47 Comments »

1. kennedy6979 said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 10:40 am

   This is clearly no surprise. Anyone who has viewed/heard questions? asked/said at most White House press conferences would not be surprised by this letter.

2. Boghie said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 10:54 am

   There was a time when I might have cared…

   That time is long past. These petulant turds deserve nothing. Make them actually work for their ill informed opinion screeds.

   I wonder if FoxNews will sue any of these slugs who use their vaunted PhotoShop skills to take out the FoxNews logo from the images. Maybe Jamil Hussein will be the lead source for the inside scoop on the speech and everything.

3. keogh said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 11:07 am

   I don’t see any bias in asking for greater access to the president.
   Its seems that you are grasping for straws here…

4. Stella Baskomb said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 11:16 am

   “Forcing newspapers and magazines to rely on a screen grab photo from the Fox News network pool feed is simply unacceptable.”

   Why?

5. drjohn said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 11:29 am

   The usual suspects.

   The whiners.

   Loven routinely falsifies stories.

   Allen is a rump buddy of Chrissie Matthews and Keith Blundermann.

   No, Bartlett did fine.

6. Patrick said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 11:31 am

   Translation - the White House official photo pack won’t include a single picture of the President with a dumb look on his face, or picking his nose, and this is unacceptable. In the strongest possible terms, we object to our Constitutional right to make this President look bad. Signed, blablabla.

7. Peach said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 12:09 pm

   These photographers provide a vital service to wires, magazines and newspapers around the world, while also serving as a lasting historical record to the events of our times.

   Yeah right…Jennifer Loven? Besides, I do not recall any photo in her anti-bush pretend to be news stories.

   Gawd they are arrogant twits.

8. Rick Lee said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 12:25 pm

   I’m a still photographer myself and when I heard that they barred all still photographers from this, I was baffled. I mean, if they are concerned about the noise that cameras make, you can put a blimp on the camera. It didn’t occur to me until I read Patrick’s comment that what they were concerned about was the tendency of the print media to choose a photo that makes the president look bad, or stupid or sad or whatever. They certainly aren’t going to choose a photo that makes him look commanding or statesmanlike. As a still photographer, I know that you can cover a speech and shoot 300 shots and choose just about any “look” that you care to. It’s all up to the person doing the choosing. I don’t know what to think about this. I don’t think it’s a good idea to bar still photographers, but I also sympathize somewhat with the White House handlers in that they are at the mercy of editors who may want to portray the president in the worst possible light.

9. D Gorton said,

   January 13, 2007 @ 12:37 pm

   I was the White House photographer for the New York Times during the Carter and Reagan administration. The only time we were barred from our customary access to the President was during the “malaise” speech by Carter. Otherwise we were treated courteously and respectfully by the Reagan staff. It is always a bad idea for an administration to curb access irregardless of concerns about whether they will “look bad”. That’s the price one pays for taking on the deep responsibilies of elected office. And don’t make too many assumptions about the political opinions of the newsphotographers. I don’t know how many times the photogs told the columnists and others to stuff it when they made disparaging remarks about Reagan.

10. bryan said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 12:45 pm

    That’s the price one pays for taking on the deep responsibilies of elected office.

    I think you’ve got it precisely backwards. Denial of access is the price one pays for repeated disrespect of the President.

11. Gerald Hibbs said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm

    A liberal friend of mine works at the Kansas City Star and related this story. A bunch of people in the news room were standing around a table looking at a bunch of pictures of Bush to pick one for the front page of the paper. One of them says, “This one makes him look like an a**hole, let’s use this one.” to which the crowd of people laughed and agreed that that indeed was the perfect photo.

    I wouldn’t want to give these “unbiased journalists” a choice of photos either. On a related note, has anyone ever found a photo of the lesbian seeming Janet Reno with the naked female statue highlighted behind her when she was Attorney General? Anyone?

12. Ken said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:10 pm

    Nothing new here. Press whining. Dog bites man. Move along.

13. Larry said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:26 pm

    The situation begs the question, “Just how many photos of the POTUS do they need?”

14. Cmdr. Subfleet said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:34 pm

    bryan comments: “I think you’ve got it precisely backwards.”

    Amen to that! In fact, selected members of the press should have had their access curtailed a long time ago! Either play nice (and mature) or get sent home.

