white house threatens to blacklist paper for covering protest

[niyad]

White House Threatens to Blacklist Paper for Covering Protest
by Peter Hart

The San Francisco Chronicle is apparently in trouble with the White House for posting video of a protest against the White House's treatment of suspected WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning. The Chronicle's Carolyn Lochhead reports:

The White House threatened Thursday to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from pooled coverage of its events in the Bay Area after the paper posted a video of a protest at a San Francisco fundraiser for President Obama last week, Chronicle editor Ward Bushee said. White House guidelines governing press coverage of such events are too restrictive, Bushee said, and the newspaper was within its rights to film the protest and post the video.

Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci was the designated "pool" reporter at an Obama fundraiser--meaning that her write-up would be shared with other reporters who were not allowed into the event.

. . . . .

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/04/29-9

[lonestarnot]

1. Wha? Are we getting bushilteresk here? WTF!

[leveymg]

2. Power corrupts . . . no excuse for this.

[LaurenG]

3. "The White House threatened ..." a newspaper?

yuck, here we go again. No freedom of the press unless they write what the big guy approves of huh.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

16. as i asked somebody else

Do you think a newspaper/reporter has a right to be in the white house journalist pool?

and a second one as well i guess: Would you expect people who accept an agreement to keep it?

[Smarmie Doofus]

4. So, I guess this is ok also.

Like the helicopter murders, the coverup, vilification of Assange, framing of Assange, abuse of Manning, firing of state dept. spokesman.

Now this.

One evil act leads to another.

And another and another.

And some... here and elsewhere........ will rationalize *anything*.

[MissDeeds]

11. Yep

You nailed it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

17. i personally see nothing wrong in the white house potentially

kicking a reporter out of the white house journalist pool if they won't keep the agreements they agree to.

[OKNancy]

5. The White House disputes this

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said The Chronicle "violated the coverage rules that they - and every other media outlet - agreed to as part of joining the press pool for that event. If they thought the rules were too restrictive, they should have raised that at the beginning. However, no reporters have been banned from covering future presidential events and the White House of course would have no problem including any reporter who follows the rules in pool-only events."


Edit to ad HuffPost link
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/jay-carney-reporter-ban_n_855656.html

It's always good to get both sides

[Bjorn Against]

6. Freedom of the press should not be restricted by rules at Presidential events

I am sick of politicians whether it is Obama or anyone else thinking that they should be able to dictate what the press can and can not cover in relation to Presidential events. I think the first amendment takes precedence over any rules that the Obama administration wanted to restrict the press with.

[vaberella]

8. Actually no press has full freedom. You know that as well as I do.

If that was the case all media outlets would be working in the white house during their daily briefings, instead only a few people are. You're excuse is a poor defense of the press here.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Thanks for this info.

If people are predisposed to believing that which simply reinforces their already-held opinion, getting the whole story is of no interest.

I agree, it always good to get the whole story before forming an opinion.

Thanks and cheers.

[woo me with science]

10. Not clear the White House is credible on this.

From the article:

“Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday,” Bushee said in an email. ”It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges required by key people in the White House communications office who told us it 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.”

Why on earth would they make this up?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

15. what makes the newspaper more credible?

i have a question for ya tho, do you think newspapers/reporters have a right to be on in the white house journalist pool?

[woo me with science]

19. Huh?

Who else should be in the pool? Electricians?

Of course the pool should be composed of journalists, not presidential mouthpieces.

You didn't answer my question. Why on earth would they make this up, if it didn't happen? How could it possibly be in their interest to do so?

[boppers]

20. Why on earth would a news organization make shit up?

You're seriously asking that question?

Have you seen the crap they regularly publish, the shows they regularly air?

It's usually filled with half truths, outlandish distortions, and hyperventilating bullshit.

[woo me with science]

21. Be real. This is about their status in the pool. nt

[boppers]

27. Pool would be covering the event.

Assume president X.

Assume "press pool" covers not the president, but protests for candidate Y.

Thus, the "pool" does not cover president X.

[woo me with science]

34. Uh huh.

They have a coveted position in the pool.

Nobody has threatened them.

So they decide to make up this story.

Riiiiight.

[ThomCat]

24. So, if the reporter doesn't show up,

is it because they were kept out, and the white house lied, or because the paper and the reporter lied and the reporter simply didn't want to attend? Who is more likely to be dishonest in that situation?

Who has more power in that situation to manipulate the situation behind the scene? (Answer: White House)

Who has more of a vested interest in controlling the outcome? (Answer: White House)

Who has more to gain or lose? (Answer: White House)

[boppers]

26. Who is more capable of lying about reasons for not showing up?

Let me know when newspapers are subject to FOIA disclosure.

Or *any* kind of transparency.

At all.

Until then, they're as reliable as FAUX to me, just another media format willing to lie and distort to make news, and sell content.

Oh, and they regularly argue that they should *not* have to disclose their sources.... for making shit up.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

30. Do you think a newspaper/journalist/tv station should be rewarded if they break agreements? n/t

[ThomCat]

35. If it means we get more news instead of less, yes.

The powers that be do far too much to hide the news, and require news to be hidden.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

29. let me rephrase my question for you

Do you think SPECIFIC newspapers or Journalists are entitled to a spot in the pool regardless of what they do?

And why would they make things up?
Lets see now:
1: To sell more papers

2: To try and get sympathy from the public even tho they are the ones who violated an agreement with the WH(and halfway stabbing others journalists in the back)

3: Maybe wishing to harm Obama's reelection chances(while not a right wing rag there is a slim chance of it , don't expect it to be this one in the slightest tho, to conspiracy like)

So there is a ton of reasons why they might want to lie about the exact incident, some obvious(1) some possible(2) and some unlikely(3)

[Babel_17]

31. It boils down to this

Either the above is a lie or it isn't.

If it's a lie the White House Communications Office needs to respond with guns blazing.

If they don't then, imo, where the truth lies seems fairly obvious.

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

7. "blacklist" are you fucking kidding? some people go over the edge at any excuse, huh?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

14. refering to the newspaper i assume?

[ProSense]

12. Wow

what overblown garbage.

"Blacklist" because the newspaper is pissed it has to follow rules?


W.H. denies threat to S.F. paper

The White House is denying that it threatened to exclude the San Francisco Chronicle from presidential events in its coverage area after one of its reporters recorded a video of singing protesters at a fundraiser last week that was restricted to print reporters.

When a group of 10 protesters interrupted President Obama to demand the release of the WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning, it was only matter of hours until the first video surfaced online. The group, which calls itself the “Fresh Juice Party,” had recorded footage, most likely from a cell phone camera, shot from the vantage point of its breakfast table at the high-dollar fundraiser.

But Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci also took her own video, which she posted online with her article after the event. Now, the paper’s editor, Ward Bushee, claims that the White House has threatened to exclude the publication from local coverage because Marinucci broke pool guidelines.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest told POLTICO on Friday that the Chronicle’s claims are “not true,” and that no such threat was ever made, but he wouldn’t provide further details.

<...>

The incident doesn't even appear to have gone beyond a dispute, and from that comes "blacklist"?

Desperate attention grabbing headline.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MasonJar]

18. That is unacceptable. So Obama says that if the news reporting isn't to his

liking he'll censor who gets access to the info.

[Honeycombe8]

33. Why do you automatically believe one non-sourced story?

Isn't that how the birther movement got all those gullible people on board? People who were prone and ready, willing, and able to believe anything negative about Obama...that they just automatically believed printed stories that Obama was born in Kenya?

Think about this "story." The story has not just been reported in print, it's been on ALL the major cable channels, both the story and the actual video. Ask yourself if it makes sense that the W.H. would single out one non-national newspaper for merely printing a story about it. A story in a newspaper that most people in the country would never even read.

If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true.

[totodeinhere]

22. This reminds me of tactics used by the Bush Administration. Not good. n/t

[Mimosa]

23. We're in Nixon territory now? n/t

[Go2Peace]

25. No, it's the moderate version of Machiavellian politics.

In some ways I think it is worse as our party leaders becomes more and more like them yet maintaining an allusion that they are different enough to stay on the "right side" of things.

[Enthusiast]

28. Why haven't they blacklisted Fox News?

I mean, come on.

[Honeycombe8]

32. Nonsense. That story and the video of it has been on all the cable channels.

It would be silly for the W.H. to single out one newspaper for printing a story about it.

Like Judge Judy says, "If something doesn't make sense...it's not true." And Judge Judy is usually right!