race. It may end up being Obama vs. Trump vs. that other guy, the Republican, what's-his-name.

barfo

Trump isn't going to run for President. He's a self promoting sleeze hound, who is only doing this to pad his pocket-book. But I think you're right about the R's.

Their base is DESPERATE for someone to cling too, much like the D's were in 92 (Mondale and Dukakis? more like Boring and Bland) and got Clinton, and the D's were in 2008 (Gore and Kerry? More like Snore and Snorry) and got Obama.

The R's had Bush for 2 terms, and like him or not, he was at least a memorable candidate. McCain had Palin, but she was memorable for the wrong reasons. So far, their candidates scream "milquetoast" and desperate. You'd almost think they were taking advice from the 1984-88 and 2000-04 Democrats.

 

[barfo]

Trump isn't going to run for President. He's a self promoting sleeze hound, who is only doing this to pad his pocket-book.

You could be right, but I'm not so sure. I'd guess he doesn't actually want to be president, but I'm not so sure he doesn't want to run for president. That's a whole nother year and a half of self-promotion - why wouldn't he?

I think he's going to run in the R primaries, not win, and then run as an independent in the general - and not win. ??? Profit!

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

I am in full agreement with the intention of this post. If the evil republicans had done this, fuck oh mighty, there would be an outcry from coast to coast. I think even the press overseas would be banging on the Whitehouse for the breach of freedom of the press.

Uh, they did. For 8 years.

 

[PapaG]

White House shuts out Herald scribe

The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.

“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote.

But Lehrich said the Herald wasn’t purposefully barred from the press pool, saying local pool duty by the Boston Globe was arranged earlier with the White House Correspondents Association. And Lehrich insisted the Herald may yet be allowed into Obama events.

“As we have in the past — including the multiple occasions on which the Herald has supplied local pool reporters — we will continue to consider the Herald for local pool duty for future visits,” Lehrich wrote.

Obama is in town today to raise money for his 2012 re-election campaign. His afternoon speech in the South End’s Cyclorama is open to all media, but only a selected pool can attend other aspects of his fund-raiser. Pool reporters must share all their material with other press. The Herald has been bypassed for pool duty during Obama’s last two visits despite asking the White House to be the local pool reporter.

“Newspapers don’t have to be unbiased to get access. You can’t just let only the newspapers you want in,” said Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom defended Romney’s March 8 opinion piece:

“That op-ed was about jobs, which apparently is a sensitive subject for the thin-skinned people around the president. The White House may be able to manipulate pool coverage, but they can’t manipulate the fact that millions of Americans are out of work because of President Obama’s failure to create jobs and get our economy moving,” Fehrnstrom said in a statement yesterday.

The administration has a history of controversial clashes with the press.

The White House was seen to be at war with Fox News early in the administration, with its communications director calling Fox an “arm” of the Republican Party, while the president avoided Fox interviews until his health reform proposal ran into trouble. Since losing control of Congress, Obama has sat down with conservative Fox commentator Bill O’Reilly

...continued at link...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re..._shuts_out_herald_scribe/srvc=home&position=0

 

[BrianFromWA]

I'm kind of a political neophyte here, but is there anything behind the fact that these two complaints came in Boston and SF, two of (if I understand correctly) the most "blue" places there are in the US?

 

[maxiep]

I'm kind of a political neophyte here, but is there anything behind the fact that these two complaints came in Boston and SF, two of (if I understand correctly) the most "blue" places there are in the US?

The Herald is a right-wing paper, just as the Globe is left wing. So, it's not surprising that the Obama Administration would ban the Herald.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Richard Milhous Obama.

 

[PapaG]

The Herald is a right-wing paper, just as the Globe is left wing. So, it's not surprising that the Obama Administration would ban the Herald.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Richard Milhous Obama.

Meanwhile, BushHitler McFlightsuit the Terrible Tyrant allowed Alexandra Pelosi (Nancy's daughter) to follow him throughout the 2000 campaign while she filmed the documentary Journeys with George.

You're right in that the Obama/Nixon parallels in terms of paranoia and trying to control the message at all times is a bit creepy.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

richard nixon was a great bowler, and used a black ball, a clear metaphor for "blackballing" members of the media

clearly obamas black balls tell us the same thing

 

[maxiep]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1339033

 

[PapaG]

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view.bg?articleid=1339033

And it’s not just the press. President Obama is considering an executive order requiring every business that wants to compete for government contracts to first disclose all their political contributions going back two years. That includes all political contributions made by the company, its political action committee and its senior executives — even donations to third-party groups which are currently covered by campaign disclosure laws.

In other words, Barack Obama wants to know how much money you’ve given to Republicans and their allies before he’ll decide if you get the contract to build a road, maintain a federal park or put AC in the IRS building.

How Obama supporters can continue to defend these actions baffles me. It's none of the government's business where employees of a company spend their money, let alone on which political candidates. This is as close to fascism as I've seen so far from this guy.