the first amendment guarantees them the right to write whatever they want. it doesn't dictate that anyone, even the white house, has to provide the material.

to wit, chuck todd was guaranteed by the first amendment the right to put out an article saying he couldn't get the material he wanted.

why do people have so much trouble understanding the 1st Amendment ? Seems like every week there's a thread about some conservative being denied their first amendment rights because a traffic light went red while they were driving to lunch.

The First Amendment doesn't mean "you have to talk to me and answer my questions," Chuckles.

This doesn't sound like a White House access problem. This sounds like a "CEO's of companies don't want to talk to the press" problem.

Sorry, Chuck. CEO's are dicks and they don't like talking to the press. That's not a violation of the Freedom of Speech.

I don't see what this has to do with freedoms of speech OR press.

It may be irksome, but it's not a violation of the Constitution. I'd prefer it weren't like this, but meh.

It's not even a violation of so-called "sunshine" laws. It was a speech. It's not like he was hammering out policy with them ala Cheney and Big Oil.

Maybe they just don't want White House guests mauled by reporters on the way out.

maybe chuck todd belongs to the holy church of white house access, and he objects on religious grounds?

White House press corps isn't for everyone. Ideally, it's not for people who keep asking farking ridiculous questions.

Could they kick out Michael Fletcher too, for that farking A-Rod question? I couldn't believe he asked that, and I was hoping Obama was going to just look incredulously at him and say, "Are you farking kidding me?"

Mordant: why do people have so much trouble understanding the 1st Amendment ? Seems like every week there's a thread about some conservative being denied their first amendment rights because a traffic light went red while they were driving to lunch.

Conservative? Is Chuck Todd conservative?

FTFA:

Hmmm.... Here's a thought experiment. You obtain a list of the CEOs and others present. I think the White House would have given you that. Then you use "teh Google," as the kids call it, to find their phone numbers. Then you call their press people and book an interview.
Not as quick as grabbing them at the White House, but it'd work.

Ed Alvarez (Sent Friday, February 13, 2009 11:47 AM)

You see, that would require actual work. He's a reporter, work is below his pay-grade.

Seriously, is this the picture the White House wants? CEOs who come to the people's house and then get rushed out so they don't have to deal with press questions?

yes. that is EXACTLY what they want. Duh - where the f*ck have you been for the past 10 years chuckles? Nobody in the D.C. inner circle wants to have to deal with the dirty peasants.

Is there something preventing these reporters from calling the people who went to the event and asking their thoughts?

Weaver95: yes. that is EXACTLY what they want. Duh - where the f*ck have you been for the past 10 years chuckles? Nobody in the D.C. inner circle wants to have to deal with the dirty peasants.

Freedom of the press doesn't mean people have to answer your questions if they don't want to. Like it says in the link, anyone was free to go over and talk to the press if they wanted.

Weaver95: Seriously, is this the picture the White House wants? CEOs who come to the people's house and then get rushed out so they don't have to deal with press questions?

yes. that is EXACTLY what they want. Duh - where the f*ck have you been for the past 10 years chuckles? Nobody in the D.C. inner circle wants to have to deal with the dirty peasants.

Or, intelligently, Obama is creating an environment that isn't hostile for his audience, you know, so they come.

DamnYankees: Freedom of the press doesn't mean people have to answer your questions if they don't want to. Like it says in the link, anyone was free to go over and talk to the press if they wanted.

Oh yes, just cross that rope line in the white house....see how far you get with that.

As for the rest...hey, you're right. nobody HAS to talk to the press corp. But they sure are avoiding them like the plague. Now, I don't know about you but when a bunch of businessmen all stop talking when a reporter comes into the room, I get a bit suspicious. I start to wonder what it is they're up to in those closed door meetings. But hey, that's just me. I'm that kinda guy. I'm sure you see nothing wrong here at all, right?

gustakooka: Weaver95: Seriously, is this the picture the White House wants? CEOs who come to the people's house and then get rushed out so they don't have to deal with press questions?

yes. that is EXACTLY what they want. Duh - where the f*ck have you been for the past 10 years chuckles? Nobody in the D.C. inner circle wants to have to deal with the dirty peasants.

Or, intelligently, Obama is creating an environment that isn't hostile for his audience, you know, so they come.

I didn't trust Bush when he manipulated the press, I don't see why I should trust Obama when he does something similar.

