Patterico's Pontifications

2/6/2010

Covering the Tea Party Nation Convention (Updated x2)

Filed under: Media Bias,Politics — DRJ @ 7:27 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

How do you get the media’s goat if you’re a Tea Partier? Apart from just being a Tea Partier, deny them credentials:

“Organizers of the National Tea Party Convention here were not happy about the media coverage leading up to their event – the stories about how convention sponsors and participants were pulling out and accusing the convention of “profiteering,” and about one organizer’s past bankruptcy.

So it was perhaps not surprising that despite saying they wanted to run a “transparent” operation, they turned down many of the 120 requests they said they received from news organizations seeking to send journalists here. Even the local paper, The Tennessean, said it was refused a credential.”

Credentials were issued to foreign journalists:

“But the convention organizers did extend permission to cover the event to several international journalists, from, according to their list, Spain, France ,Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Croatia and Japan. For those reporters, it is not easy translating the sentiments of the tea partiers to their audiences back home.
***
Europe in particular swooned for President Obama, and journalists said it was hard to explain to people back home why not everyone in the United States did too – convention participants, in particular.”

The New York Times didn’t have a problem “translating the sentiments” for their audience:

“We are,” [Tea Party Nation organizer Mark Skoda] said, repeating the vague but determined refrain of many tea partiers, “taking our government back.”

This might be a counterproductive decision by the Tea Party Nation but it’s also humorous. For months, the media wasn’t interested in covering Tea Party stories until now, when they’ve been denied access.

— DRJ

UPDATE: Daleyrocks notes in the comments that the limit on credentials was short-lived, according to imdw favorite Dave Weigel:

“The National Tea Party Convention’s early reluctance to give credentials to reporters — a decision that came after some negative commentary on the event’s cost and critics — was short-lived. Reporters are swarming the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and, with little exception, getting press passes. When I checked it around 11 a.m., more than 150 reporters had been credentialed. While there are around 600 paying attendees, the scene in the hall outside of the banquet and meeting rooms is basically one-to-one reporter-to-attendee. Inside the breakout sessions, at least three cameras are filming at any one time.”

At the link, Weigel also notes credentials were issued to one of the Landrieu defendants.

UPDATE 2: Also in the comments, Dana adds a link to the New York Times’ recap of Palin’s speech. Dana calls it “even-handed” and I agree, plus it’s good to know the Times’ reporter managed to get in.

69 Responses to “Covering the Tea Party Nation Convention (Updated x2)”

  1. It’s too bad Bachmann cancelled.

    imdw (017d51)

  2. Conservative women scare people like imdw.

    JD (25248e)

  3. > For months, the media wasn’t interested in covering Tea Party stories until now, when they’ve been denied access.

    So THAT’s what Irony means…

    Alannis (79d71d)

  4. JD, I suspect that women in general are a bit of a mystery to imdw.

    Eric Blair (c2a27d)

  5. DRJ – Although they started out restricting access, in the end I think they gave out something like 200 media credentials.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  6. “JD, I suspect that women in general are a bit of a mystery to imdw.”

    Just recently dmac was talking about cupcakes for some mysterious reason.

    imdw (19cd35)

  7. “JD, I suspect that women in general are a bit of a mystery to imdw.”

    I suspect that everyday life in general is a a bit of a mystery to imdw.

    FTFY

    daleyrocks (718861)

  8. Yes, daleyrocks is right. They ended up giving out over 200 credentials, even to the likes of MSNBC! YIKES!!! What could possibly go wrong….

    J. Raymond Wright (e8d0ca)

  9. I loved #6. The guy doesn’t even get it! Fabulous!

    Eric Blair (c2a27d)

  10. Since the New York Times knows everything worth knowing about the Tea Party movement, why would they want to cover the convention?

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  11. It’s annoying that Bachman would have to cancel. What kind of asinine rules prevent a congresswoman from speaking about her views at a convention?

    But we know who controls the ethics committee.

    I think it would have really rocked for more than one major face to be the face of the party. Similar women who easily reconcile being feminine and leaders would have been extra special.

    About the credentialing, if they aren’t deliberating acting like amateurs, they still can play that to their advantage. They want to look like Davids to the Goliath both parties represent, and it’s hard to believe they make these mistakes while being backed by the VRWC.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  12. The reason it would be so upsetting to the MSM if they were denied credentials is that they had already spent the time to write their stories. They had lined up all their juicy insinuations so that all they had to do was fill in a few pictures of Palin looking awkward (easy to get if you take enough pics) and drop in one or two short quotes. If they couldn’t attend the event they’d lose all that work.

    Gesundheit (6acc51)

  13. Somebody could have made some serious coin setting up an Obama burial T-Shirt concession. Without doubt, that is going to be the new progressive obsession. Personalizing the shirts so Obama can remember the dead fanatic’s name from a corpse photo will cost extra.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  14. Gesundheit,
    “Pre-writing” stories before scheduled events is a common practice. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that were the case here.

    Shutting out the domestic press may have been ill-advised, but it’s still enjoyable to watch the Tea party-disdaining reporters squirm. I hope some bloggers got their spots.

    Don’t forget, there’s a Tea Party convention in San Diego on Feb. 27.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  15. As daleyrocks notes above, the credentials limit was short-lived but it’s still bugging the New York Times. That’s okay, because I’m still bugged that the New York Times thinks the Tea Party message of “taking our government back” is vague. It didn’t seem to bother them much when Barack Obama made the same phrase his theme in the early days of his campaign in New Hampshire.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  16. DRJ, that’s a significant find!

    Amazing that these people have suddenly found a problem with vague campaigns.

    “Yes We Can!” didn’t exactly set the precision bar at the molecular level.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. The story just put up by the NYT about Palin’s speech is surprisingly even handed, aside from the “Palin Assails Obama at Tea Party Meeting”, but that should be expected.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  18. Thanks for the good link, Dana. I’ve added it in Update 2.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  19. Channel 9 WGN news tonight had a section on the Tea Party convention. They included a fairly lengthy segment by a CNN reporter interviewing attendees. She delved into who they are, what the Tea Party is, and what they want to accomplish. The reporter was respectful and completely professional. The Tea Partiers were well spoken and on message. Guess CNN learned something from that horrible Chicago Tea Party interview fiasco with Susan Roesgen last year.

    elissa (fc4c41)

  20. Well even that part was fairly accurate, even the BBC gave a balanced portrayal. I know I think I see
    Ctluthu rising off the Northeast coast

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  21. Ms. Palin gave the Tea Party crowd exactly what they wanted to hear

    That’s not very mavericky is it?

    happyfeet (713679)

  22. Feel free to ignore the Palin threads if you want, happyfeet. Or not, feel free to comment if you want. I’m not trying to set you off but she’s news.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  23. Sarah Palin does seem to set Mr. Feet off. With a fair amount of venom, when there are far more deserving targets. My rule of thumb: if it makes Raum Emmanuel and David Axelrod happy, it cannot be good.

    Eric Blair (c2a27d)

  24. Ms. Palin gave little hint to her political plans when Mr. Phillips, the organizer, prodded her in a brief question-and-answer period after her 40-minute speech. She said she would support those candidates who “understand free market principles” and “personal responsibility.”

    Liar. She supports John McCain… the odious old woman what led fights against people exercising personal responsibility with respect to smoking and steroids and free speech – nanny-assed interventions none of which is supportive of a free market – and who is a flipping huge climate pansy, which is a position what is only slightly less free market than General Motors.

    happyfeet (713679)

  25. oh hi. Actually I think Sarah Palin a lot needs to be discussed.

    I’m becoming much more temperate I think. When she first came out about supporting six more years for John McCain I got a little…

    It was ugly.

    happyfeet (713679)

  26. I respect Palin’s act of personal loyalty to McCain, even though HF is right about his big-government predilections.

    Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc)

  27. and it was jarring to hear that she talked about primary challenges… I guess she just means picking off the most blatantly low-hanging rotten fruits. Which makes the Meghan’s daddy thing all the more puzzling.

    happyfeet (713679)

  28. Could have just been gas, do you take issue with anything she said tonight

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  29. That’s… willfully gracious I think Mr. Fikes. Sarah has every reason to fear the what would be the ginormous significance of McCain endorsing another candidate than she or otherwise expressing a negative opinion of her.

    She’s the tail and he’s the dog I think.

    happyfeet (713679)

  30. oh… just *fear what* not fear the what

    happyfeet (713679)

  31. Nope, he’s the past, back in 1988, before he was guilt tripped by the Keating scandal into flacking
    for the Soros’s fet projects, he was sensible, Now Soros has seized the communication/media/propaganda
    space with the likes of Mort, Mark Halperin’s commie CIA bashing daddy, (yes that Mark Halperin) through
    CAP re Think Progress, Air America, which is the nest for MSNBC

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  32. I don’t take issue with much of what she said. She told me what I want to hear. Ok I’m lying. It wasn’t a speech bold enough to ring true. She blurbles and mewls a faux optimism with the implication that putting a Team R person in our little White House – one much like she – would mean our little country would be in good shape again. On the road to recovery.

    Oh but no. The horrific damage what the little president man has inflicted is inflicting will inflict remains unnamed by her. It’s not a challenge what can be met with moxie and a you betcha attitude. Its name is decline.

    And a long hard slog will be defined upwards in the facing of it. She doesn’t convey the sobriety what would suggest she understands this.

    Our little country is far far far beyond reaganesque palliatives I think, so don’t blow Reagan up my ass this cycle please Sarah.

    happyfeet (713679)

  33. Anybody catch Breitbart’s TEA speech?

    I’m not sure that’s the best link, but it’s the speech video.

    One paradox is that Palin was required to give the convention enough profile, and also her presence overshadowed the general message. A lot of people can’t discuss the TEA party issues, such as transparency and limited government, because they want to talk about Palin and Palin’s behavior outside the TEA party.

    I liked Breitbart’s speech. People don’t all like him either, but there’s your TEA party.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  34. If Mccain endorses someone other than Palin, I will laugh my ass off.

    Even though I like Palin, you have to admit it would be remarkably funny theatre.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  35. It would be very him I think D.

    happyfeet (713679)

  36. Yeah… I can’t argue with you there. It would be very maverick and poetic.

    And it would get Mccain on all kinds of TVs and papers and stuff, too.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  37. In spite of his denials, feets does get reflexively hatey over Palin. Mewling? Going Sullivanesque on your Palin comments again feets?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  38. Also, why should Palin not support McCain? He’s the one what brung her to the dance. It would be an awful liberal backstabby thing for her to turn her back on him.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  39. bosh. I don’t treat Palin any worse than I do any number of vile politician creatures what seek to rule rule rule our little country.

    It’s far more esque I think the way people seek to place her outside the bailiwick of brusque criticism or trenchant trenchantness. As if she were sacred and holy.

    I rather think she’s not.

    happyfeet (713679)

  40. She doesn’t have to turn on him to choose not to all out work it for him.

    It’s a choice.

    happyfeet (713679)

  41. Here’s what happyfeet’s sister in law will wear to Thanksgiving.

    Anyway, this is not about Mccain. Really at all. Palin didn’t mention him in her speech. She will obviously support liberalish candidates a lot, too. I don’t even think that contradicts the TEA message in many cases, such as her (late and unhelpful) Scott Brown endorsement.

    But this isn’t about Mccain, and no one really disagrees that she was helping a pal who conservatives aren’t that fond of, right? Let’s move on dot org.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  42. he was helping a pal who conservatives aren’t that fond of

    That’s not common sense conservatism that’s politics as usual Dustin. Sarah needs to be very careful about staying true to her chirpy banalities.

    happyfeet (713679)

  43. It’s all she’s got.

    happyfeet (713679)

  44. well feets, other than this side of a military coup, and even then, what is the solution.

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  45. “I don’t treat Palin any worse than I do any number of vile politician creatures what seek to rule rule rule our little country.”

    feets – You don’t treat her any worse than you do Obama, so you’ve got me there. You probably perseverate more about her than Obama, though, given the number of repetitive comments you make about her.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  46. “She doesn’t have to turn on him to choose not to all out work it for him.”

    feets – Nice strawman. Did she say she was going to “all out” work for him? Heh!

    daleyrocks (718861)

  47. Yeah that would be a dodge, so who is worthy of Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Guiliani

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  48. You probably perseverate more about her than Obama, though, given the number of repetitive…

    Sarah Palin has never been accused of leaving a variegated rainbow of shimmering mutifaceted and nuanced Opinion in her wake.

    happyfeet (713679)

  49. I didn’t say all out work for him.

    happyfeet (713679)

  50. I wish she hadn’t backed Mccain too. But oh well. She wasn’t perfect before she did that, either. I’m not really hoping for anywhere near perfect.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  51. “I didn’t say all out work for him.”

    Right. My mistake. You said: “She doesn’t have to turn on him to choose not to all out work it for him.”

    Nice strawman, as I said. How much time HAS she said she plans on devoting to McCain?

    daleyrocks (718861)

  52. How much time has McCain said he would consider a sufficiently sycophantic prostration?

    happyfeet (713679)

  53. “Sarah Palin has never been accused of leaving a variegated rainbow of shimmering mutifaceted and nuanced Opinion in her wake.”

    No, she blurbles and mewls faux optimism and reaganesque palliatives according to you, plus the biggest sin of all, she supports the person who brought her to the national political stage, that odious old woman, John McCain.

    You need to talk to David Frum more often.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  54. David Frum needs to talk to me.

    happyfeet (713679)

  55. “How much time has McCain said he would consider a sufficiently sycophantic prostration?”

    feets – It’s your point, not mine. Now you sound just like imdw.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  56. I’m just saying I think what you see her do will be fairly exactly what she thinks Meghan’s daddy expects of her.

    happyfeet (713679)

  57. Just a winking, smiling dummy, that Palin is:

    America is “ready for another revolution,” Palin said. The tea-party movement, she added, “is about the people” and “it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” (Palin, interestingly, gave the speech without one.)

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641)

  58. And with all due respect, Mr. Feet, what you are doing is what the DNC expects of you.

    Like I have written before, on this topic you drop snide little comments and little else. We get it, that you have ISSUES with Palin. So please start talking about alternatives, rather than doing Axelrod’s job for him.

    If you don’t mind.

    Eric Blair (8c105e)

  59. I don’t see where chirpy optimism, with a dash of loyalty, would be such a bad thing.

    It beats the hell out of an unnatural ideologic shift, ruthlessly persude at any cost, choosing to do the exact worst thing when stuff starts going a little better by accident, and keeping a stable of trusting patsies close at hand in case someone needs to take the blaim.

    papertiger (e6cefc)

  60. I watched the PJTV coverage. I thought Palin’s speech was good, not great. She certainly beat on Obama, but she stayed on target and didn’t appear to overstate. They were legitimate attacks. Nothing new that I recall in her speech.

    I did note that she was slowed by the applause and then went to hyperspeed later to keep close to the timeline (I am guessing.) And she too says “nukular.” It’s not a Texas thing. My Dad, born & raised in Michigan said nukular too. I suspect a survey of Americans would show a majority pronounce it that way when they don’t given it thought.

    Breitbart is pretty impressive. I liked his speech, and his interviews. He is pretty obviously a smart, well-read, articulate (for a light-skinned American!) guy, the sort who is the nightmare of the elitist crown. The anecdote about “you’re just pretending, not really one of them” pointed out how much so.

    And Instaguy and Dr. Helen are really at home doing these kinds of interviews now. Smooth. Dana Loesch is a very nice addition to the PJTV crew also.

    MSM back to their tricks, though they are mostly trying to appear evenhanded now. Loved the Politico pic showing a middle-aged white man instead of the man mentioned in the story… who’s black, of course. Shades of gun-toting pasts.

    One thing Sarah did in her speech (haven’t followed her closely so it may have started before this one) is start to reclaim “hope” from that hopeless crew here in DC. I felt some for a change.

    Dan S (665bb6)

  61. Bad editor!

    given = give
    crown = crowd

    Dan S (665bb6)

  62. “America is “ready for another revolution,” Palin said. The tea-party movement, she added, “is about the people” and “it’s a lot bigger than any charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” (Palin, interestingly, gave the speech without one.)”

    Obama showed up to the house GOP without a teleprompter. And the results weren’t so good to the house GOP. Maybe they expected one.

    imdw (19cd35)

  63. While you people were trading barbs here I watched Chris Matthews and his crew discuss how more civility is needed in Washington and how Obama needs to browbeat the Repubs into voting for heathcare and more stimulus for their own good–or else the American people will punish them in November–for being uncivil and obtructionist. It was not a well thought through argument I think.

    elissa (04a2a9)

  64. imdw – I know that MSDNC’s meme is that Obama crushed the GOP at that meeting, but if you are repeating taht here you only prove that you didn’t watch it and that you have not watched the ten second clips that the media keep playing. Because they can not pull a sound bite out of that event that lasts even a full minute that does not make Obama sound like an ignorant, arrogant, ideologue.

    Have Blue (854a6e)

  65. “make Obama sound like an ignorant, arrogant, ideologue.”

    That’s him exactly, HB.

    PatAZ (9d1bb3)

  66. And the results weren’t so good to the house GOP.

    That must be why he surrendered to them on healthcare, asking them if there “are any better plans that are out there,” took most of the session defending himself about “not being an ideologue,” and then again defending himself against characterizations about his plans “being some kind of Bolshevik plot” against America.

    Yep, he totally won on that event, no question, a hands – down winnah. After all, only winnahs take an entire Q & A and spend it defending themselves against perceptions that have taken root across much of the country now.

    Dmac (539341)

  67. “imdw – I know that MSDNC’s meme is that Obama crushed the GOP at that meeting, but if you are repeating taht here you only prove that you didn’t watch it and that you have not watched the ten second clips that the media keep playing. Because they can not pull a sound bite out of that event that lasts even a full minute that does not make Obama sound like an ignorant, arrogant, ideologue.”

    I watched the whole thing. It was the totality of it that really worked against the whole ZOMG TELEPROMPTER line. Question after question after question. Media clipped soundbites don’t do justice to that. It wasn’t the one-liners that got me.

    I do agree with the GOP line that he was lecturing them. More of that please. More about them opposing stimulus and showing up for stimulus photo ops. But not just that line. More of that tone.

    imdw (de7003)

  68. That was a ‘dead cat’ bounce, now it’s true that the GOP didn’t come back with, what did you mean
    by ‘fundamentally transforming the United States of America’

    ian cormac (7b6e35)

  69. […] from: Covering the Tea Party Nation Convention (Updated x2) […]

    Covering the Tea Party Nation Convention (Updated x2) | Liberal Whoppers (d16888)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1111 secs.