Controlling the narrative while limiting media access

N

noisycheese

Normal(ish) Human
Local time
2:20 AM
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
1,291
One question: Why?

Link: http://petapixel.com/2013/11/11/top...white-house-propaganda-photography-practices/
Top AP Photographer Slams White House for ‘Propaganda’
Nov 11, 2013


Top editors at the Associated Press slammed the White House — or, more specifically, the Obama Administration — last week for restricting photographers’ access to the president in favor of staged “propaganda.”

Speaking at the AP Media Editors conference in Indianapolis, director of photography Santiago Lyon said AP photographers have only been allowed to photograph President Obama twice in the Oval Office, and never with staff present.

Instead, the administration expects news outlets to rely on “handout” photos taken by official White House photographers — photos they claim are carefully cast to project a certain image of the president and his staff.

“This works because newspapers use these handout photos,” said executive editor Kathleen Carroll, according to The Daily Caller. Carroll called on news outlets to stop publishing the staged photos and join the AP in insisting on real access to the president.

The AP stepped up its criticism of the White House in April, distributing an editorial entitled “controlling the narrative while limiting media access.”

Former President Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry joined the news agency in criticizing the Obama administration’s tactics, saying, “what gets lost are those revealing moments when the president is held accountable by the representatives of the public, who are there in the form of the media.”

In the meantime, Obama lensman Pete Souza has been one of most active and visible official White House photographers ever, distributing everything from official portraits to backstage Instagram moments.
Click to expand...
 
What is the question? Why would they want to control media access? It's marketing and message control, just like a company or any other organized group would try. Politicians are products and media both a tool and risk.

I have to imagine all sides do everything possible to control messaging as each side is just as willing to take statements out of context and manipulate them to their end. At least the press had the illusion of truthful presentation; blogs carry a huge amount of influence and don't have to deal with constraints like that. The public is perfectly happy to believe manipulated events.
 
[sarcasm] I'm sure he's mistaken: Obama was the President who campaigned on a promise of open government! But to the contrary, this story appears to be about some President who leads all previous in persecution of whistle-blowers, etc. So he can't be talking about the Obama administration. [/sarcasm]
 
I'd honestly be shocked if this hadn't been the case, especially since they seem to be talking about access inside the Whitehouse.

Pete Souza has created some great images in his time as the official photographer.

When he's out and about, or at any function outside of the WH, I'm sure there are plenty of press photographers, ready to catch him being held to account.

I'm not endorsing a political point of view or another, just surprise that a political figure such as the President of the US, having a media team trying to put the best image of him as possible across is news in 2013.

I'm in the UK, so I can't comment with any knowledge of this, but if the TV news media is as biased in the US as it is in the UK, then this kind of thing will only become more common.

The tragic thing about that is it tends to separate people into two camps, who are determined to oppose each other, and ends up limiting dialogue.
 
Brian Legge said:
What is the question? Why would they want to control media access? It's marketing and message control, just like a company or any other organized group would try. Politicians are products and media both a tool and risk.

I have to imagine all sides do everything possible to control messaging as each side is just as willing to take statements out of context and manipulate them to their end. At least the press had the illusion of truthful presentation; blogs carry a huge amount of influence and don't have to deal with constraints like that. The public is perfectly happy to believe manipulated events.
Click to expand...

The question of "why?" was intended to ask this question: Why does this administration - supposedly the most transparent administration in American history, according to Messr. Obama - feel that it has some arbitrary right to violate the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

No administration has any lawful right to control media access that does not hazard national security or the safety of high level officials, or to control messaging. Doing so plainly violates Article One of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees freedom of the press:
...The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

Despite popular misunderstanding the right to freedom of the press guaranteed by the first amendment is not very different from the right to freedom of speech. It allows an individual to express themselves through publication and dissemination. It is part of the constitutional protection of freedom of expression. It does not afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general...
Click to expand...
Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

Violation of the First Amendment by any government official, agency or office is NOT okay. It is an act that no U.S. citizen should tolerate, photographers and news gathering professionals in particular.
 
A free press is supposed to find out what it can, and then publish it, not to sit around whining and snivelling when it isn't handed photo-ops on a plate. How can you possibly interpret Obama's behaviour as "violating the first amendment"? It is at worst unwise (and I'm not even sure it's that), but no-one is attempting to silence any newspaper, TV channel, etc., so the first amendment is completely irrelevant.

