Police Bar Reporters From White House Protest
[Guest post by DRJ]
Politico sarcastically labels it the “most transparent White House ever”:
“Police chased reporters away from the White House and closed Lafayette Park today in response to a gay rights protest in which several service members in full uniform handcuffed themselves to the White House gate to protest “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
People who have covered the White House for years tell me that’s an extremely unusual thing to do in an area that regularly features protests.
A reporter can be seen in the YouTube video above calling the move “outrageous” and “ridiculous.””
President Obama is probably still smarting from the heckling he received yesterday at the Boxer event in California.
POLICE: “Back up, all the way back. Park’s closed.”
***
MEDIA: “They are pushing the media back, like, two blocks. *** It’s one thing if they push the public back, but not the media. This is just ridiculous.”
Will this make the media wake up?
— DRJ
Obama chased, demonstrators raced?
GeneralMalaise (24d3e0) — 4/20/2010 @ 5:37 pmWill this media wake up? I would guess no.
kansas (9b3da8) — 4/20/2010 @ 5:45 pmThis is not the least bit surprising. Just imagine if they had done this when Bush was in office. Imagine the OUTRAGE eleventy !!!1
JD (9f2abc) — 4/20/2010 @ 5:56 pmWith the exception of Jake Tapper, most of the Fox News reporters and some British press, this media couldn’t find it’s own collective ass with two hands. Calling them “in the tank” doesn’t quite describe it adequately. They are corrupt and in collusion.
GeneralMalaise (24d3e0) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:11 pma) Let’s hope the media wakes up.
RB (bed771) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:22 pmb) As Big Journalism blog post notes, they only whined into their cell phones as they meekly complied with the police officer, even though there was no danger or other emergency evident.
c) And behold the media’s arrogance, and disdain for their customers: “It’s one thing if they push the public back, but not the media.”
Scratch a reactionary leftist, find the fascist gibbering underneath.
Lazarus Long (9adfb0) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:41 pmDC PD has been shitty to protesters before. Was it them or someone else? So many agencies around the white house make it hard to assign blame.
imdw (cf00af) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:46 pmYou are all so wrong. How dare those ungrateful f____ts embarass the President Elect like this? And that press? They only pretended to love Him?
nk (61528e) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:46 pmWill this make the media wake up?
No.
jdub (381d2d) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:48 pmNah, no sustained backlash against Obama by the media will come from this. His people will blame the DC Police and some unfortunate sergeant will be reprimanded. Obama will pretend to be disappointed about how events transpired and will be unusually charming to select media people for a little while, then will go back to these high-handed tactics once he thinks he can get away with it again.
JVW (08e86a) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:52 pmThey follow anyone named Marx: those are their principles; if you don’t like ’em, they have others.
Except this Marx was joking.
ras (88eebb) — 4/20/2010 @ 6:59 pmand he wouldn’t join any club that wouldn’t appoint him as its President.
GeneralMalaise (24d3e0) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:08 pm“It’s one thing if they push the public back, but not the media.” Say what???
tbaugh (db98d6) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:10 pmImagine if Bush was still president …
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:14 pmI think of that every time I watch Big Zero tilt his chin up, open his mouth and utter another in a long line of self-worshiping inanities, SPQR.
GeneralMalaise (24d3e0) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:18 pmThe media meekly complied with the request because they didn’t want to be considered members of the Tea Party.
The thought of them even mistakenly looked at as followers of Beck or Palin is enough to give them the vapors.
MU789 (25b69d) — 4/20/2010 @ 7:37 pm“The media meekly complied with the request because they didn’t want to be considered members of the Tea Party. ”
My guess would be if police tried to move / relocate a bunch of tea party protesters, they would meekly comply and then thank the cops.
imdw (5f60be) — 4/20/2010 @ 8:52 pmYep, I see that the Non-Apologist continues his mature reign of partisan blather.
How did that apology go, by the way?
Eric Blair (f4bc41) — 4/20/2010 @ 9:03 pmsince the Tea Party people, responsible citizens that they are, would have gotten a permit and be where they are supposed to be, the cops are likely to do nothing but stand around an congratulate themselves on not being at the leftard protest where the violence is.
but then again, you’re a moron, so there’s no telling what you will imagine.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/20/2010 @ 9:05 pmMy guess would be if police tried to move / relocate a bunch of tea party protesters, they would meekly comply and then thank the cops.
Probably.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/20/2010 @ 9:07 pmTruly Nixonesque.
I can only guess they thought those DADT protestors were infectious.
