Media attacks Obama's 'Soviet-style' publicity policy

[FriendlyFire]

Media attacks Obama's 'Soviet-style' publicity policy

Barack Obama's White House has been accused of producing Soviet-style propaganda by press photographers who are furious at being denied access to the US president.

Mr Obama's aides routinely block independent photographers from capturing him at work, before distributing flattering pictures shot by Pete Souza, his official photographer.

During a tense meeting at the White House, the practice was described by Doug Mills, a veteran photographer for The New York Times, as “just like TASS,” the Soviet Union state news agency.

More than 30 major US media organisations and the leading US press photographers' union have protested against being barred from covering Mr Obama in an open letter to his press secretary.

“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the president while he is performing his official duties,” said the letter, which was delivered to Jay Carney.

“As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the executive branch of government.”

Aides to Mr Obama stress that US administrations and the press corps have been arguing about access to the commander-in-chief for several decades.

However, they have been accused of shutting out journalists more frequently than ever before. On the very first day of Mr Obama's presidency, he retook the oath of office behind closed doors after stumbling over his words during his inauguration ceremony.

And his White House has taken advantage of social media such as Twitter, Facebook and Flickr, to publish an unprecedented number of officially-approved pictures. The protest letter from media groups accused them of “replacing independent photojournalism with visual press releases.”

Outlets such as USA Today and McClatchy newspapers have announced they will not publish the “hand-out” photographs distributed by the White House.

Editors said the policy would remain in place except for “very extraordinary circumstances” involving national security, such as when Mr Obama and senior colleagues were photographed in the White House situation room during the operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.

Mr Carney said in a statement that Mr Obama's press officials were “working to address some of the concerns raised”.

“We certainly do not believe that official photos released by the White House are a substitute for the work of independent journalists,” he said.

Mr Souza responded tartly to the criticism by posting to Twitter a picture he took on November 21 of seven photographers capturing the President signing a bill. Press photographers were again allowed into the Oval Office to capture Mr Obama as he signed a bill on November 27.

However the concessions were dismissed as a fig leaf by Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association.

“We do not believe that this event or others that occurred after our letter are anything more than a thinly veiled attempt to trivialise our complaints by claiming that photographers are not being denied access,” Mr Osterreicher told The Daily Telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...cks-Obamas-Soviet-style-publicity-policy.html

 

[woody60707]

This is genius. Why hasn't any other POTUS done this before hand. First the Dems just "vote" to change the rules in the senate, and now this. What were these fools doing for the past 237 years before they thought up this?

 

[Glassfan]

IMHO, as the mainstream Press continues into decline and is gradually eclipsed by blogs and social media, we'll continue see it's traditional privilages stripped away, and we'll have to listen to their whinny complaining about it for years to come.

 

[bhsup]

IMHO, as the mainstream Press continues into decline and is gradually eclipsed by blogs and social media, we'll continue see it's traditional privilages stripped away, and we'll have to listen to their whinny complaining about it for years to come.

That's kind of a bad thing. I may rip into the press, but I think it is critical for there to be a distinct 'press' that exists which has these special privileges.

The problem is that anyone with a blog or a camera now thinks they are journalists. As far as I am concerned, unless you have a degree in journalism, you're not one. Sure, you might want to call yourself a reporter or something, but restrict the professional title (and the special benefits that follow) to someone who has actually earned it. I mean, would you let your child (yes, my God, think of the children) go to a physician who just -called- themselves a physician because they wanted to be one?

 

[JollyRoger]

The problem is that anyone that has a degree in journalism thinks they are journalist. Don't call yourself one unless you have a recent body of work that supports the claim. Would you take your child to a doctor that has a bunch of malpractice claims against him?

 

[AdamCrock]

Honestly I don't see why this is such a big deal. Many famous people deny photographers to take pictures 24/7 Obama is probably tired from all that sensationalism and he's trying to do some work. If I were the prez I'd do the same thing, less photos and more work I say. Besides we should judge people from their work and not from their photo "visual" appearance

 

[BvBPL]

The problem is that anyone that has a degree in journalism thinks they are journalist. Don't call yourself one unless you have a recent body of work that supports the claim. Would you take your child to a doctor that has a bunch of malpractice claims against him?

If you stopped practicing right now and just paid your bar dues and sat on your hands for fifty years and then suddenly decided that you wanted to go out and pick up some work doing entertainment law then you'd still be a lawyer and could jump right in.

At least press cards expire.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Because everybody knows that you can easily forget how to practice law or be a journalist if you don't do it regularly?

Presidents get criticized frequently for not making themselves available to the press. GWB was soundly criticized for not holding regular press briefings where there are dozens of press photographers in attendance. But I don't think one has ever been criticized before for not allowing photographers to spread their image far and wide on a regular basis.