Weaver95: Oh yes, just cross that rope line in the white house....see how far you get with that.

the rope line impeded press from going up to CEOs, not the other way around.

This is like that time a fox news reporter (DANGER REPORTER) went to some sort of anti-war protest, and started yelling that the people who told him to fark off because he worked for fox news hated free speech.

Freedom of press means you can write whatever you want. It doesn't mean you can interview whoever you want.

thomps: Weaver95: Oh yes, just cross that rope line in the white house....see how far you get with that.

the rope line impeded press from going up to CEOs, not the other way around.

Ponder the implications of that statement for a moment.

How the hell is this a 1st Amendment issue? Were you expressly forbidden to ever attempt to communicate with these people?

You know who they are and where they work. You're a reporter, do some legwork and contact them.

/likes Chuck, but this is fkn stupid.

Beat us up all you want, but this isn't about us whining, it's about us not even being able to do the job you want us to do and that is be the people's questioner here.

Gosh, Chuck, if only there were some way to contact the people involved afterward, through the phone or by email, perhaps.


But, of course, having a respectable debate on this issue with some is impossible. The irony, of course, is that many of you would be just as upset about the lack of access as I am if the occupant of the White House were someone else.

My guess (and it's only that, mind you) is that this is the same way things were done during the previous administration.

Weaver95: gustakooka: Weaver95: Seriously, is this the picture the White House wants? CEOs who come to the people's house and then get rushed out so they don't have to deal with press questions?

yes. that is EXACTLY what they want. Duh - where the f*ck have you been for the past 10 years chuckles? Nobody in the D.C. inner circle wants to have to deal with the dirty peasants.

Or, intelligently, Obama is creating an environment that isn't hostile for his audience, you know, so they come.

I didn't trust Bush when he manipulated the press, I don't see why I should trust Obama when he does something similar.

This is in no way manipulating the press.

gustakooka: This is in no way manipulating the press.

Nah, the white house just kept the press away from a bunch of CEOs on the eve of passing the biggest stimulus package this country has ever seen.

Because, y'know, we have to keep those corporate officers safe from the evil press corp.

Weaver95: I'm sure you see nothing wrong here at all, right?

Not really. There's no duty on anyone to talk to the press. Just because I might come to the White House to watch the President give a speech doesn't mean I should be forced to hold a press conference. The reporters were in the room for the speech and they are free to contact anyone in that room later on. I really don't see a problem here.

Weaver95: Ponder the implications of that statement for a moment.

The implications being that private citizens have no duty to speak to the press just because they went on government property?

DamnYankees: Weaver95: I'm sure you see nothing wrong here at all, right?

Not really. There's no duty on anyone to talk to the press. Just because I might come to the White House to watch the President give a speech doesn't mean I should be forced to hold a press conference. The reporters were in the room for the speech and they are free to contact anyone in that room later on. I really don't see a problem here.

Weaver95: Ponder the implications of that statement for a moment.

The implications being that private citizens have no duty to speak to the press just because they went on government property?

kool aid. you haz some.

The author of the article needs to quit whining. Obama wants these people to come to his events so he needs to create an environment that isn't hostile to them.

Does Obama even have to invite the press to these events? Couldn't he do this stuff behind closed doors?

Weaver95: As for the rest...hey, you're right. nobody HAS to talk to the press corp. But they sure are avoiding them like the plague. Now, I don't know about you but when a bunch of businessmen all stop talking when a reporter comes into the room, I get a bit suspicious. I start to wonder what it is they're up to in those closed door meetings. But hey, that's just me. I'm that kinda guy. I'm sure you see nothing wrong here at all, right?

I'm sure businesses would love to publish their private business models and strategies in the papers. I'm sure you don't talk as much with your friends when cops are around. I guess that means they have a right to be suspicious of you.

Weaver95: thomps: Weaver95: Oh yes, just cross that rope line in the white house....see how far you get with that.

the rope line impeded press from going up to CEOs, not the other way around.

Ponder the implications of that statement for a moment.

Dude, you're off target here. The reporter knows who was there. He was on a deadline and didn't prepare properly by contacting the CEOs directly. Therefore, he is currently biatching not having the CEOs brought directly to him.

It's like a student complaining that the teacher didn't directly provide sources for a paper rather than said student going to the library his or herself.

Weaver95: I didn't trust Bush when he manipulated the press, I don't see why I should trust Obama when he does something similar.

Obama would be manipulating the press if he gave this speech w/o allowing the press to hear it. Notice how Todd doesn't say ANYTHING about the content of the speech, just that he wasn't allowed to talk to anyone there.

I'm perfectly willing to call Obama out when he does something I disagree with, but this isn't it.

gustakooka: Mordant: why do people have so much trouble understanding the 1st Amendment ? Seems like every week there's a thread about some conservative being denied their first amendment rights because a traffic light went red while they were driving to lunch.

Conservative? Is Chuck Todd conservative?

This is Fark. Here at Fark, a conservative is defined as any person who criticizes a Democrat for any reason at all.

The Fark politics tab is just Democratic Underground 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Weaver95: Ponder the implications of that statement for a moment.

a smoothly-operated meeting between white house and business leaders? the press is more than welcomed to contact those people afterwards.

Weaver95: Nah, the white house just kept the press away from a bunch of CEOs on the eve of passing the biggest stimulus package this country has ever seen.

During the meeting. The White House has in no way kept the press from contacting these people afterward. Rather than spending a bunch of time whining, why isn't Chuck on the phone setting up interviews? You know, doing his job?

Weaver95: Nah, the white house just kept the press away from a bunch of CEOs on the eve of passing the biggest stimulus package this country has ever seen.

These people have phones, emails, secretaries, press offices etc. Obama didn't put a gag order on these people. Chuck Todd can do some legwork to get his story.

Weaver95: kool aid. you haz some.

Ah, the inevitable insult and condescension when you run out of arguments. I enjoy most of the time, Weaver, but you're really not good at defending your positions.

Todd is wrong in that this is a direct First Amendment violation, but then on the other hand, free access of the press in government functions is precisely what the FA is supposed to assure. So, he is correct in a sense, though not to the degree of his outrage, that this is a limitation on the press that is at odds with the intent of the First Amendment. OTOH, the rope may have been protecting the food from the press corps. If the White House press corps is anything like the sportswriters I dealt with at the NCAA tournament a decade ago, they will attack any spread of food with the voracity of a pack of wild, starving dogs. Largely this is because the blow their per diem on booze and rely on the spread at press conferences for sustenance. It was so bad, Rick Majerus bummed a couple bucks off of me for the snack machine.

Ryan2065: I'm sure businesses would love to publish their private business models and strategies in the papers. I'm sure you don't talk as much with your friends when cops are around. I guess that means they have a right to be suspicious of you.

here's the best part - thanks to the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' you and I are already considered 'guilty' of having committed a crime! yay change!

So a bunch of important business people get invited to the white house. meanwhile, congress passes that massive spending bill. And then after it's all done, the press isn't permitted to speak with the corporate officers. Oh, sure - the press could always phone the guys later...but that's why CEO's have secretaries - to screen out phone calls from reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about what might have been said in a closed door meeting.

Then along come the apologists who STILL can't see that there's a problem with *anyone* in the federal government having a cozy relationship with the white house.

Fine. Keep pretending that things will be different. I guess we'll have to wait and for you all to ONCE AGAIN see that I was right when I said 'trust none of them'.

what_now: This is like that time a fox news reporter (DANGER REPORTER) went to some sort of anti-war protest, and started yelling that the people who told him to fark off because he worked for fox news hated free speech.

I got a kick out of that. It would be funnier if some people didn't believe it was true.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: kool aid. you haz some.

Ah, the inevitable insult and condescension when you run out of arguments. I enjoy most of the time, Weaver, but you're really not good at defending your positions.

Nope, i'm just disgusted to see you shut your brain off and coast.

Nabb1: free access of the press in government functions is precisely what the FA is supposed to assure.

Is it? I always interpreted the freedom of the press to mean a lack of censorship and a right to publish/express any information you have in the public square. That's very different from a right to having access.

I see the Freedom of Information Act as being much more along the lines you describe.

Weaver95: Nope, i'm just disgusted to see you shut your brain off and coast.

Ah, the inevitable insult and condescension when you run out of arguments. I enjoy most of the time, Weaver, but you're really not good at defending your positions.

Weaver95: Oh, sure - the press could always phone the guys later...but that's why CEO's have secretaries - to screen out phone calls from reporters who ask uncomfortable questions about what might have been said in a closed door meeting.