    D Gorton, opines: “…for an administration to curb access irregardless of concerns…”

    I see you’re amongst the ranks of the poorly educated. “Irregardless” is not a word. I know, I know, it has recently been added to the dictionary, but, only after years of misuse by the uneducated. Still, its use by supposedly intelligent people, call into question their credibility.

    Cmdr. Subfleet

15. Tom said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

    The press association is absolutely correct here. The American people — in this case, via their news media — have a right, indeed an obligation, to chronicle their own history.

    We deserve to have a citizen-generated record of the important moments in our own story. An American president is not a king; he is “us.” This was a historic speech. It deserves to be recorded, in person, by the citizenry. A single video feed doesn’t cut it.

    Before the ad hominems start, note that I’m an ardent supporter of the president and his war policy. I also recognize the failings of much of the popular media. But that doesn’t mean I think the country’s business should happen without the country having access that’s as comprehensive as possible.

16. Bob said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

    So what media outlet was it that had the camera on while the president was getting prepped before speaking? That footage was leaked to much mirth. That’s happened more than once and I don’t blame him for limiting their access this time.

17. newc said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 1:47 pm

    Too funny. Let em eat scraps, old dogs.

18. The Other Larry said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 2:01 pm

    Larry, Gerald Hibbs pretty much answered that question. This is a pretty petulant complaint considering how many freebies these people get, including free office space IN the White House, built over an olympic-sized pool put in by Lyndon Johnson. I’ll bet the President doesn’t even know there’s a pool in the White House.

    A good response to that letter is to announce that the multi-billion dollar corpoations that own these news outfits will have to rent their own office space, because the pool will be restored.

19. mrsizer said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 2:18 pm

    And still photographs count as the only valid means of “to chornicle [our] own history”?

    Welcome to the 21st century. Still photos - magazines and newspapers, too, for that matter - or as relevant as the buggy whip. If I were elected President - yeah, that will happen - my first act would be to convert the press room to useful office space. Put a webcam on Tony Snow’s desk and you join the WebEx meeting if you care.

20. Max said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 2:42 pm

    As the old saying goes, who am I supposed to believe? You or my lying eyes?

    I agree completely with the high minded (patriotic!) claims for serving a public interest. It should be that way. However, the actual implementation is 180 degrees off. We are getting the most blatant partisan propaganda. Screw ‘em

21. Jamie said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

    So what was the important thing - the substance of the speech, or the facial contortions of the person making it? If the President had had a mouthful of Novocaine following emergency oral surgery, but the speech absolutely had to go on and he gave it, would the press corps have been respectful of and willing to overlook his temporary infirmity, and if not, why not?

    Sheesh. A little over a century ago, the majority of the American people still had to wait for a plain-Jane newspaper column quoting a Presidential address in order to know what the President said. Knowing what the President said was considered the important thing, not the color of his tie, whether he was holding hands with his wife, the tone of his voice, or his accent. What’s this demand - “We can take pictures and therefore taking pictures is our Constitutional right”?

    So ISTM that the issue is not that the press corps is exhibiting bias by asking for an irrelevant form of access, but that the press corps, having shown repeatedly what it tends to do with that access, is being childish by getting its knickers in a twist over its lack.

22. Earnest Iconoclast said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 2:57 pm

    They even got the text of the speech well before the actual speech was given. That seems like a whole lot more accomodating than allowing still photographs of a speech. Is it important what the President looks like? I think that’s one of the problems with the media today. Presidents must look good to be electable. In the past, we’ve had some ugly Presidents, crippled Presidents, etc… that would never happen today.

    EI

23. Carol Herman said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

    Seems still photographers have more brains when they photograph Donald Trump!

    And, what are they crying about, here? Seems their editors still want to choose ugly pictures.

    And, ya know what? You don’t need to be present to capture lots of shots, and then choose only the cheap ones. You could do what the AP does. Just make the stuff up from whole cloth.

    I notice Rick Lee comments. And, yes. He’s a marvelous still photographer. But he wouldn’t make much of a living, if his whole purpose at a shoot was to pick the worst examples. Seems like that’s a good way to go out of business.

    And, there’s nothing wrong with teaching journalists (who have no math and science skills to speak of), a few of the basic rules of business. You want to be hired? Your work portfolio should be a gem.

    That it is not where Bush is concerned, just shows ya why the media “business” keeps losing subscribers, as well.

    And, nothing can fix this!