 

[Glassfan]

That's kind of a bad thing. I may rip into the press, but I think it is critical for there to be a distinct 'press' that exists which has these special privileges.

That's because we're old guys who grew up with a strong Press. Today's youngsters are growing up with social media and may have a different take on things.

 

[Formaldehyde]

They already have "special privileges" by being issued press credentials and gaining access to areas which are restricted to everybody else.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

That's because we're old guys who grew up with a strong Press. Today's youngsters are growing up with social media and may have a different take on things.

I actually agree with the both of you but I don't know how to fix the issue of declining old media + rising new media (that isn't always high on quality).

However, I'm not sure that this particular issue about Obama photo-ops is really an old media/new media thing. It's just journalists whinging.

 

[Glassfan]

They already have "special privileges" by being issued press credentials and gaining access to areas which are restricted to everybody else.

Presumably you're refering to serious blogs like The Beast.

 

[Formaldehyde]

No, I'm referring to what you called the "strong Press". But "serious blogs" like The Daily Beast and Huffington Post quite probably qualify as well based on their reputation.

 

[BvBPL]

Do the French have a strong press?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I have to say though that the old media wasn't/isn't exactly stellar in all regards either. Just look at what happened to Lisa Logan recently or way back in the days of yellow journalism (I think that's what it was called). What's positively disgusting today however is how the old media cable news channels try so hard to be hip or whatever and have started featuring tweets of random stupid people as somehow being either newsworthy, valid commentary or part of an actual story.

 

[downtown]

That's kind of a bad thing. I may rip into the press, but I think it is critical for there to be a distinct 'press' that exists which has these special privileges.

The problem is that anyone with a blog or a camera now thinks they are journalists. As far as I am concerned, unless you have a degree in journalism, you're not one. Sure, you might want to call yourself a reporter or something, but restrict the professional title (and the special benefits that follow) to someone who has actually earned it. I mean, would you let your child (yes, my God, think of the children) go to a physician who just -called- themselves a physician because they wanted to be one?

That's silly. Bob Woodward doesn't have a Journalism degree, neither does Michael Lewis or a huge chunk of the DC Press Corps.

Complaints about Obama not being particularly open to the press are not new, and many are, in my eyes, pretty legitimate. The White House doesn't really have much of an incentive to cooperate though.

 

[Kaitzilla]

That's kind of a bad thing. I may rip into the press, but I think it is critical for there to be a distinct 'press' that exists which has these special privileges.

The problem is that anyone with a blog or a camera now thinks they are journalists. As far as I am concerned, unless you have a degree in journalism, you're not one. Sure, you might want to call yourself a reporter or something, but restrict the professional title (and the special benefits that follow) to someone who has actually earned it. I mean, would you let your child (yes, my God, think of the children) go to a physician who just -called- themselves a physician because they wanted to be one?

Requiring a degree is ridiculous.

What special benefits? Everyone enjoys freedom of the press.
Just like anyone can videotape the police doing their public duties if they don't mind spending the night in jail while the police officer learns about our rights for the first time.
http://www.thegordonfirm.com/can-you-video-tape-the-police-should-you-video-tape-the-police/

Although taking pictures of buildings could get you arrested, fired, and divorced if everything that is bad can happen to you does.
http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2...-and-homeless-after-photographing-courthouse/

Allowing the government to decide who is and who isn't a journalist is a dangerous precedent.

The current administration calling Fox News "not really a news station" or "illegitimate" is also dangerous.


Reporters are not doctors.

This is the future if we let freedom of the press die or be over-regulated and controlled.
https://www.google.com/search?q=oba...ZIKOEyAH7ioHoBg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=884

Why are reporters being monitored so closely now with surveillance?
Why so many games denying access?

Because Saddam Hussein showed the world how to cow reporters into not reporting anymore.
Our leaders took notes.
From CNN's chief news executive: The News We Kept To Ourselves
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/the-news-we-kept-to-ourselves.html


I breathlessly wait for the 25 years of repressed Clinton stories when it becomes clear in a few more years that Hillary won't ever become President.

 

[bhsup]

You guys are free to disagree, but personally I would prefer people covering the President who have had, you know, actual training and ethics courses and whatnot. I don't want "Young Turk" or "Bubba the Redneck Blogger" getting a White House press pass.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Fox News is not really a news station. It's an opinion station with occasional seasoning of news for credibility sake.

CNN has become something similar. Just replace opinion station with clueless talkshow.

 

[timtofly]

That's because we're old guys who grew up with a strong Press. Today's youngsters are growing up with social media and may have a different take on things.

It seems that Obama took issues with how social the President could not be and still be the president. It would be conservative thought that bans total access and not soviet control of the press. Now if the office of the president took over control of a certain media outlet and forced all others to act as puppets, that may be a different issue. Showing favoritism is neither social nor being dictatorial.