White House Punishes Pool Reporter For Posting Video Of Bradley Manning Supporters Protesting Obama
from the sad dept
This is just sad. For a president who claimed that he was going to bring a new era of transparency and openness to the White House, every day it seems like President Obama is actually closing off more avenues of communication and being less transparent than any president in history. The latest is an attempt to punish a San Francisco Chronicle reporter for daring to use a mobile phone to record some video of Bradley Manning supporters singing a song in protest when the President was visiting San Francisco. Apparently, the White House didn't like that a "pen and pad" reporter had recorded video and have said that this reporter and paper will be excluded from future events.They won't give a clear explanation of why, but the implication is that because she went beyond "pen and pad" with the video, she violated some sort of guideline, though the SF Chronicle says no guidelines were violated:
The White House Press Correspondents' Association pool reporting guidelines warn about "no hoarding" of information and also say, "pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog." While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.No matter what, the clear implication is that the administration doesn't like it when reporters show stuff that embarrasses them. For a "transparent" president, and one who claims to have embraced various aspects of social media (as the report notes, this protest happened hours after Obama spent some time at Facebook...), it seems incredibly hypocritical to punish a reporter for embracing new technology and new tools to report on a story.
But the guidelines also say, "Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures...but can make them available if they so choose."
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: journalism, obama, sf chronicle, transparency
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Why does this sound familiar?
If Obama doesn't want to be compared to "communists" why does his administration do this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why does this sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why does this sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why does this sound familiar?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess it's time to join the "sheep" in the non-voter pool. I'll see you all in 5 years when I'm allowed to have an opinion again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i say go for rich crackpot, maybe he can break the country enough that we can make some changes for the better while we put it back together, Ron Paul 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Where is Ross Perot when we need him?
Aside from the goofy ears, all the pie charts and him describing "large sucking sounds" on live TV, we might be better off today if he had been elected and was able to reform the Washington lobbying system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As near as I can tell Donald Trump ate him and he is trying to get out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you're active in politics, you can get people interested in what you consider to be a sane viable choice and maybe help convince an as-yet unannounced 3rd party to run. If you don't vote and hope it goes away, one of those people you refuse to vote for will become president and it'll take longer for your preferred people to get anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Im voting for the No Stupids party
Presidential Candidate- Capitalist Lion Tamer
VP - Dark Helmet
worse case scenario why can laugh our way to the collapse of the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If I can't be at the top, at least I'll be kicking morons. I'd probably do the second job for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'sides, unless you have connections or money, you can't achieve shit politically, whether it be running or just supporting someone. I have neither, so I won't even bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He is the only candidate who walks the talk, and every sane reader of techdirt should have voted for him last time.
Look up his record. He is saner than all of them put together. He has a well defined set of morals and ethics, and he doesn't CARE if he get's elected again.
A vote for no one is a wasted vote. A vote for Nader is the smartest thing you will ever do, regardless of whether or not 'he can win'. And you can sleep at night knowing you did the ethical thing.
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are up to our necks in debt as a nation. A vote for the republicans leads to more budgeted war, dismantling of the health-care system (in favor of the medical, insurance, and big pharm), more tax breaks for the rich that haven't worked to help the economy in 2 decades, and an ever longer plunge into what seems to be fascism.
The same vote for the Dems leads to budgeted war (Libya), dismantling of the health-care system (in favor of the medical, insurance, and big pharm), more tax breaks for the rich that haven't worked to help the economy in 2 decades, and an ever longer plunge into what seems to be fascism.
Your voting choices between parties are no choices at all. Better to vote for independent as it's the only remaining hope of what Obama campaigned on, change. It seems the word "meaningful" wasn't connected to the word change.
While we look at the different candidates, none of them are aimed at doing what is right for the country in the main parties. The only other alternative is independent and from my viewpoint, no crazier than what is on the main lines.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's an insane thought: how about you vote for an individual? Wow, what a concept. Pick a third party that you do agree with, and vote there. Or, what if by some chance, some completely non-traditional, anti-war, anti-corporatist, pro-civil-rights Republican happened to win the nomination? Would you still refuse to vote for him/her because of the label? Because it could actually happen, especially if enough progressives get out during the primaries to hand Ron Paul the nomination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not only that, but he was apparently a "Pulitzer Prize finalist" back in '86.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/bios
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you have any actual data about the relative transparency of the Presidents, or are you just going with a faith-based and one-sided FUD piece? I suspect it's the latter. You did say "seem" after all, so you left yourself wiggle room as is your method. Wouldn't want anyone to pin you down when you're just making shit up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or you just love the scum in the White House....
Trump 2012 or Ron Paul i am good either way :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
seriously, trump? you know the guy is full of nothing but BS hateful rhetoric, he makes Palin look good.
Ron Paul is a good guy, means well, trump is a egotistical dumb-ass, dont put the two in the same sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Trump can at least run a business... He also seems to have a pretty large amount of 'take no guff'. Pro: Budget would get closer to being balanced (that's really congress's domain.) Con: We might get more laws favoring corporations. (Unlike Obama, where we definitely didn't get any new political appointments helping corporations, nor do we have any executive-branch agencies making announcements from corporate headquarters.)