Neo (7830e6) — 4/20/2010 @ 9:45 pmOne never knows, does one – without a blood test.
AD - RtR/OS! (5a3560) — 4/20/2010 @ 11:04 pmAD – RtR/OS! – One sure doesn’t …
Of course, I gotta ask – which blood test ?
TB ?
Ebola ?
HIV ?
H1N1 ?
Of course they are worried that those protesters are infectious ! If the ideas of the protesters get out, they could infect all sorts of people, even *voters* !
Alasdair (205079) — 4/21/2010 @ 1:27 amAmendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— Whoops! The Constitutional Law expert strikes again!
Icy Texan (671e23) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:54 amtbaugh hits the nail on the head. Even in adversity the media shows contempt for the people.
George Warburton (636549) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:12 amThe press has this strange idea that they are not the people. That the freedom of the press applies to a special class, and isn’t just a freedom we all have.
Obama’s amazingly secretive and sensitive and has no respect for his oath of office.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:30 amIMDW (#7), that wasn’t Metropolitan (D.C.) Police Department, that was U.S. Park Police. And did anybody pay attention to the number of flex cuffs he was carrying? That’s very unusual. I think there’s more to the story than we know at the moment.
But as to Obama’s arrogance, that part we already know.
509th Bob (96a8a6) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:22 amNobody has mentioned the most amusing part of all. The gay and GBLT activists have not uttered a peep about the coverup of their protest! Those five service members did not suddenly get the urge to handcuff themselves to the White House fence.
Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.
Obama has got hold of his supporters’ most sensitive parts and is pulling hard.
They want more government and they are getting it hot and hard.
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:44 amIt’s the classic he said, he said debate: Was it the Park Police or the Secret Service that closed the park and moved the media (and the ever-so-stupid-mind-your-own-business public)?
Trouble with linking… here is other coverage of the event: http://metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5098.
Corwin (ea9428) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:56 amWhat a pathetic display of cowardice. Faced with obstruction under color of police authority the lapdogs of democracy retreat with their tails between their legs. Those reporters should go home and handcuff themselves to the woodshed.
ropelight (bdbb00) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:23 amHow did that apology go, by the way?
Not too well, according to Douchey’s response earlier:
If you’re the one that wants it so hard, you’re going to have to be the one that finds it. Sucks, but that’s life.
Comment by imdw — 4/20/2010 @ 3:58 pm
If I’m the one that wants it so hard?
Yikes – Douchey, time to start frequenting your neighborhood bath houses.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:31 amWhere are the squeals of OUTRAGE in the MSM and activist groups today? Compare the actual reaction, or lack thereof, to how this would have played out had Bush done so.
JD (5375e6) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:16 amSo the
fifth column, ahhhh, fourth estate do not have parabolic dish microphones and telephoto lenses in their tools-o-the-trade baggage? Some watchdogs…Just the media’s garden variety and thoroughly ingrained entitlement mentality in full bloom.
BahRack's gravitas 6.02 × 10^23 with a mic, sans teleprompter (d4120a) — 4/21/2010 @ 8:56 amI do not agree at all with the concept of “free speech zones” or “protest areas.” It makes it far too easy to separate the protesters from the media. There is no logical reason why supporters of something would have free reign over an area, while protesters could be constrained to a more restricted “free speech zone.” Ironically, I believe the whole concept originated at a 1988 Democratic convention, to contain pro-life protesters. It was used a few times more, and then really flourished under the Bush administration. Banning media from an area in which a protest is happening is equally appalling, and there is no excuse for it (unless it is to avoid some sort of violence, which was not true in this case.) It is somewhat upsetting that the media feels more entitled than the public, and thinks they deserve special treatment. Don’t get me wrong, they shouldn’t have pushed anyone back.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:55 pmKinda pathetic how you tried to get your Bush shot in there, Hooten.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/21/2010 @ 2:59 pmChrissy also wants us to know that he’s a concerned Christian Conservative.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:22 pmFreedom of Speech Obama-style is looking so free.
Hey, whatever happened to that enemies list the Obama Administration created (remember flag@whitehouse.gov).
Next thing you know, the President and his followers will start taking a hostile attitude toward private media sources.
Pons Asinorum (09ece4) — 4/21/2010 @ 3:40 pmPatterrico is a prosecutor, not in DC but this is still his baliwick. On whose legal authority etc. are public parks opened and shut. What are the legal parameters of denying access to public throughfares, roads, sidewalks, etc. This was obviously an arbitrary exercise in power. How useful will the FOI act be in determining whose capricious act this was and what legal authority allowed it.
I’m not saying it’s going to happen but seldom (ever?) has an administration been so beholden to the press. If the press ever figures out it actually has the upper hand…If they smell blood in the water and turn on Obama like they did on Clinton. Dreams are made of such things.
Amused Observer (fdb082) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:03 pmNo kidding. This is right here happening right now, and these democrats are so concerned about the partisan politics they have to pretend Bush’s “era” did something like this.
If Bush had done this it would have been a front page story and a disgrace. Bush showed the press a great deal of respect and deference… frankly, that doesn’t impress me because that’s a requirement of leading this country.
Obama’s a disgrace, and I don’t think he has enough Chris Hootens to support this behavior.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:10 pmI don’t know how I could have been more fair. I mentioned that the whole concept really started with the democrats, and that I agree with you that it is a bad policy, no matter who is doing it, but you are angry because I mentioned the expansion of its use under the Bush administration? Somehow that is a “cheap shot?” If you agree that it is wrong no matter who is doing it, why would mentioning Bush upset you? Are you denying that he expanded the usage of that policy? What are you attempting to say? The use of this policy in the past created a precedent for what they are doing now. I am neither defending nor supporting Obama on this matter. Bush’s expansions of the policy helps to explain how we find ourselves at this juncture. Maybe the outrage on this issue is a bit late?
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:38 pmSome clues to the lack of “fair”, Hooten. You mention no names of Presidents except Bush. You present no evidence that there was any “expansion” under Bush as opposed to Clinton.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/21/2010 @ 4:50 pmAre you kidding? Clinton is not the one who expanded it so much as to become commonplace. I did not mean it as a “political shot” but merely as a reminder of where this sort of policy originated, and then became common. You are just whining about it now, years too late. I guess it would have been more “fair” to just ignore Bush’s role completely? Look, this isn’t Fox News. Facts are facts.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:12 pmQuaranteeing the Press is a spiffy idea….
AD - RtR/OS! (83fa7e) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:18 pmtheir virulence will be the death of all of us!
Really, Hooten? This isn’t Fox News? Well, you act like its MSNBC …
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/21/2010 @ 5:21 pmLook, there is a timeline associated with this issue. Yes, the democrats probably started it. Yes, Clinton did it, too, some. But it really started rolling under Bush, and now is continued under Obama. Why is this considered a partisan issue? Because I mentioned Bush’s role in all of this? Should I ignore that? Are you ignoring it? What is going on here that I am getting so much static about this? For goodness sake I am AGREEING with you wrt the most recent incident.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/21/2010 @ 6:30 pmAnswer the simple direct question: Citations, please?
Icy Texan (684095) — 4/22/2010 @ 2:57 amNo. That is my simple direct answer. If you don’t even know the most basic facts, why would I bother even conversing with you? It is easy to say “that’s not true, prove it…” But clearly you have been ignoring the evidence for years. Why would showing it to you one more time change your mind? If you want to be *informed* than you need to watch something other than fox news. It has been a steady stream of death panels, birther garbage, etc. You had to have ignored countless things that were later proven to be seriously misleading, or outright lies. And they rarely retract things that were misleading or outright lies. They use improper video to prove a point, like saying how big the crowd is at some rally, when they actually show footage from a previous, different rally. But it all goes with their carefully controlled narrative that sounds good. Too bad it is not reality based.
Chris Hooten (0e1f31) — 4/22/2010 @ 3:09 amBlah blah blah — ad hominem attack — blather blather blather — non sequitur — patronize, obfuscate, do everything EXCEPT answer the direct question.
Boring.
Icy Texan (684095) — 4/22/2010 @ 3:30 amChris – Since you are making the claim, please show one single incident in the Bush years where federal officials ordered the press away from an anti-Bush demonstration.
And please compare this action taken under the Obama admin in a public park on a public street out side a public institution (the White House) with the reaction of the Bush admin to worse protests outside Bush’s private residence in Crawford.
Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/22/2010 @ 9:23 amHooten, if you knew “the most basic facts” you could recite them.
But you can’t. You are making it up.
And you are making up what Fox News is covering as well. Birther garbage? Fox News has “countless” things that are proven lies? You seem to want to ignore the lies that CNN, MSNBC, CBS etc. put out. CBS was caught putting out lies about George Bush in an attempt to influence a presidential election, and you get worked up about Fox?
Grow up.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/22/2010 @ 10:41 am