Should an administration , headed by either party, be so petty in its treatment of any media
this particular incident involves the Boston Herald
from link:
"The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote."
The Link
3 weeks ago it was a SF paper whose reporter used a camera to capture protestors and then there was that other Calif paper called out for something the WH thought put michelle is a bad light.
the issue is not whether A WH ( of either party) has the right to try to control the press or the right to favor certain members of the media . It is when they do things like this do they come off as petty and small minded?
Probably Bush tried to limit access to media that called him stupid or a chimp or an out of control cowboy etc etc etc.We just didn't have so much access to those stories.
Should A ( either party) WH try to mirco manage what is written about their Admin down to this degree?
this particular incident involves the Boston Herald
from link:
"The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”
“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit.
“My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting US President to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the President’s visits,” Lehrich wrote."
The Link
3 weeks ago it was a SF paper whose reporter used a camera to capture protestors and then there was that other Calif paper called out for something the WH thought put michelle is a bad light.
the issue is not whether A WH ( of either party) has the right to try to control the press or the right to favor certain members of the media . It is when they do things like this do they come off as petty and small minded?
Probably Bush tried to limit access to media that called him stupid or a chimp or an out of control cowboy etc etc etc.We just didn't have so much access to those stories.
Should A ( either party) WH try to mirco manage what is written about their Admin down to this degree?
