It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Media frustration spills into (Obama) briefing

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Media frustration spills into (Obama) briefing


www.politico.com

A growing media frustration with Barack Obama’s team spilled into the open at Thursday’s briefing, with reporters accusing the White House of stifling access to his oath re-do and giving Obama’s first interview as president to a multi-million dollar inauguration sponsor.

Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a...
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
news.yahoo.com
www.capitolhillblue.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Change has come to WhiteHouse.gov
UFO files to be released under Obama Open Government Memoranda




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Well so much for transparency.


There are so many changes happening so fast with him, it's almost too fast. Getting concerned.

I am also wondering why he would do this, breaking traditions with full access by the press. Especially considering what the administration is espousing, that they will be the most open and transparent US government in history.

Well what happened? Why wasn't the press allowed to attend the second swearing in?



www.politico.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 11:54 PM
link   
My gues would be they did not want to have the chance that it went bad again. If the second swearing in had controversy, then it becomes the story for at least a week and the white house loses control of the message.
So, no media, the 2nd swearing in goes well then they release the tape to the media. If it doesnt, they keep doing it until its acceptable and then release that tape to the media



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
The Press is being ridiculous in this case IMO. And is more spawned because only 4 agency news corps were allowed in to view the 2nd time round.
Its sour grapes thats all.
After 8 years of the Bush Reigimes secrecy This sure looks pretty Transparent too me.
And my God the guys been in office a couple of days and some of these Java driven Press guys want answers too things not yet even in investigated fully and in swing yet.
But ill tell you all this Obama press sure beats the Hell out of the news reporting what Brittney Spears is doing or whom Paris Hilton is with now.
Dont you agree?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
There is not enough money for me to take on the task of being the White House Press Secretary for this administration.

It's going to be dodge-ball day after day, if what we saw today is any indicator.

My God!

You just know the Press Secretary is looking forward to more of the same!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
There is not enough money for me to take on the task of being the White House Press Secretary for this administration.




Oh man, do I hear you there!

But man check it out, they limited the second swearing in access. No Bible, no Constitution. WTF. What God did he swear to? I mean hey, I'm all for separation of church and state, but come on.

They wanted to be sure that the swear in was correct, so they exclude those items and then limit press to favorites?


He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”


Yeah pay to play. So what, is ABC the new government-fed news parrot?

Oh, ok, maybe I'm just being alarmist like the press, but they really do have a point. That shouldn't have gone down that way.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


This may be off topic and I do not intend on sounding ignorant but why a second swearing in? Is this commonm practice and if so why?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by VType
 


star for you my friend.
I agree.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Melissa101
This may be off topic and I do not intend on sounding ignorant but why a second swearing in? Is this commonm practice and if so why?


It is not common but it has happened before at least twice that I have read. They screwed up the first swear in a bit, so they redid it. That's not the big deal. It's the WAY they did it that is raising some eyebrows.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Oh heavens forbid the paparazzi can't get their money shot of the guy being sworn in. Oh noes!

Come on... really?


I mean, how much transparency does the media want?
There are some traditions you just don't want ruined by hundreds of constant flash bulbs going off in your face.

I stand with the media being able to gain access to information, but getting upset because you couldn't make your big paycheck by turning a tradition into a photo shoot... that's just taking it too far.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


The presidential oath is written in the constitution. And if you would take the time to read it the oath does not include anything about swearing to god. It was added later on, just like the pledge of allegiance.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

Originally posted by dooper
There is not enough money for me to take on the task of being the White House Press Secretary for this administration.




Oh man, do I hear you there!

But man check it out, they limited the second swearing in access. No Bible, no Constitution. WTF. What God did he swear to? I mean hey, I'm all for separation of church and state, but come on.

They wanted to be sure that the swear in was correct, so they exclude those items and then limit press to favorites?


He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”


Yeah pay to play. So what, is ABC the new government-fed news parrot?

Oh, ok, maybe I'm just being alarmist like the press, but they really do have a point. That shouldn't have gone down that way.


The Bible is not required to be sworn in. Only the oath of office as stated in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is required. And since the oath was botched the first time, they re-did it just to err on the side of caution and to shut up all the amateur constitutional lawyers out there.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


"Why wasn't the press allowed to attend the second swearing in? "

Who cares - he isn't even a Natural Born American.

I'm still waiting for the Birth Certificate - but it looks like the Supreme court will shoot down every case brought against Obama... Bought and Paid for.

*Still it is strange that they only let us see him swearing the Oath wrong, but deny us from seeing him perform it correctly. Obama is also an attendee of Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg etc...