    Again, nothing can fix mother-russia, either. Too many years hitting the vodka bottles. And, fantasizing about middle management skills.

    Weak resumes lead to disasterous choices. And, ya know what else? Bush PICKED THE WINNING APPROACH! Ya gotta do that sometimes. When the kitchen “halp” keeps spitting into the soup.

    If this were a game, how many years would it take for a “professional photographer” to figure out that what’s inside the camera is ALL his! And, choosing to embarass the President hasn’t amounted to winning any awards for ugliness, has it?

    Of course, “that” is not in this letter! The ability to get awarded a prize for junk!

    Always wonderful to watch how this President reacts to the crap that infests “publishing.” Just in case you thought it was only Helen Thomas. Good to see, too, that Tony Snow can handle the chutzpah-dinks. He doesn’t even have to slap them. The letter, itself, speaks to the losses you get when you have absolutely no common sense. (While the camera companies have no elimated “red eye.” They’re even moving to do this from pets’ photos! So while the world turns, the average person using a cell phone, can get stuff out there, and seen around the globe. Ya know, the media got locked out of the hallway where Saddam got hung, don’t cha? That’s another prize category that the “professionals” won’t get to collect when the awards season rolls around.

24. Tom said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 3:13 pm

    I have to say, I am genuinely surprised by the number of people who are willing to advocate for government behind closed doors. People who are presumably conservatives, at that.

    This issue is not about a specific speech that took place on Jan. 10, 2007, or about a particular institution that we happen to describe as “the press corps.” It is about a principle: that American governance should be open and accessible to the republic’s citizens.

    Perhaps there are valid practical arguments against the presence of photographers in this specific case: noise from cameras, insufficient space, whatever. Wanna make those arguments? That’s cool. What’s not a valid argument is “I’ve detected bias among certain media outlets, I’ve heard reporters ask dumb questions, I perceive journalists as arrogant, therefore citizens should not be permitted to photograph a U.S. leader.”

25. Shad said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

    Advocating for government behind closed doors? Heh.

    This was a televised speech, announced in advance and broadcast worldwide. You’d have to be an idiot or a member of the MSM (but I repeat myself) to consider this “government behind closed doors.”

    There’s a reason why no one takes these petty complaints from buffoons like you seriously anymore, Tom.

26. wlpeak said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 3:39 pm

    Perhaps the photographers were removed to make room for the ‘History in the making’ portraitists? It takes a lot of room to accurately draw these important events and the American public DEMAND the White House honor these artists RIGHT to draw!!!

    Say, do they provide the crayons or do we have to bring our own?

27. Tom said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 5:38 pm

    Shad,

    That the speech was broadcast doesn’t mean the doors weren’t closed, metaphorically speaking. Obviously they were — hence the press association’s complaint, whether or not you believe the complaint has actual value.

    You may find the issue to be petty. I find it to be important. It is representative of a bigger principle, and symbolism matters.

    What’s petty, to my mind, is flippantly dismissing the organization’s complaint simply because one dislikes some of the organization’s members.

    What’s also petty is responding to someone’s polite and well-intentioned blog comments, written in good faith, with personal attacks about “buffoons” and such. You may want to consider which approach is more apt to be “taken seriously” in the long run.

28. Chaos said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 5:44 pm

    I don’t understand. This was a historic event, the people have a right to record it for history, blah blah blah…

    So I guess the speech was just transmitted live and not recorded at all or something? This argument about the citizens having a right to “record history” or whatever is laughable bullshit. What do you think was happening with the TV cameras?

29. Clyde said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 5:46 pm

    Fourth Estate = Fifth Column.

30. Tom said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 6:17 pm

    “I don’t understand.”

    I believe you are correct.

31. Stanley said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 7:53 pm

    Earnest Iconoclast said: In the past, we’ve had some ugly Presidents, crippled Presidents, etc… that would never happen today.
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    It depends upon the President’s party.

32. Shad said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 9:06 pm

    Tom,

    If you wish to not be called a buffoon, I would suggest that you not characterize a Presidential speech that was widely hyped in advance and broadcast worldwide as “government behind closed doors”, nor characterize the refusal of the White House to make special accommodations for certain members of the press as a declaration that “citizens should not be permitted to photograph a U.S. leader.”

    That sort of mindless, hysterical hyperbole will indeed make most people treat you as a decidedly unserious buffoon.

33. Tolstoy said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 11:07 pm

    Apart from the motives of the people who complained, are we to understand from this event that our White House is sufficiently worried about public reaction as to think it necessary to take such a step at this time? I mean, even if you think the press crew are creeps, doesn’t it still seem a risky move to shut them out? Sounds more like fear than disciplinary principle. Besides, the video was not all that Reaganesque anyway. Bush didn’t look bad, but he didn’t look great either. what do you think?

34. Tom Hindman said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 11:15 pm

    The still photographers should have been there, period. It was an event that merited coverage & in my 30 plus years in the press corp I have watched it being chiseled away. In my world we would have simply pulled a stock head shot, and that’s not right either.

35. Robin Roberts said,

    January 13, 2007 @ 11:36 pm

    Its the White House Petulance Corps.

36. Assistant Village Idiot said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 12:07 am

    D Gorton – what about the price one pays for the deep responsibilities of being the recorder of history, and keeping your own bias out of it? I grant that the newsphotogs might well be more objective than the columnists. But if they’re not choosing the shots for print, what of it?

    Look up “irregardless,” BTW.

    Tom. Nice to equate the press corps with the American people and the citizenry. They arrogate that title to themselves by default, but they don’t deserve it. Theoretically, you are correct. But by abdicating its responsibility as a reasonably unbiased source, the press has lost its credential as representative of the people. We need another representative for keeping the records. The press corps is not an institution. It could have served that function, but it failed. Wanting a better representative for myself is not advocating for government behind closed doors.

    Tom Hindman – just because the event merited coverage doesn’t identify who gets that right.

    All three – the automatic equating of the MSM with the public’s right to know is a bit dated.

37. DaveS said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 12:53 am

    ***:But by abdicating its responsibility as a reasonably unbiased source, the press has lost its credential as representative of the people.”

    Actually, as Mitt Romney recently reminded a reporter who claimed such a “credential”, it is the guy they are covering–in this case George W. Bush–who represents the people. The press never has and never will represent the people, despite their claims to the contrary… especially in the modern day of media bias and activism.

38. Dexter Westbrook said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 2:55 am

    Maybe none of you media-bashing morons realize it, but a picture taken from a video “screen grab” looks awful. If one’s motive is to make the president look bad, you can certainly do it using a video screen grab as well. These people want to take photos with decent resolution, and you gibbering nitwits make it out as some great case of media bias, and make up stories to bolster your pathetic arguments. You deserve the government you get. F**k off.

39. AST said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 5:03 am

    Is there something in the Constitution that requires the government to provide access to these people? If I were Tony Snow, I’d start applying the Uniform Rules of Evidence and objecting to all their argumentative and accusing “questions” and presumptions of facts not in evidence. If they want to speculate, they have every right to do so, but they don’t have to waste everybody’s time trying to add substance to the insubstantial.

    To me it’s like abortion. Just because you have a right to do it doesn’t mean the government has to pay for it. Freedom of the press means writing and publishing what you want, but it shouldn’t require the government accede to your every whim.

    “Simply unacceptable”? Who appointed these jerks to decide what’s acceptable or not? And if it’s unacceptable to them, who cares?

40. y7 said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 9:11 am

    Proof again that the Left has lost all critical thinking skills. Example, we are arguing about having to take screencaps from that bugaboo FOX NEWS!!! The Outrage!!! Plus, as this comment thread indicates, screencaps are low quality.

    “Forcing newspapers and magazines to rely on a screen grab photo from the Fox News network pool feed is simply unacceptable.”

    But were they forced to use only screencaps from the evil bugaboo FOX NEWS?!?! I think not.

    “In addition, a White House photo release is never an acceptable substitute for independent news coverage. ”

    It is not acceptable because the White House Press Corps have been deprived an opportunity to catch the President making monkey lips and posting it to the front pages. Perfectly acceptable punishment for a press corps that proven itself hostile. It explains the press corps stance on Iran though…”We hate you and wish the worst for you but we still expect you to be nice to us.”

41. y7 said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 9:14 am

    “Please, give us the tools to destroy you!”

42. y7 said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 9:23 am

    Here is an experiment anyone can try. Find a person that doesn’t like you, let them take non-stop pictures of you over a 20 minute speech, and let them post the photo of their choosing to the company website. Then obtain all the pictures and see if they picked the one that makes you look the best.

    The Press corps are complaining about not being able to choose the shitty photo of their choice, not the poor resolution of the screencap. Well, the poor resolution makes it more difficult to get a goofy looking photo of the president to go viral with so that is a sub-complaint.

43. Cmdr. Subfleet said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 4:08 pm

    Tolstoy scribbles: Apart from the motives of the people who complained, blah³…Even more BLAH³! Bush didn’t look bad, but he didn’t look great either. what do you think?

    I think you should get busy writing a sequel to War and Peace!

    Cmdr.

44. boure said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 11:18 pm

    You know when you’ve been called media-bashing morons and gibbering nitwits then told to F**k off, you’ve reached the point of bankruptcy.

    My i- interpolater automatically red flags messages containing the word “irregardless,” Double negative. Cross between irrespective and regardless.

    I’m embarrassed for the corps, since they’re not embarrassed for themselves. Shudder whenever I hear a member deliver a declarative in the form of an interrogative. So that’s a lot of shuddering. Click when I hear one go, “some people say…”

    The phrase, “with all due respect” is reliably followed by something disrespectful.

45. Assistant Village Idiot said,

    January 14, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

    High school civics should include a week on exposing interviewing techniques.

    Okay, I lied. We should have a short segment on it every year in school.

46. Boghie said,

    January 15, 2007 @ 1:14 pm

    Tom,

    Tell me again, why as a citizen of the United States of America - during wartime (and I know most of your profession does not think we are at war) - I am forced to place into history another photo selected by a childish press corps that tries to outdo each other in the picking of smirks and pursed lips of a leader at war.

    This was a serious speech at a serious time.

    While the still photographers might be serious people - but, that seems to be in question as well - your editors are not serious people.

    Would the WWII press corps select an especially weak and powerless image of President Roosevelt after Rommel crushed the United States at the Kasserine Pass? The press corps at that time was mature enough not too. Please claim they did not have those photos. How about those photos of Nimitz, Stimson, or Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. Where are the peoples’ photos during the months of stalemate following D-Day – or maybe even some doubting and worried images in the NYT during D-Day? Not on the cover of the NYT or the Left Angeles Times.

    Regretfully, your profession has lost the confidence of the American people.

    That, by the way, is a very bad thing.

    I do not like or enjoy it.

    But, it is true.

    Deal with it… I was hoping the embed process would initiate younger journalist into the fog of war and into the righteousness of this conflict. I was hoping the young embeds, as they migrated back into the stateside newsrooms, would add balance, common sense, and an understanding that we are doing the right thing. That they could battle the old War Horse Vietnam Cadre Press Corps that denigrates anything they touch. Regretfully, the American people lost that battle. But, as you can see, the American people are not losing the war. We are ignoring you. We are seeking information from other sources. We no longer care about your privileges and pompous demands. It is not you that is being denigrated; it is the other 90% of your profession that is being trashed. Your profession is seen as no better than biased bloggers – but at least the bloggers note their biases.

    You still have time to turn this around, can you see what you have to do.

    Sorry.

47. Tom Hindman said,

    January 16, 2007 @ 8:25 pm

    I agree with much of what you say. In my world we try to out do the competition by getting the facts correct. Choose the picture that best represents the situation and this is it in a nutshell.

    I can not speak for the print industry but I want to believe that this is the goal for the most part.

    There have been many things in recent years that have given us a black eye and I think the public lumps us all into the same group. And rightfully so. We all cover the news whether it be with a pad of paper, a camera or a microphone. And you are correct that bias more often than it should factors into the published content.

    I don’t care for it on the most part but there is a place for it. And you are correct that there are witch hunts in newsrooms. That is not right most of the time either.

    I am to close to know if the American people have lost confidence in all of us. All I can do is do what I know is right, day after day.

    I have watched access through the years turn into a nightmare with organizers, security people, and so on. I’ve stood at press gates knowing that I have a job to do and told that if I don’t sign the contract I would not be allowed in.

    There are many reasons it has come to this. As for pictures that were never seen or never shot, that in my opinion is why the media should be allowed access. At that point in time, which was before my career, I am told there was a unspoken courtesy that the press simply would not report on.

    As for my privileges and pompous demands you are right again. I can’t recall when I heard someone yell from the tree tops where were we when something slipped through the cracks.

    As for turning it around I do my part daily.

RSS feed for comments on this post

Leave a Comment