WWTBAM Bored

A reporter was physically shoved out of the building when she attempted to attend an EPA summit on national water contaminants. I'm wondering how the people of Flint, MI, feel about that. I know how I feel. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:A reporter was physically shoved out of the building when she attempted to attend an EPA summit on national water contaminants. I'm wondering how the people of Flint, MI, feel about that. I know how I feel. --Bob

Representatives of states, tribes, the chemical industry, environmental groups and others are attending the session.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:A reporter was physically shoved out of the building when she attempted to attend an EPA summit on national water contaminants. I'm wondering how the people of Flint, MI, feel about that. I know how I feel. --Bob

Representatives of states, tribes, the chemical industry, environmental groups and others are attending the session.

But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:A reporter was physically shoved out of the building when she attempted to attend an EPA summit on national water contaminants. I'm wondering how the people of Flint, MI, feel about that. I know how I feel. --Bob

Representatives of states, tribes, the chemical industry, environmental groups and others are attending the session.

But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

How do you know that all sides are represented? Why isn't the press being permitted to attend? What's being said that Pruitt doesn't want out there? --Bob

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

elwoodblues wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

To mostly bob-tel:

Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?
There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

Slate is reporting that the EPA opened up the second part of the summit to the press.

earendel wrote:Slate is reporting that the EPA opened up the second part of the summit to the press.

Don't say that! We need another Constitutional Crisis so bob-tel can get democrats elected.

<added> Correction, it was elwood who brought the Constitution into this discussion. bob-tel has the rights to the Emoluments Clause.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?

If it was a closed-door meeting and someone from the press attempted to enter, then there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think this was such a meeting.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

It's one thing to interview attendees, it's quite another to get first-hand reportage. My guess is that given the recent spate of scandals involving Pruitt's office and Pruitt in particular, the reason for excluding the press was to avoid any embarrassing questions.

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?

If it was a closed-door meeting and someone from the press attempted to enter, then there wouldn't be an issue. I don't think this was such a meeting.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

It's one thing to interview attendees, it's quite another to get first-hand reportage. My guess is that given the recent spate of scandals involving Pruitt's office and Pruitt in particular, the reason for excluding the press was to avoid any embarrassing questions.

My guess is that Pruitt wanted an honest, frank discussion without grandstanding and childish protests. That's what I would do. But that's just me.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

To mostly bob-tel:

Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?
There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

A co-worker just spoke to the E&E reporter (on a completely different and unrelated matter).

The second half of the meeting was open to the press.

It's a First Amendment violation.

I do wonder if someone other than Bob Numbers had presented the opening post, you would have been so ready to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet?

mellytu74 wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

To mostly bob-tel:

Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?
There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

A co-worker just spoke to the E&E reporter (on a completely different and unrelated matter).

The second half of the meeting was open to the press.

It's a First Amendment violation.

I do wonder if someone other than Bob Numbers had presented the opening post, you would have been so ready to flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet?

That's me. Just put me in the 'Flush the First Amendment Down the Toilet' basket, right next to the Basket of Deplorables. That's what I'm all about!

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?

Which also means this isn't some automatic first amendment violation.

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?

According to a report that I read, the meeting was (or still is) being live-streamed.

Man, oh man, this guy Pruitt is terrible at keeping secrets!

silvercamaro wrote:

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?

According to a report that I read, the meeting was (or still is) being live-streamed.

Man, oh man, this guy Pruitt is terrible at keeping secrets!

Now that's funny right dere.

elwoodblues wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:But not, apparently, the free press. I wonder just what the people's representatives are talking about behind closed doors. But I shouldn't have to wonder. The people's business should be conducted in the light of day. What is Scott Pruitt afraid we'll hear? --Bob

Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

That's not how it works. "Freedom of the press" is not about complete and free access to all things.

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?

Apparently, a segment of the morning meeting WAS closed door. After that, no.

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.

Not the first time something like this occurred

The White House attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg Thursday, but the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks included in the White House pool refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included

mellytu74 wrote:

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?

Apparently, a segment of the morning meeting WAS closed door. After that, no.

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.

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...
Come on.

BackInTex wrote:Not the first time something like this occurred

The White House attempted to block Fox News from a round of interviews with “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg Thursday, but the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks included in the White House pool refused to interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included

That article says there was no attempt to block Fox News. Nothing occurred.

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: Seems like there's all sides there. I'm sure the attendees will let the press know what was discussed.

I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

To mostly bob-tel:

Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?
There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

Horseshit. If Obama had tried that I'd be able to hear you whining from here.

Not only the people of Flint are concerned, so are the 40 Dallas suburbs that have serious water problems. Erin Brokovich came to speak to the residents of Frisco because the chlorine in the water exceeds Federal standards (double what a pool has) and has many violations. They refused to provide all the testing data and insist "nothing to see here". The TCH levels went above the Federal standards due to the chlorine burn. I wonder if it will turn into Flint. Now they have the algae bloom which causes water to turn brown, but again nothing to see here.

Bob Juch wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: I thought you believed in the Constitution. Is that part about freedom of the press an exception?

To mostly bob-tel:

Is the press allowed in every meeting at every time? You ever heard of a closed-door meeting? Where people can say what they really mean without the press taking it out of context? Where it will not turn into a sound-bite festival, or a grandstand show?
There are apparently representatives at the meeting from all sides of the issues being discussed, (bob-tel: see the above quote from the article you posted, but once again, you probably didn't even read it. The article, past the headline or my post) and I'm sure the press can interview all of them to get their stories. You are getting more and more hysterical every day.

Horseshit. If Obama had tried that I'd be able to hear you whining from here.

Right. I always did that. Or is that your straw man? I forget.

Go run along, housefly.