Edit: Remember how Obama ditched his Press Corps in order to secretly attend the Bilderberg meeting - and told a further lie that he was actually attending a meeting at Diane Feinstein's house, when he was actually in Chantilly Virginia with the Global Elite....

If I can recall correctly, he also had his Pres Corps flown to another state so their wouldn't be any chance at all they would get to cover the event. They weren't told of this and were effectively 'detained' on the plane, which they could not disembark from. This was telling as to which sort tactics we should expect from Obama's administration.






[edit on 23-1-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:16 AM
link   
Obama and company have shown these disturbing signs with the press corps reporters on multiple occasions. I don't like it one bit. He is also trying to rule over the photographers as well.


Apparently, the Obama White House is trying to force news agencies to use Obama's own, special, ostensibly "official" photographer's photos taken at Obama press conferences instead of allowing news agencies to have their own photogs present to record the event. As a result of this attempt by Obama to control his image, the AP and Reuters are a bit miffed that Obama is trying to control the press with such an iron fisted move like this.


Freedom of the press??? History in the Making??


Obama did not allow still photographers or video cameras into his re-do of the oath on Wednesday, either. This has also caused the press corps to belatedly raise its collective eyebrow. Reuters and the AP have refused to use the "official" photos of conferences issued by Obama's press office.


Here we go...

This same AP story also reports that Team Obama has refused permission for news agencies to use the actual names of administration officials issuing info on "background" even though every president before Obama has allowed the citation of administration official's names.


Dissing in the past...


We'll recall that Obama was testy with media last Halloween as he walked his daughter through the neighborhood. Remember when Obama continually shut down a reporter's legitimate questions about what was going on between Obama and troubled Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Jest yesterday he got testy with the press during his surprise visit to the press room of the White House. Then there is the story covered here where Sun-Times columnist Carol Marin reported that Obama has a special list of reporters upon whom he'll call during press conferences. Marin reported that the reporters not on the special list have realized they shouldn't even bother to raise their hands. And several reporters mentioned that Obama never mixed much with them on the campaign trail with the result that reporters never got to know the candidate at all.


Amazing that Obama is treating the same media the got him elected in this way.
He is showing his true colors. He needed the MSM to get elected and now its flock you, I got what I wanted.

Back the bus up one more time Obama just like you did over your surly chicago friends that helped you get you Senate seat.

Be prepared for one hell of huge bus to back over the US in the next 4 years.

edit for source:
newsbusters.org...



[edit on 23-1-2009 by jibeho]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
In a related event the Chosen One behaved poorly once again.


resident Obama made a surprise visit to the White House press corps Thursday night, but got agitated when he was faced with a substantive question.

Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face.

"Ahh, see," he said, "I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here."

Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye.

"Alright, come on" he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. "We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."


He is already bullying the press. Meet your new socialist dictator.

The link has embedded video.

www.politico.com...

[edit on 23-1-2009 by jibeho]

[edit on 23-1-2009 by jibeho]



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:43 AM
link   
If this is the best thing the media can find to get upset about then it's a pretty poor show on their part and little wonder that major print media corps are losing so much business.
All the rampant corruption on Wall St., the citizens being stiffed to the tune of hundreds of $Billions, zero accountability by the people who made the mess and those that enabled it and they whine because the new Prez limited access to a swearing in re-run.


Where are all the in-depth investigative pieces exposing the cheats and liars for what they really are?



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Those reporters better behave themselves or they'll get charged with terrorism.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
The same press that helped Obama get elected can also cause him harm.

Obama is riding high on his power trip and believes he is invincible. It won't take long for the honeymoon to wear thin.

Make no mistake, I hope Obama will help our country overcome it's ills but I'm not making any bets.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


"Those reporters better behave themselves or they'll get charged with terrorism."

It is Orwellian isn't it?

The fact the Obama has tens of millions of brainwashed supporters and is calling for a million-man Volunteer 'Force'(wtf) as well armed and funded as the US Army... Not to mention his plans for 'mandatory voluntary service' - which is Doublespeak to the 'nth degree.

I'm really worried about what is happening in America - this mass-movement is dangerous, especially now that the president has such sweeping powers - and the branches of Government are no longer co-equal.



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnsky
I mean, how much transparency does the media want?


Well, one might think that a fair number of press, free to ask their own questions would be reasonable? Or are we really back to playing the "we'll write the talking points" routine that our last illustrious administration was so revered for?


And from what we're reading above, now a tightly controlled group of press that can only ask questions? And to boot, already some allegations of serious favoritism to ABC?

I have to wonder even from just a technological standpoint if that makes good sense, considering the news organizations largely have the best capture abilities. But that aside, there is something else up here. Apparently, all they released were photos. That means there is not even an audio record of the event?

That has too many implications which I won't even bother bringing up on this board.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join