Transparency Not Just About Access To The Press
from the much-more-to-it-than-that dept
There has been a series of complaints from the White House press pool since President Obama was sworn in last week, about the fact that he's apparently not living up to his promises of transparency -- specifically in that he hasn't been giving those mainstream press members access to certain things. However, as Ethan Kaplan notes, transparency and access to the media are not the same thing -- and if the administration is putting up all of the information on the web where anyone can get it, rather than just handing stuff to the media, isn't that a lot more transparent? This is a good point, and it will certainly be worth watching how things change over time. Transparency is important, but transparency can be done in many ways, and routing around the media is certainly one of those ways -- no matter how angry it may make the press.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: obama, press, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Cable and the Internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
gtfo
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why is it necessary?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why is it necessary?
Ok, please, give this up. This was debunked ages ago. His birth certificate was, in fact, revealed, as was a copy of the newspaper with the birth announcement in Hawaii.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part -ii/
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Obama_1961_birth_announcement_from_Honolulu_Advertiser
Claiming otherwise is simply propaganda. I have no problem opposing the administration on policies they have that I think are bad, but this is conspiracy theory nonsense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Please explain why you find this so distressing ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Transparency vs Press Access
Can you say: "Managed News"? I knew you could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Showing pointlessness of MSM
Win-win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Showing pointlessness of MSM
it's worse than that.
it's a feedback loop:
the government gives the press an "exclusive" on something. the papers print it. then the government goes on TV and says, "don't take our word for it, take a look at the papers."
that's exactly how the run up to the invasion of iraq worked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyway...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given press bias.......
4 years ago mainstream headlines were:
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Recently though:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
If the differences in mainstream headlines is any indication, I'd much rather have Obama's idea of public access than the presses idea of "we'll make you a bastard or a star based on our owners whims".
I'm not trying to side with either, just pointing out how biased our news can be. If you do a google on some of those headlines there are a lot of well documented differences in treatment between these numbers.
120m compared to 700b, pocket change. I still don't like paying for it for ANY reason. As long as it is reported accurately and without bias I'll form my own opinions, but with headlines like that, I really hope Obama keeps posting public information and not letting the media choose what they want to focus on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Given press bias.......
"Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times"
"Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, ordinary Americans get the shaft"
Recently though:
"Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $120 million"
"Obama Spends $120 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party"
Out of curiosity, can you point to links with those headlines? Almost all the headlines I saw about the $120 million were about how inappropriate it was to spend that much during these times...
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Inauguration/story?id=6665946&page=1
http://www.kans ascity.com/273/story/1000756.html
http://i3.democracynow.org/2009/1/20/public_citizen_obamas_inaugu ration_sponsored_by
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/01/at-what-price-glory.html
http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2009/01/22/Commentary/Inauguration.Co sts.Too.High.For.Tough.Economic.Times-3593447.shtml
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/columnist/story .aspx?storyid=98442&catid=79
http://www.thedailysound.com/012209gina
http://thebulletin.us/art icles/2009/01/19/top_stories/doc497425bfcc7aa250391205.txt
http://www.jacksonville.com/interact/blo g/david_hunt/2009-01-21/taking_issue_with_inaugural_costs
http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/18523550/de tail.html
http://media.www.utcecho.com/media/storage/paper483/news/2009/01/22/Editorial/Inauguratio n.Confuses.Priorities-3592128.shtml
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1115942/Bush- declares-state-emergency-Washington-cost-Obamas-swearing-ceremony-soars-110m.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WTF
AND just a reminder...
Legislative Branch: Create Law
Judicial Branch: Interpret Law
Executive Branch: Enforce laws
Seems to me if you remove the abilty to create law, or at very least slow it down, the average American might have a chance to read some of what they'd paid for and would in all liklihood be pretty ticked off by the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@ #3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unsurprisingly, I am in total agreement. For far too long the public has been spoonfed information through the filter of the mainstream media (to borrow a term from Rush Limbaugh). The focus should be on access to all members of society, and the internet provides an opportunity to bring this to fruition. Open government depends upon an informed electorate receiving accurate ane timely information from which the electorate can form its own opinion on the effectivness, or lask thereof, on whether or not government truly is acting in the interests of the people, and not just special interst groups.
Sadly, my greatest fear is that the mere suggestion concerning openness will be fought tooth and nail by those who are quite satisfied with the status quo. I hope they loose and that for once I will actually be alble to ascertain what is happening behind closed doors in Washington and other seats of government, and particularly states and their political subdivisions. Some measure of secrecy is needed, of course, in matters involving serious issues of national security. Experience teaches me, however, that such situations are clearly in the minority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As much as I agree...
I definitely have been impressed so far with Obama's attitude and attempts to be transparent. However, I am a little concerned that the press is being removed too far from the picture. While placing information up on the internet where the public can find it will, I think, help the transparency issue AND help to curb the media's own propaganda, I think it becomes extremely dangerous if the media is prevented from having any sort of access as it creates a new media in essence - a government controlled media. Surely each of you can see the slippery slope this is headed down - government control over the media is a dangerous thing.
No matter that I support Obama's actions. This scares the living daylights out of me! Even if Obama doesn't abuse it, what's to say that the next guy doesn't?
This is a problem. A grave one. I agree that Obama's attempts to make change are great, but I can't help but worry that the precedents that may be set in the coming years may be worse than we can imagine.
I suggest that the administration continue to provide public access to information through the internet, but I also suggest that the administration allow the media access to a good bit more in government for the purpose of balance of power.
It is dangerous when the government which is elected by the choices and opinions of its people has the ability to greatly influence the choices and opinions of its people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...like a duck...
He followed the "How to get into power" playbook that previous socialists and fascists used, such as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin etc. He was praised as an articulate and charismatic orator, as Adolf Hitler was frequently praised for. He's been thought of as a savior, almost messianic, much like Hitler and Stalin in their times. He used class envy and promises to "spread the wealth" just as Hitler and Stalin did. He used buzzwords like "change" and "hope" just like Hitler and Stalin did.
Now that he's beginning to behave like a power hungry jerk, you wonder why?
He associated with radicals and Marxists, and still does. He allows criminals to be part of his cabinet under the guise of financial rescue, and takes away the freedom of property ownership under the guise of "bailout" and you only now just consider the question why he doesn't keep his promises?
You reap what you sew. You voted for this idiot, now you get the consequences for this. Just because a guy is young and can speak well, and even make you feel all tingly inside by saying essentially nothing but feel good buzz words, doesn't mean he's qualified to be president. Unfortunately, people never learn, it's always envy and a power hungry smooth talker that brings down nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]