Is this how Obama White House always treats media?

Is this how Obama White House always treats media?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djsaunders/detail?entry_id=88024#ixzz1LDTXNL6H

Yesterday, the Chronicle reported that the White House had threatened to kick veteran reporter Carla Marinucci off the press pool because she posted a video of a protest at a San Francisco fundraiser last week.

Today Politico.com ran a story on the controversy that included White House claims that the Chronicle report was "not true."

Let me assure readers that the Chronicle does not run a story of this nature -- plus an editorial and a blog by Phil Bronstein lightly. It may well be the case that Carla remains on the pool -- I can't tell from this statement released by Press Secretary Jay Carney -- but The Chronicle doesn't report that a threat was made without basis.

Here is the Carney statement:

"The San Francisco Chronicle violated the coverage rules that they -- and every other media outlet -- agreed to as part of joining the press pool for that event. If they thought the rules were too restrictive they should have raised that at the beginning. However, no reporters have been banned from covering future presidential events and the White House of course would have no problem including any reporter who follows the rules in pool-only events."

Here is editor Ward Bushee's response.

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges required by key people in the White House communications office who told us it would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed afterall.

The Chronicle's report is accurate.

If the White House has indeed decided not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter.

Here's what bothers me about this story. It didn't have to happen. Carla took video of a protest also taped by fundraiser attendees. As Phil Bronstein reported, it is not at all clear that Carla violated the rules.

The White House Press Correspondents' Association pool reporting guidelines warn about "no hoarding" of information and also say, "pool reports must be filed before any online story or blog." While uploading her video probably was the best way to file her report, Carla may have technically busted the letter of that law.

But the guidelines also say, "Print poolers can snap pictures or take video. They are not obliged to share these pictures...but can make them available if they so choose."

Someone else's video of the protest ended up on The Daily Show -- which means there was no foul. By choosing to get heavy-handed, the White House made this a bigger story than it would have been.

I'm writing this in protest of the White House's "not true" claim. Do not believe it.

I can only assume that Obama staffers employed these tactics to try to push The Chronicle to agree to not cover events that happen in front of hundreds of people because bullying has worked well with other media in the past. The good news: We at the Chronicle are not lap dogs.

Posted By: Debra J. Saunders (Email, Twitter) | April 29 2011 at 03:27 PM

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/djsaunders/detail?entry_id=88024#ixzz1LDxGLMYu

© 2011 Hearst Communications Inc.