It WASN'T a closed door meeting. The press was there! Also, let's say the Whitehouse did allow reporters to ask questions- a private citizen is under no obligation to answer them. Todd is pissed because he didn't get his article neatly wrapped up for him.

Weaver95: Then along come the apologists who STILL can't see that there's a problem with *anyone* in the federal government having a cozy relationship with the white house.

Quizzical dog? What did you mean to say there?

what_now: Weaver95: Nah, the white house just kept the press away from a bunch of CEOs on the eve of passing the biggest stimulus package this country has ever seen.

These people have phones, emails, secretaries, press offices etc. Obama didn't put a gag order on these people. Chuck Todd can do some legwork to get his story.

now if there was just some way to get past the secretary and private security guards....

whatever. continue to be deluded. i'm going to go make dinner.

Weaver95: kool aid. you haz some.

You should really save your frustration for when something frustrating actually happens.

Seriously, whining because the White House cordoned off reporters so they wouldn't ruin a meeting and photo-op? Happens hundreds of times a day, all over the country.

Chuck is whining because he apparently doesn't really have much interest in doing the work of a journalist now that he's in the White House press corps - he wants stories handed to him. There is no requirement for the CEOs (or anybody, for that matter) to grant interviews whenever they're in the White House, and I'm not certain why Chuck (or you) believes otherwise.

DamnYankees: Weaver95: Nope, i'm just disgusted to see you shut your brain off and coast.

Ah, the inevitable insult and condescension when you run out of arguments. I enjoy most of the time, Weaver, but you're really not good at defending your positions.

koolaid. you haz some.

Weaver95: now if there was just some way to get past the secretary and private security guards....

So you want some sort of law which makes corporate officers forced to have press conferences or something? I have no idea what system you are thinking of.

Weaver95: now if there was just some way to get past the secretary and private security guards....

again...had chuck todd been allowed to say "Mr. CEO-difficult question", Mr. CEO doesn't have to answer him anymore than he has to take his phone call.

Weaver95: And then after it's all done, the press isn't permitted to speak with the corporate officers.

Really? So the CEOs can't go up to the press and talk to them?

Weaver95: Then along come the apologists who STILL can't see that there's a problem with *anyone* in the federal government having a cozy relationship with the white house.

Wait, what?

Weaver95: thanks to the 'war on drugs' and the 'war on terror' you and I are already considered 'guilty' of having committed a crime! yay change!

Obama has given states the right to run the own medical marijuana facilities without being raided by the DEA.

With the recession, more and more states are considering complete decriminalization. That has NOTHING to do with "yay change" that seems to be some sort of snide attack at the new administration.

I like you Weaver, but you're just retarded if you think this is any sort of violation of rights. If a CEO has something to hide is there any difference between trying to speak with him through his secretary and trying to speak with him while he's there?

Odds are that he won't be forthcoming in either case.

Unbunch your panties.

El Freak: gustakooka: Mordant: why do people have so much trouble understanding the 1st Amendment ? Seems like every week there's a thread about some conservative being denied their first amendment rights because a traffic light went red while they were driving to lunch.

Conservative? Is Chuck Todd conservative?

This is Fark. Here at Fark, a conservative is defined as any person who criticizes a Democrat for any reason at all.

The Fark politics tab is just Democratic Underground 2: Electric Boogaloo.

I should know that by now.

absoluteparanoia: With the recession, more and more states are considering complete decriminalization. That has NOTHING to do with "yay change" that seems to be some sort of snide attack at the new administration.

I also wondered - give the recent SC decision in California which said they had to release prisoners to reduce overcrowding, why the hell not release everyone who is in jail for drug use or possession? Seems like a two-birds sort of thing.

Weaver95: now if there was just some way to get past the secretary and private security guards....

whatever. continue to be deluded. i'm going to go make dinner.

Brilliant! Take away the CEO's rights!

DamnYankees: I also wondered - give the recent SC decision in California which said they had to release prisoners to reduce overcrowding, why the hell not release everyone who is in jail for drug use or possession? Seems like a two-birds sort of thing.

Eh? They're first they're going after technical parole violators first. The idiots who get drunk while on parole, or are unemployed, or see their old friends, or violate any number of asinine parole requirements despite making efforts at being reformed.