Me, I'm pulling for Chthulhu. Why vote for a lesser evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, he can run it into the ground. As he's done 4 times already: http://blogs.forbes.com/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptc y-work-for-him/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"His business was in the red, and so was he, to the tune of about $900 million in personal debt." and "Today, we value him at $2.7 billion, although he claims he�s worth far more."
Yeah. We totally couldn't use someone that can change $900 million in debt to $2.7 billion surplus.
"But to those uninitiated in bankruptcy laws, four instances of corporate bankruptcy in a row can seem staggering. �To the ordinary person in the street, it may seem surprising, but certainly not to me,� said Reed Smith partner Michael Venditto, who has represented clients in high profile Chapter 11 cases, including bankrupt airline TWA. �Chapter 11 is how you reshape and restructure a company that has problems. It doesn�t indicate anything nefarious or even bad management.�"
... No more needing said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chthulhu 'rises' ... ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd vote for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"every day it seems like President Obama is actually closing off more avenues of communication and being less transparent than any president in history"
its pretty clearly a statement of opinion, but if you quote just parts of it you can make it appear otherwise and argue your new meaning you nitt-picky twit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is NO consensus on those things, regardless of other places trying to shut down free speech by banning people from posting who dare to buck the 'consensus' that really isn't on that issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, he's not very transparent, so if it's true that he is in fact more transparent than his predecessors, then I think that's a pretty bad sign.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
htt p://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/03/22/the-white-house-guess-list-how-obama-pulled-a-fast-one-o n-the-american-people-in-the-name-of-transparency/
There are tons of examples if you will only search for what you have italicized. Some that give examples of the extremes, some that claim the title, some even refer back to this article at TD.
This is not the first time I have run into this phrase being used in conjunction with Obummer's name in internet news.
You will even find some articles on where Obummer is awarded the Transparency Award but denies even the press to be present to record the event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also am disappointed with the apparent lack of promised transparency but I find your post to be very transparent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=87978
Sounds particularly damning doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put it back together? I hope you and yours have enough smarts to understand that we were smashed apart while the rich (crackpots or otherwise) ran this country for eight, long, disastrous years.
No president (I don't care how much you hate Obama) could possibly have done this much damage to our country in two years. I really hate to be so glib, but we slowly went down the tubes ever since 9-11; the bungled war in Iraq, the bank bailout which created the current financial meltdown - can anyone disagree?
And who was in charge ALL THAT TIME?
You can whine that Obama hasn't managed to repair eight years worth of damage as quickly as you'd like, but I'd think long and hard before putting the people who broke things in the first place back in office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're just now realizing?
This is his way, and the way of all like him. They pretend to be for free speech - as long as it favors them and their way. This crackpot and his far-left cronies such as those who rule California have been doing this for decades, and morons like the 'mojo' commenter buy into their lies and propaganda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're just now realizing?
fixed that for ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're just now realizing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're just now realizing?
Do you imply that the conservative right (GOP & tea party) are not "bad people", "crackpots", "far-right cronies", or "morons" who do not lie or propagandize ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live with it. Embrace it. Vote to see even more of it the second term when he has no third term to run for. Shut up and do what 'they who are smarter than you' tell you to do already.
Take your freedoms for granted and then watch them go up in smoke at the whim of a big company donor who promises to carry out the administration agenda in exchange for a monopoly.
Wait until they get their hands on the internet knobs in the name of fairness- Obviously, you can trust them to do what they say after all. Maybe the problem is they just aren't quite big enough yet? We need more folks like this in charge and an even more powerful government!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
credulity
However, when I see posts that childishly mangle the President's name (Obummer? Really?) and use the overly-abused "facist" and "marxist" and "socialist" tags (incorrectly, at that), I simply can not take anything that person writes or says seriously. If you cannot discuss something in an adult manner, save the discussion for adults who can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: credulity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Action Speak Louder Than Words
When politicians stand up and make a big deal about the type of decency that even a 5 year old knows how show. It worries me.
Bill Clinton promised "When I get to Washington D.C. it will not be politics as usual", I knew it would be more "as usual" than ever.
Barack Obama promised "The most transparent administration ever", so once again, I knew that would be a joke. Not because he was a Democrat. All politicians who make to big a deal about promising to be decent tend to fail at that point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama and Transparency?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact is there were more employed, the deficit was lower, the press had the freedom to report what a moron that guy was, there were fewer wars, and now it appears gas was cheaper.
Under this dude's 'rule' you cannot offend- or you may find yourself locked in a closet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama and transparency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama and transparency
However, I understand that the White House apologized, and Obama said "no reporters will be excluded (as in "punished").
Am I incorrect on this? It would be good to have the complete story, if there is one, especially from a Republican (Mike?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: RE: You're just now realizing?
In response to your second statement, I could consider that possibility if this administration (not just this previous senate/congress) hadn't been demonstrating an attitude of media control the entire time. Look at how they treated media coverage of health-care discussions - only their official information was allowed to be released. Currently we aren't in a totalitarianism or other dictatorship, but the Obama types would be smart if they would at least be a little bit conspicuous about their desires to implement such a system. Unfortunately, those same people are stupid enough to think a communist system would benefit everyone despite history definitively proving otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]