Various news organizations share reporting by having a pool of reporters who take turns covering the day with the campaign, and the assumption is that the reporter who is that day's pool reporter will get access. But today's reporter David Martosko, the U.S. political editor for The Daily Mail, was denied access.
The campaign is being obscure about why, but I notice that 3 days ago, Martosko had an article in The Daily Mail titled "EXCLUSIVE: Shock poll shows Hillary is running BEHIND Republicans in battleground states as she prepares do-over for sputtering campaign with New York City speech."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
Nothing to worry about. Dem candidate decides to not allow reporters who criticize her. Sounds great.
Hillary is a bitch. You do what she says or you are history, unless a million or so finds its way into her Hide away.The first woman President this way cometh.
"It's truly astonishing how many journalists at the @Hillaryclinton speech today reported exactly, and only, what the campaign wanted them to."
Not astonishing at all, or even surprising.
This highlights the diametric reversal of power between the media and the (frontrunner or office holder)which the internet has caused.
The monopolistic power of the old media channels (e.g. NBC, CBS, NYTimes) caused fear and subservience in the former politicians.
Todays politicians know the truth, which is that the channels from them to the voter are multitudinous and therefore are a worthless commodity.
The production budgets have been slashed accordingly. Stories must now be cheap or they won't get done.
Now the reporter that refuses to play along is frozen out, so their power to develop an affordable story is substantially destroyed.
The story that requires patience, digging, and long-term development never gets done.
The press is no longer the press as we knew them.
Read the Daily Mail for any length of time and you'll soon notice they have little use for Hillary. My wife reads the Mail daily, sometimes multiple times daily. They tend to report things the US media won't, and when facts are few on the ground, they smother the story with pictures. The DM is the one media outlet I would subscribe to if they ever went behind a paywall.
David's a good reporter, a good editor (he edited me at Daily Caller) and the Daily Mail isn't covering the campaign like the US press. I suspect they're terrified.
Brushback.
She's doing it because t worked for Obama. They shut Ryan Lizza out of the campaign plane because he reported about Ayers.
Why play by the rules if there is no penalty for not playing by the rules?
Because they can.
Apparently the lesson that Hillary took from Obama's success in 2008 is that pettiness and petulance pays.
I've never understood why reporters put up with this sort of bullying. Were I the editor of a newspaper or network. I'd have negative stories ready to go. Any effort to exclude my reporters, and that negative story leads the new.
The press are such wimps.
They watched too many episodes of the last season of The Newsroom.
When Hillary came to Austin in the 90s to push her healthcare plan, I was barred from entry to the public forum. I had to threaten a lawsuit before they let me attend the public meeting.
Hillary, Obama, Hillarycare, Obamacare, TPP and almost everything they do depends on deep secrecy and withholding information from the Amerikan people.
Why? Because she hates the press. No fault in that.
That's two strikes for Wemple: he was all over the UVA rape hoax.
Inkling said...
The press are such wimps.
They made a perfectly rational decision. They care more about a Democrat becoming president than they do about reporting.
She'll show Obama who's the most petty vindictive bully.
"Blogger Inkling said...
I've never understood why reporters put up with this sort of bullying. Were I the editor of a newspaper or network. I'd have negative stories ready to go. Any effort to exclude my reporters, and that negative story leads the new.
The press are such wimps."
The press won't treat Hillary! like that because they love Democrats more than they hate how she treats them. Attacking her would be helping Republicans. That will not do.
Question -- why will HC's healthcare records never be released during the campaign?
Answer -- Because the Chinese want her to win.
How lovely--a window into how her administration will treat the press for having the temerity to report true but inconvenient facts. How very healthy for our democracy.
"They care more about a Democrat becoming president than they do about reporting."
Bingo !
I remember in the the first four years of our current regime, there was the intention to block a Fox Reporter from something, and the rest of the Press corps said "I am Barnabas" and would not participate without him being included.
If they don't stand and defend each other, they are cockroaches.
Later in the day after denying him print pool access he asked to have access to the restrooms at the YMCA and the Secret Service told him no and to go pee in the woods. A follow up tweet said basically: if you do that, the local sheriff will be there waiting to arrest you for indecent exposure. The guy can't win!
But, truly, have you ever seen people with thinner skins than the Clintons?
Queen manipulator corruptocrat money-grubber excludes any hint of press that might not be fawning... watasup.
I wrote the delightful little gem: 'Global Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pantsuit-Hilary And Women's Freedom-Yes, We Can' and I'm still in the baggage compartment.
I also penned 'Don't Call Him Jeb: Father, Servant, Patriot and Provider' to cover my bases.
No call backs.
"The press won't treat Hillary! like that because they love Democrats more than they hate how she treats them. Attacking her would be helping Republicans. That will not do."
If they feel mistreated, they could begin to treat Republicans fairly, but they won't do that either. They will keep bashing Republicans and kiss HRH Queen Hillary's heinie in the hope of getting back into her good graces.
But, truly, have you ever seen people with thinner skins than the the Clintons?
The Obamas?
When I had a security clearance, having a private email server would have been automatic jail time. Why not Hillary??
oh, yeah...and they wanted to monitor your bank accounts as well.
Why not Hillary??
Even pro-Democrat reporters (pardon the redundancy) may resent being dissed by Hillary!'s campaign operatives enough to strike back. It wouldn't be hard to do.
I am not sure why more people have not picked up on this but for the Dems it is religion...I am Catholic and my faith has some goofy stuff but I would deffend its goofiness any way.....ex. body of Christ...these Dems feel the same way about Hillary and politics it may not make any sense but is is their religion...being against Godliness is aligning with the Devil..(Republicans)....it is not a rational choice like which car to drive...it is religion being with God side or the Devil side...that is also why anything goes with them they are on the side of God....
I am not sure why more people have not picked up on this but for the Dems it is religion...I am Catholic and my faith has some goofy stuff but I would deffend its goofiness any way.....ex. body of Christ...these Dems feel the same way about Hillary and politics it may not make any sense but is is their religion...being against Godliness is aligning with the Devil..(Republicans)....it is not a rational choice like which car to drive...it is religion being with God side or the Devil side...that is also why anything goes with them they are on the side of God....
"Once upon a time in Arkansas" (PBS archives).
It is Hillary! being Hillary! This is who she is.
This being a family blog, and no way to bowlderize my feelings, I will just say that the way Keith Olbermann described Michelle Malkin perfectly corresponds to my feelings about Hillary.
...and the assumption is that the reporter who is that day's pool reporter will get access.
I just read that tooth fairies don't exist! I always assumed they did, and now my granddaughter is looking to me to cough up the quarter.
My recollection of how pool reporting works is that the people holding the news event decide they do not want a large flock of reporters present, so they offer space to a pool reporter who files a report the others can then use. So the campaign staff had already decided to limit press access, and when they saw who was selected as the pool reporter, access was denied completely. But I take it other reporters were present, so I guess the limit on access was already designed to hold down access by reporters they didn't like. It appears there were other reporters present who were not in the pool. This is beginning to sound like the Hillary campaign has divided the press into those they like and those they don't. The campaign's sleaziness is stunning.
Why did the Clinton campaign exclude the pool reporter?
Because they can.
This more than snark. The broader press doesn't give a shit, so why not?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा