bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Posted (10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1635 times:
Obama's White House and Campaign Staffs Censors Media interviews before they are published. So much for respect of the 1st Amendment that Obama has. Obama hasn't had a formal WH press conference since March 6th but has made time for those serious publications like Entertainment Weekly.
This wasn't just some right wing nut complaining this was reported in the oh so august New York Times.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3339 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (10 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
Did you RTFA?
"The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.
"
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 2, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
What an outrage! The government shows up, busts down the doors, and beats up reporters, burning all "questionable material." Oh wait...
"They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name."
...orrrrrrr they agree prior to the interview to only publish approved quotes.
Yeah...
I'm no corrupt government official, but if I were being interviewed, I'd make sure I'd have the final say on what the reporter can or can't publish. I think most people are that way.
Romney isn't paid on the taxpayer dime. The article was talking about Romney's sons not people who are employed by Obama. Of course you never want anything bad said or written about Obama. Obama is the guy who said he would have the most tranparent administration in the history of the US.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2): I'd make sure I'd have the final say on what the reporter can or can't publish.
Then what's the point of a free press and the First Amendment if the government tells the press what to print? Welcome Pravda.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, RR: 42 Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1555 times:
I'll need to read the full article later, but from the little I've read so far, it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference. . . not that it's a nice thing by any means, but it's not the same. . .
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, RR: 55 Reply 7, posted (10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1510 times:
Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter): Obama's White House and Campaign Staffs Censors Media interviews before they are published.
No, they redact interviews which have been conducted under that expressed condition.
"Censorship" as a matter of general civil rights would be suppression of undesired content which had been created outside of such agreements, which is something completely different.
Granting access in exchange for control of the final message by itself does not touch the 1st amendment, as long as the press is free to report outside of such agreements.
There can be a grey area, but if anything, you should complain about press organs willingly handing over part of the control of their reporting to the object of same reporting (although I don't see the agreements extending to other parts of their content beyond direct interviews).
The question is how dominant this kind of agreement is in the end across all products of said media. If it isn't and if the agreement in play is properly documented, there is not much to complain about. If it should tinge the entirety of all reporting by certain media, then there would be cause for concern. But even then it would not rise to the level of your sensationalist "censorship".
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10570 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (10 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1488 times:
Do you know what the First Amendment says?
Quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Um.....
what part of the First Amendment has been violated?
Seriously people. I'm getting so @#$%ing sick and tired of people blasting someone as violating the First Amendment, when they have no clue what it actually says.
Not if a) these conditions are documented properly (which they seem to be) and if b) said officials do not categorically exclude unedited interviews (which you have any evidence for?).
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7802 posts, RR: 13 Reply 12, posted (10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1446 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 7): No, they redact interviews which have been conducted under that expressed condition.
"Censorship" as a matter of general civil rights would be suppression of undesired content which had been created outside of such agreements, which is something completely different.
If the press effectively cannot do any interviews with the President without signing the 'agreement', then it is at least (!) close to censorship.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, RR: 55 Reply 13, posted (10 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1440 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 12): If the press effectively cannot do any interviews with the President without signing the 'agreement', then it is at least (!) close to censorship.
I have already asked if that is actually the case.
It is easier for journalists to agree to such conditions. But whether they are actually forced to agree to them is still a separate question.
It is a bit shady, but every campaign does it. The same way that town hall campaign appearances have become a farce - the questions are all pre-approved and designed to portray the candidate in the best possible light.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
NoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7802 posts, RR: 13 Reply 17, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1412 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 16): It is a bit shady, but every campaign does it.
Yes, but that doesn't make it right.
There is probably a reason why Reporters Without Borders ranks the USA 47th in 2011/2012 - down from rank 20 in 2010!
While the reason are "the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests", I have to admit, this comes as a shock to me. I would have thought that the U.S. fairs better than Germany (no. 16 in the list together with Cyprus and Jamaica - not that great either; it was rank 7 in 2002).
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, RR: 55 Reply 18, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1400 times:
Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15): Well the article clearly states
Quote:
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.
"Default" does not equal "exclusively".
Journalists have choices about which compromises they are willing to make. Telling the public that the opportunity for an unedited interview was declined may not be "sexy", but that's where the integrity of the respective reporter may come in if the editing by the WH is seen as excessive.
Of course that's also the question: Is such editing merely about excising politically irrelevant stuff like the odd repetition or swear word or have they insisted on eliminating or modifying politically relevant questions and (potentially lacking) answers?
Political journalism has plumbed ever new depths in the US in recent years (with one major "news" station even explicitly campaigning against the sitting President), so I wouldn't be entirely surprised with the WH trying to limit at least the worst excesses of deliberate distortions.
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9914 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1395 times:
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5): it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference
Yes it is. This is after all the Marxist/Maoist/Stateist/Communitst/Socialist Muslim liberal that is an anti-American terrorist. *rolls eyes* Anything to hate.
Not one person on the right even lifted an eyebrow when Bush had his "free speech zones" and screened everyone going to his town hall meetings just to make sure they were all Bushies. That was perfectly fine and all on the taxpayer dime too I might add.
Quokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1348 times:
How many times has something been carefully edited to portray something in a particular way? Something as simple as the removal of a comma can change the meaning of a phrase. In a hour long interview just one sentence, or a part of it, will be seized on and used in a manner which may not reflect the context.
"We have accumulated debts..." On the screen that phrase seems neutral enough. But what does it mean? Does it mean that we as a nation have debts totalling a given amount? Or does it mean that the Government has been irresponsible and accumulated those debts since coming into office?
Given that newspapers of whichever persuasion will put their own slant on any story is it not reasonable that people would want to check that they actually print the facts? You may call it censorship. Others may call it making sure the press isn't lying.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 21, posted (10 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 19): Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference
Yes it is. This is after all the Marxist/Maoist/Stateist/Communitst/Socialist Muslim liberal that is an anti-American terrorist. *rolls eyes* Anything to hate.
Not one person on the right even lifted an eyebrow when Bush had his "free speech zones" and screened everyone going to his town hall meetings just to make sure they were all Bushies. That was perfectly fine and all on the taxpayer dime too I might add.
So PPVRA makes a comment that is not even bashing the President and you go into one of your right wing rants? When is it "ok" for one side to do something and the not the other? Your 2nd paragraph shouldn't even exist.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 23, posted (10 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1318 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 22): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
So PPVRA makes a comment that is not even bashing the President and you go into one of your right wing rants?
bjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (10 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1293 times:
Quoting Mir (Reply 16): but every campaign does it.
It's not just the campaign it's senior government officials engaged in this kind of activity.
Quoting Klaus (Reply 11): Not if a) these conditions are documented properly (which they seem to be) and if b) said officials do not categorically exclude unedited interviews
I don't see the disclaimers in the articles saying that this report was reviewed by the interviewee and subsequently edited by them. Lots of TV programs tell the viewer the context of the interview i.e., "we had to submit our questions in advance", "this topic was off-limits", etc.
What is happening here is that if they say something stupid they get a do over.
"An idea has to be incredibly absurd to have any reasonable chance of succeeding" --A. Einstein
25 MD11Engineer: It is standard practice, since quite a few "journalists" like to take quotes out of context and to splice them together (by ommitting the content inb
26 casinterest: If it was a mistake in phrasing, wouldn't you want one, or would you like someone like Rush Limbaugh omitting facts and going on a tirade over a 7 wo
27 flipdewaf: It's a sad state of affairs when journalists have to stoop to a.net trolling methods (saying no names) but unfortunately this seems the way of the me
28 bjorn14: Unfortunately you're right. I would rather see a quote from an unnamed government official not authorized to speak to the media than from a named one
29 seb146: Really? Where? When? My in-laws watch FOX constantly. They show quotes from several interviews but I don't hear "you can see the entire interview....
30 Quokkas: Trouble with unnamed sources is two fold; i) you don't know if the person actually exists or is simply a journalistic device; ii) even if the person
31 Smittyone: First, he's President Obama. Second, I suggest you leave the application of the US Constitution to those qualified to do so... [Edited 2012-08-18 06:
32 bjorn14: So if you were Catholic you'd still want Mass said in Latin even though you don't undstand it.
33 Smittyone: Haha, no. I'm just saying you should stick to what you know. This isn't it...
Sponsor Message: 
From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 2776 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3339 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8498 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 20902 posts, 
You don't know what the first amendment actually says, do you?
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
