Re: Barring the people from the people's business
Posted: Tue May 22, 2018 7:28 pm
Hey, it was a quick conversation with an acquaintance who happens to be an eyewitness. I got his observations and then he spoke with my co-worker about our business with him. I would hardly term it "vetting," even by the most lax standards.Beebs52 wrote:Oh. Sigh. I haven't vetted reporters involved, and, actually, if it was livestreamed it's available to anyone. Unless we have a technology insistence now...mellytu74 wrote:Apparently, a segment of the morning meeting WAS closed door. After that, no.Beebs52 wrote:For those who have never attended or taken minutes or posted agendas for gummint meetings, which means I have...TOMA anyone? and there are jerks who do walking quorums.......
Do we know if this was a closed session? Can you answer that?
AND there was nothing on the agenda to indicate that, after that point, it was a closed meeting. The open/closed notices are supposed to be on the websites.
Supposedly, there was "no room" for reporters in the room -- which is why the three reporters were thrown out. And WHY those three? I know the burr up the rear that the WH has about CNN but E&E?
However, there were already reporters in the room at that point, who said there were about 10 vacant seats. And the EPA had allowed those reporters in. Obviously.
As Sliver points out, there was a live stream of the event -- whether that was in a specific media room or not, I can't tell you. That's not uncommon to have an overflow room. And I doubt that the "closed door" part of the meeting would have been live streamed anyway.
That is directly from someone who was there (one of the reporters involved but not the AP one).
Soapbox - The AP was one of the entities involved. Any number of small newspapers in America get their news stories from AP bureaus -- physically throwing an AP reporter out of the room (and she was the only one physically thrown out) isn't a good optic. - Off Soapbox.
That's all I got.
Come on.
Based on my previous interactions, I have no reason not to believe him. [Edited to correct the record: While I have been at the job for three years, I do not have three years of interactions with him].
Yes - Everyone could see the live stream.
However ...
If the media room - or whatever room it was - was where every reporter gathered and that was the extent of the media access, fine.
That was not the case.
You can't say "there's no room in the room," when there clearly is room in the room - via photos and eyewitnesses - and then allow certain outlets into said room and bar other certain outlets.
You are barring them not JUST from the meeting room but from the livestreaming in the media room. The AP reporter was tossed out of the building entirely.
This isn't a meet-and-greet with a Cabinet member, with certain reporters invited and you want good press from the chums. This is a national summit on hazardous drinking water. Its importance demands as big an audience as possible.
She wasn't told to go to the media room, she was thrown out of the building.
You can close the meeting to all media or open it to all media. You can pick on the reporters you want for the questions - fine.
But, once you start picking and choosing who has access and what and who constitutes the free press, that is a slope that is, if not completely slippery, ain't sure footed. It makes me uncomfortable.
And I am REALLY uncomfortable with the AP reporter being shoved out of the building by security. Force was necessary? Really?
Back to Frank's quiz.