The Herald (May Have) Been Wronged*

For the record (0.00 / 0)

David K. thinks I'm all wet.

The Herald wasn't banned from anything. It is entirely manufactured faux outrage because some idiotic White House or DNC staffer put a lot of stupid stuff in an email. Fact is, the Herald had as much access to the big Cyclorama fundraiser as anybody else did, and pool duty for the Air Force 1/small fundraiser had already been assigned to the Globe. The Herald has had pool duty before and will have it again.

Don't believe everything you read. Especially when it's published in the Herald.

I've asked him what his source is.

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 02:53:39 AM UTC

From David Bernstein (0.00 / 0)

http://thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta...

According to the Herald's own story, the White House spokesperson said that the Herald was not deliberately excluded from being picked for the pool. Also, he noted that the Herald has been picked for the pool before, and would be in the future.

Now I'm really confused.

As I said on BMG, it appears that I'm defending the wrong people. Can the Herald really be this far gone?

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:24:52 AM UTC

Yes. n/t (4.00 / 3)

birch paper; on Twitter @deanbarker

---

by: Dean Barker @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 09:27:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Large shaker of salt (0.00 / 0)

is prescribed when reading anything about politics in The Herald.  My husband buys it for the sports coverage, but when he reads me the political headlines, we both have learned to laugh.  

---

by: Lucy Edwards @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 10:52:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Washington press focuses on political drama instead of policy, (4.00 / 2)

White House Press Corps focuses on personal drama instead of political drama.

--
Hope > Anarch-tea
Twitter: @DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 03:50:49 AM UTC

The fact (0.00 / 0)

is that this is nothing new, and the White House did nothing wrong here.  Remember when they wanted deny Faux News access to a press pool and said the administration wouldn't do any more interviews?  Or when they threatened to deny a San Francisco Chronicle reporter access because she recorded protesters at one of his events?

The fact is that I'm glad this administration isn't afraid to call out "media" that is more interested in spinning the news for the far right than actually reporting news.  We more of this, not less.

---

by: Timmy J @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 11:37:39 AM UTC

Dan Kennedy weighs in (0.00 / 0)

Bernstein does refer to Lehrich's email as "ham-handed," but I think it's quite a bit worse than that. It's pretty disturbing that a newspaper would apply to let one of its staffers be a pool reporter and, in return, receive an email from a flack whining and complaining about Romney's op-ed, and strongly suggesting that there might be repercussions. It creates the impression that the White House rewards its friends and punishes its enemies, even if there's nothing on the record to suggest that's what really happened.

http://www.dankennedy.net/2011...

---

by: JimC @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 14:19:34 PM UTC

"Wronged"?? (0.00 / 0)

The Obama administration may have unnecessarily attracted bad press from our navel-gazing media.  

But do you really see the Herald - or any other paper - as having a right to press availabilities?

I don't. And the kind of stories we get from those availabilities aren't particularly valuable.

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 00:09:05 AM UTC

Yes (4.00 / 1)

If one does, all do. A private person has the right to pick and choose who gets access. The government making that choice is far more problematic.

Of course there's a reasonable line -- NYT gets in, JimBloviates.com does not -- but the Herald, like it or not, is the number two paper in the city where this event took place.

---

by: JimC @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 00:56:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

"The number two paper" (0.00 / 0)

So the government must provide access on the basis of market share?

And, since this isn't actually law and is not enforceable, this is another rule that Democrats must follow, then tut-tut when Republicans do not?

---

by: elwood @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 01:12:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sort of (0.00 / 0)

Forget Repub/Dem -- we're talking about the President, appearing at a quasipublic event where some press is given access. If they exclude 96.9 FM (a talk station, largely but not entirely virulently anti-Dem), they can make a reasonable case that they have allowed only "general press." They can't really make that case if they exclude the Herald. It isn't market share per se; it's just a recognition of distribution. Remove all ideology, and the Herald is the Concord Monitor of Boston.

As I've read more about this today, it seem the Herald went into high dudgeon over the irresponsible actions (an e-mail exchange) of one low-level press staffer, who didn't actually exclude them but more or less threatened to. A simple story, by the media reporter Jessica Heslam, would have been appropriate. Instead they saw an opportunity to embarrass Obama, and it can be fairly said that they dedicated yesterday's entire edition to that. So all of that redounds politically as, "See, the Obama people were right." But they weren't, and this type of stuff is playing with fire.

I admit I jumped the gun a bit, because it seemed to fit what seems to be a pattern. Just last month, the Obama team excluded someone from the press plane.

Democrats must follow? I suppose not. But I am a Democrat, and I expect more from Democratic administrations.

---

by: JimC @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 02:08:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]