Wednesday, May 29, 2013

New York Times announces boycott of DOJ Chief's " Off the record " presser...... why would reports attend an event they can't report on any way ? Apart from the New York Times , AP and Huff Post boycotting off the record presser by Holder....

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/29/too-dumb-to-check-holders-huddle-with-media-on-press-freedoms-will-be-off-the-record/


Too dumb to check: Holder’s huddle with media on press freedoms will be … off the record;Update: NYT to boycott; Update: DNC spokesman whines at NYT

POSTED AT 4:41 PM ON MAY 29, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

  
Gut-check time for the press: If they’re truly offended by the DOJ’s secret snooping on James Rosen and the AP, they won’t agree to attend Holder’s gladhanding session unless/until he agrees to make it on the record, right? Press freedom and government transparency are either important or they’re not. If they’re not, then yeah, an off-the-record session in which the powers that be privately assure a guild that they’re on their side will do just fine. Happens all the time in the Obama White House.
The news of a meeting between Holder and the bureau chiefs comes amid widespread criticism from journalists and civil liberties advocates over the DOJ’s seizure of Associated Press phone records and an accusation that Fox News reporter James Rosen could be part of a criminal conspiracy for his reporting.
The fact that Holder is meeting with the bureau chiefs is on the record, but Nanda Chitre, acting director of the DOJ’s public affairs office, confirmed to The Huffington Post that the meeting itself will be off the record. Media organizations, however, will surely want such a newsworthy meeting with the attorney general to be on the record, and it remains to be seen if they will agree to meet under off-the-record ground rules.
How many off-the-record, on-the-QT, and very-hush-hush meetings have Obama or his lieutenants scheduled with favored members of the media lately? There was the one with the White House press corps on May 10 to talk about the IRS scandal that began as off-the-record but ended up as “deep background” after people started murmuring about it on Twitter. There was the instantly-infamous one on May 21 in which online Obama-water-carrying glitterati were called in for a consultation on Scandalmania. There was another one last Thursday with foreign-policy reporters after O’s big speech in which he tried to B.S. them about his drone policy having changed when, evidently, it really hadn’t. And now here’s Holder, willing to talk to the press about how sorry-ish he is for rifling through their phone records and e-mails in pursuit of leakers but not willing to do it in a forum where anyone outside the room will know what he said. Free idea for the media: Why not insist on a televised Holder press conference instead? This whole “remorse” shtick is pure theatrical garbage designed to save his job. If he’s determined to perform, make him perform in front of an audience. Let’s see what sort of crocodile tears he can muster when the camera’s on.
Via the Standard, here’s Jay Carney politely ducking the question of whether Holder perjured himself before the House committee.
Update: The irony is too much for the Times.
Michael Calderone @mlcalderone
Jill Abramson says NY Times "will not be attending the session at DOJ," citing off the record ground rules.
Michael Calderone @mlcalderone
Jill Abramson: "It isn’t appropriate for us to attend an off the record meeting with the attorney general."
Update: The chief flack for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s DNC wishes you to know that it’s the Times’s fault for not accepting a private audience with his unaccountable holiness, Eric Holder.
Brad Woodhouse @woodhouseb
POTUS asked AG to review how leak investigations are done but some in the media refuse to meet with him. Kind of forfeits your right gripe.
Update: Thanks to Woodhouse, Holder’s (and Obama’s) headache is getting worse…
Update: Here’s another reason to want the meeting on the record: It puts pressure on reporters in the room to be tougher too.
Brian Wilson        ✔ @BrianWilsonDC
No disrespect intended -- but I've been to some of these off-the-record bureau chief tea parties. The chiefs ask wimpy-ass questions.
Washington Post okay with being chumps ? 

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/29/wapo-editor-set-to-cave-on-holders-demand-for-off-the-record-meeting-on-leak-investigations/

WaPo editor set to cave on Holder’s demand for off-the-record meeting on leak investigations?

POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON MAY 29, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

  
Embarrassing. The Huffington Post, an overtly liberal outfit, claims it’ll join the Times in boycotting the meeting, and yet Washington’s paper of record can’t similarly muster the will to resist the DOJ’s surreal demand for opacity while discussing transparency?
Kudos to WaPo’s Erik Wemple for reporting this out, knowing that he’s not endearing himself to his boss in doing so:
Martin Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post, said, “I prefer that any meeting be on the record. That said, journalists routinely participate in off-the-record sessions, whether they prefer those conditions or not, and then continue to report on events. I am going to this meeting in order to represent our interests as journalists and to raise our concerns. I’ll also listen to what the Attorney General has to say. I trust that our journalists will report on this as vigorously as they would any other subject.”…
Ryan Grim, the Washington bureau chief of the Huffington Post, said, “Off-the-record would not fly. … I don’t need to go in there with a tape recorder and wiretap the meeting. But I imagine I’m free to talk about what’s said in there.”…
What will likely happen here is a classic and most absurd game: Attendees at the meeting — both media reps and Justice Department officials — will give rundowns to reporters who were not in attendance, likely on background (i.e., for publication but without their names attached). News pieces will be pieced together on such sourcing. The low point: Reporters could well end up quoting their own bosses as “sources.” A total embarrassment, in other words.
An official in the Most Transparent Justice Department Evah told Wemple that they want the meetings off the record because, quote, “This format will best facilitate the candid, free-flowing discussions we hope to have in order to bring about meaningful engagement.” I’m curious to know which “candid” remarks Holder feels comfortable making with the digital recorders switched off but not on. Is his big charm offensive designed to make amends to the media or to the public? There’s been lots of lip service paid over the past few weeks about the public’s right to know what its government is up to; the deeper injury in the Rosen/AP probes supposedly isn’t to the media itself but to the public’s ability to hold its elected officials accountable. If Holder “regrets” how those probes were handled, then his remorse should be expressed to the public at large. By calling for an off-the-record meeting, he’s indicating that he sees this as more between him and the journalistic guild than between him and the public. It’s uncomfortably clubby, as if he’s trying to schmooze the editors with an intimate apology that flatters their egos rather than articulate the Department’s policy going forward. And it makes perfect sense if you assume that his real goal here isn’t to revamp the DOJ’s protocols for investigating leaks but rather to grovel to the point that the media backs off him before the “Holder must go” meme starts to take hold among the wider public. These meetings are all about shaping elite opinion, which in turn will shape public opinion. And the way to influence elites is to flatter them with special access. O prizes secrecy, but he’s willing to include big-media editors in that secrecy if it gets them to ease up on him.
Exit question via Michael Gerson: Why does Holder still have a job?
Update: The AP’s out.
“We believe the meeting should be on the record and we have said that to the Attorney General’s office. If it is on the record, AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll will attend. If it is not on the record, AP will not attend and instead will offer our views on how the regulations should be updated in an open letter,” AP spokesperson Erin Madigan said in a statement sent to POLITICO. “We would expect AP attorneys to be included in any planned meetings between the Attorney General’s office and media lawyers on the legal specifics.”




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)