Cheers,

R.
 
the point, presumably, is to use a particularly sacred object as a means (however ill-founded) to attack Obama, rather than to defend the sacred object itself.
 
noisycheese said:
No administration has any lawful right to control media access that does not hazard national security or the safety of high level officials,
Click to expand...

So it is ok for a (security vetted) camera team to strike up residence in the Oval Office, their permanent presence in this decorative room being a mere annoyance? And adequate "media access" is a ample number of decorative photo ops in a museum room with a make-up artist on standby?

There are many valid reasons to complain about decaying political culture and a swing towards absolutist positions in American politics - but complaining about a insufficient number of arranged ceremonial photo ops is about as far off the mark as it can be. If that really is all that AP is concerned about, they are part of the problem (and part of the tabloid racket), not part of the solution (or the free press).
 
because the Obama administration is exempt from accountability and respecting constitutional rights. His zombie supporters traded them for freebie handouts. Now they are waking up a bit, time for more freebies to put them back to sleep. Cheers.
 
Maybe I'm to much European... I expected the "why" question to be about AP, not Obama. They should go out and find real news instead of hanging around in an officials office...

Did they have unlimited access previously? That sounds weird, the Oval Office is the office were the president is doing his day to day work. Why are press photographers there? There is no press inside "het Torentje" (the office of our prime minister) and I can't imagine them inside Downing street 10. It also hardly is a violation of the 1st amendmend, as it doesn't restrict anybody from expressing his opinion.

And 68, maybe keep it on the subject at hand? As half of the US is blindly in love and the other half blindly hates Obama, discussing his presidency leads to nothing....
 
The question the OP asked is "Why?" I answered. You didn't like my answer, it is you who are now off subject since your opinion of my opinion was never asked of you. Cheers.
 
68degrees said:
The question the OP asked is "Why?" I answered. You didn't like my answer, it is you who are now off subject since your opinion of my opinion was never asked of you. Cheers.
Click to expand...
The answer "why" is quite easily answered. Those who hate Obama will use anything they can as a means of attacking him -- even if (as here) it's complete rubbish and the feeblest excuse for spouting nonsense. Why else would this completely irrelevant point be used to attack Obama?

I hold no brief for the man: I've found him weak and disappointing. But equally, I wouldn't stoop to spewing bile on him and his supporters on the strength of a non-story like this.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
The answer "why" is quite easily answered. Those who hate Obama will use anything they can as a means of attacking him -- even if (as here) it's complete rubbish and the feeblest excuse for spouting nonsense. Why else would this completely irrelevant point be used to attack Obama?

I hold no brief for the man: I've found him weak and disappointing. But equally, I wouldn't stoop to spewing bile on him and his supporters on the strength of a non-story like this.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised that even his media is complaining now, normally they lockstep like a school of small fish at his every hand gesture. I wouldnt say they are attacking though, they just cant deny and hide the facts any longer, I suspect b because like you, they are dissapointed in him not being liberal (socialistic) enough.
 
68degrees said:
I'm actually surprised that even his media is complaining now, normally they lockstep like a school of small fish at his every hand gesture. I wouldnt say they are attacking though, they just cant deny and hide the facts any longer, I suspect b because like you, they are dissapointed in him not being liberal (socialistic) enough.
Click to expand...

Comments such as this imply drastic underexposure, allow me to suggest 105 degrees and radically extended development times, maybe then you'll see the picture.
 
It seems like a boxing match, each side trying to beat the other down to the ground. A jab from the left, a jab from the right, and so it goes, likely to be decided on points. And perhaps pointless unless you enjoy watching the battle.
 
Doug said:
It seems like a boxing match, each side trying to beat the other down to the ground. A jab from the left, a jab from the right, and so it goes, likely to be decided on points. And perhaps pointless unless you enjoy watching the battle.
Click to expand...
Dear Doug,

Fair enough, but this isn't even a jab. It's a vague fluttering of the fingers, or possibly vomiting in the corner, accompanied by irrelevant gibbering. The reply by gm13, "Comments such as this imply drastic underexposure, allow me to suggest 105 degrees and radically extended development times, maybe then you'll see the picture" is doubly clever, for its apparent ironic irrelevance and its reference to "drastic underexposure".

Cheers,

R.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom