4 ms·

Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia

17 points by rglovejoy 16y ago

arjunnarayan 16y ago
I don't understand the fuss. Being a part of the press pool means you get access to places that you otherwise would not be allowed in. Now I understand that press-governemntal relations have gotten unusually cozy over the last few decades; with the press becoming almost an extension of the White House media arm. At the same time, it is understandable for the President to be hesitant to allow such close access to their person, or to moments where things are said and done in a rather different manner than publicly presented. For example, if my girlfriend ever heard me say some things about her when I'm in beer-and-xbox mode with my closest buddies, I'd probably face a shitstorm. Every once in a while when a politician forgets to turn off their mics and says something inappropriate, there's a kerfuffle about. But they need to be able to say those things in private. This pen-and-paper-only press-pool is a middle ground, so that the press can have some access, without having videos of inappropriate remarks or moments plastering across the 24/7 news media networks. I see nothing wrong with this. Now on the other hand, if we are talking about the unusually cozy relationship of the media in restricting their criticism of the military, or military operations for fear of jeopardizing their embedded-access, then that's another story. Or the Washington bureaus cowardice in challenging the administration in the briefing room. I wish reporters would show more courage in those situations. But those situations are necessarily outside ones. They should gladly give up access, refuse to be cozied up to, refuse to go to those god-awful Correspondents' Dinners where they are wined and dined and bought. That I would heartily support.
- functionoid 16y ago
  I'm sure you watched the video and he was neither playing video games or drinking. I would not care what he says when he is doing that. But here he was out in public and people have right to say and note what he is happening around him. Democrats are about one thing, big government and control over people and media.
bxr 16y ago
This article is trash. Reporter does something that they were asked not to, it happened to involve technology, blogger misses the point and calls The Administration a bunch of Luddites.
- ck2 16y ago
  It's not about technology, it's about transparency and the lack of it, to the point of hypocrisy, like when Obama removed bill reviews from the internet and accepted a "transparency award" in the whitewhouse in secret, banning any recording of the event, even though it's an event that should be publicly available. The crime here wasn't even that she was banned, it was threatening others with the same if they reported about what happened to her. However this is trivial to much more serious nonsense like meeting lobbyists across the street instead of at the whitehouse so they are off the recorded guestlist. Remember how lobbyists were going to be banned?
  - bxr 16y ago
    >The crime here wasn't even that she was banned, it was threatening others with the same if they reported about what happened to her. Hmmm, yes, there is some meat to that issue. I guess I must have missed that bit after getting fed up with the 14 paragraphs before the article brought it up. I will maintain my point that the article is trash, but now its for so thoroughly burring the lead in addition to overall bad writing style.

17 points by rglovejoy 16y ago

I don't understand the fuss. Being a part of the press pool means you get access to places that you otherwise would not be allowed in. Now I understand that press-governemntal relations have gotten unusually cozy over the last few decades; with the press becoming almost an extension of the White House media arm. At the same time, it is understandable for the President to be hesitant to allow such close access to their person, or to moments where things are said and done in a rather different manner than publicly presented. For example, if my girlfriend ever heard me say some things about her when I'm in beer-and-xbox mode with my closest buddies, I'd probably face a shitstorm. Every once in a while when a politician forgets to turn off their mics and says something inappropriate, there's a kerfuffle about. But they need to be able to say those things in private. This pen-and-paper-only press-pool is a middle ground, so that the press can have some access, without having videos of inappropriate remarks or moments plastering across the 24/7 news media networks. I see nothing wrong with this. Now on the other hand, if we are talking about the unusually cozy relationship of the media in restricting their criticism of the military, or military operations for fear of jeopardizing their embedded-access, then that's another story. Or the Washington bureaus cowardice in challenging the administration in the briefing room. I wish reporters would show more courage in those situations. But those situations are necessarily outside ones. They should gladly give up access, refuse to be cozied up to, refuse to go to those god-awful Correspondents' Dinners where they are wined and dined and bought. That I would heartily support.

functionoid 16y ago
I'm sure you watched the video and he was neither playing video games or drinking. I would not care what he says when he is doing that. But here he was out in public and people have right to say and note what he is happening around him. Democrats are about one thing, big government and control over people and media.

bxr 16y ago

This article is trash. Reporter does something that they were asked not to, it happened to involve technology, blogger misses the point and calls The Administration a bunch of Luddites.

ck2 16y ago
It's not about technology, it's about transparency and the lack of it, to the point of hypocrisy, like when Obama removed bill reviews from the internet and accepted a "transparency award" in the whitewhouse in secret, banning any recording of the event, even though it's an event that should be publicly available. The crime here wasn't even that she was banned, it was threatening others with the same if they reported about what happened to her. However this is trivial to much more serious nonsense like meeting lobbyists across the street instead of at the whitehouse so they are off the recorded guestlist. Remember how lobbyists were going to be banned?
- bxr 16y ago
  >The crime here wasn't even that she was banned, it was threatening others with the same if they reported about what happened to her. Hmmm, yes, there is some meat to that issue. I guess I must have missed that bit after getting fed up with the 14 paragraphs before the article brought it up. I will maintain my point that the article is trash, but now its for so thoroughly burring the lead in addition to overall bad writing style.