
Obama Administration punishes reporter for using multimedia - rglovejoy
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978
======
arjunnarayan
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
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
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
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
>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.

