Reporters told no filming interviews in US Capitol Halls without Permission

a reply to: Shamrock6

I agree, up to a point.

Regardless of the rule against filming, they are still allowed to be there as people, and with their cameras. The only difference is the prohibition of the act of "filming" an interview itself, which makes the entire argument very weak.

That is why I'm curious if it applies only to static interviews, or also to recording of any kind while trying to ask questions of a Congressperson, as reporters do.

a reply to: DanteGaland

When someone's media claims THEY are the ONLY source of truth and everyone ELSE lies (ex: the 'MSM') that SHOULD send off alarm bells.

Exactly, and as I've posted in other threads:

When an administration sows doubt in the public about every single source of information except its own official source, and pushes itself and the sole source of truth, that is a very serious problem and reeks of autocracy.

Hand-in-hand with this is the deliberate attempt to cut of the pubic from receiving information, or from having any voice in the legislation that's debated and passed.

a reply to: Liquesence

One of the articles in your OP has been updated with a statement from the Rules Committee Chair, stating that there's been no change to existing rules. That tweet went out at 1:12 EDT.

The plot thickens.

ETA - the Chairman is of the majority party, rather than the minority. Seems noteworthy to me.

a reply to: Liquesence

I imagine this will be rescinded by days end.
Just more of the naivety of the new baby president.
He doesn't know....

Anywhere else this kind of ignorance in a civil servant would not be tolerated.
Trump has put this bar in the limbo vicinity.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Liquesence

I imagine this will be rescinded by days end.
Just more of the naivety of the new baby president.
He doesn't know....

Anywhere else this kind of ignorance in a civil servant would not be tolerated.
Trump has put this bar in the limbo vicinity.

Can you point out where this was Trumps doing please? You can use the source article if you like.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Flip side of the coin is apparently the Sergeant At Arms of the Senate had already sent a note out, a month ago, to the media about overcrowding when attempting to get to legislators.

While on it's face it certainly appears geared to inhibit access, if there's been overcrowding to the point of causing safety concerns or impacting "business" (such as Congress actually conducts any actual work), then this would be a fairly logical step.

That may be so but it can't be allowed to stand. It's kind of like free speech itself, if you allow it to be regulated where does that road stop? Eventually anyone in Congress can just say they feel crowded and that journo loses permission to be in those halls. Some slippery slopes do exist.

Fascist

ETA: Just saw your post about the rules not changing...

B.S. on the first amendment argument. You can still say what you want to say. Have you ever actually been inside the US Capitol? Let me tell you about it. It is CROWDED! MOBBED! FULL OF PEOPLE! There are constant tours. The hallways are narrow. To get by someone you have to walk sideways. Everyone is in a rush. The building was designed a couple hundred years ago. Now add a pro-sized camera, bright lights, and people milling around for an "interview" and you have an instant traffic jam. Reporters are aggressive idiots who think it's all about them. They don't care about the crowds or the resulting safety issues because they are the most important people on the planet. A legislator can't even go to the bathroom without some hot shot doing a "gotcha" interview. I shudder at the thought of what would happen if they suddenly had to evacuate the place. It would be complete mayhem. This is a good move. Take your "outrage" over this somewhere else. You obviously have never been there or you would understand the situation instantly.

a reply to: schuyler

You can still say what you want to say.

This is about "freedom of the press" to access the halls of Congress, where the laws are being hammered out and voted on, so they can report back to the people, as the 4th Estate and the people's watch dog.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I've seen this too.

So, someone is telling reporters they can't film without permission of the Senate Rules Committee, and the Committee is unaware of this, apparently. Interesting.

a reply to: schuyler

B.S. on the first amendment argument.

BS?

The First Amendment protects the right to film/record in public. Preventing that is a violation, especially of public officials in the course of their dutites.

Have you ever actually been inside the US Capitol? Let me tell you about it. It is CROWDED! MOBBED! FULL OF PEOPLE!

Yep. And people have the right to film, and reporters have the right to question public officials in public.

a reply to: network dude

Hey ND, did you not know that EVERYTHING is Trumps fault! The libbies have a new punching bag. If anything happens that they do not totally agree with, it has to be his direct doing. Speeking of closed doors....Pelosi once said "let's pass this to find out what's in it"...the Obummer care act was written behind the curtain. With all of the fake news and half truths they shove down our throats, who buys what some media clowns report anyway? Just making a point.....

a reply to: Kali74

As much as we may malign them, Congress has a right to not be crowded onto a subway track because reporters want a story.

Just like you can't claim 1st Amendment protection when refusing to leave a Congressperson's office.

How is it an assault? You're not being denied an interview, you just have to go through channels now

We don't get to know what's in it until they don't read it and pass it,
More bad news for the people who are supposed to be represented.

Hmm.

a reply to: carewemust

Are you even listening to yourself?

So who gets shut down next in your totalitarian regime?

This is a disturbing event--how much of it is true, or will be enforced, remains to be seen. This is definitely a first amendment issue.

When they came for the First Amendment, I said nothing because I was not a journalist.

When they came for the Second Amendy, I said nothing because I did not own a gun.

We all know the rest.

a reply to: seagull

Are you even listening to yourself?

The scary thing is the answer to that is a resounding "yes." Not only yes, but an unwavering conviction of belief.

a reply to: seagull

It would be more disturbing if we had an actual free and unbiased press. Propaganda outlets don't count as press to me.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yes and they can't impede movement. I haven't seen any hallway interviews anywhere near crowded or impeding movement. So if someone is trying to change the rules, to me, it shouldn't be allowed nor is it warranted.