The opportunity to exercise this control means that the president’s staff can pick what the only public image will show, down to the president’s body language. In the photo documenting his diplomatically touchy meeting with the Dalai Lama, Obama offered no smile. When signing yesterday’s executive order, Obama looked dutiful, but not overjoyed.
Susan Walsh, an AP photographer who was president of the WHNPA during their successful effort to curtail the handouts under Bush, worries that the Obama administration’s regular dissemination of handout photos from events that could easily be opened to pool or other photographers is permanently eroding independent photographic access at the White House.
In 2005, the WHNPA won the support of the managers of the AP photo wire services, who agreed not to distribute the official photos except in the rarest circumstances. This gave their campaign significant leverage—if the president wanted newspapers across the country to have a visual record of his actions, he would have to allow press photography.
But this White House essentially runs its own photo wire via its Flickr feed, which mixes the photo releases with behind the scenes fly-on-the-wall style shots that are the more traditional remit of White House staff photographers, and that few, if anyone, objects to. Anyone can download and republish its photos free of charge. (The White House has even claimed that it’s better to do a photo release than to “restrict” access to “a limited group of photographers”—i.e. a pool made up of media professionals.)
“The genie is out of the bottle,” says Walsh. “Any administration will see the benefit of being able to control their own content. The technology has made it so it’s really easy to put images out there. And you know what? It’s a great strategy for them. You’re never going to get them to stop it. “
Sachs is frustrated that the WHNPA’s continued complaints aren’t getting any traction, either with the White House or with news outlets that continue to disseminate the official photos.
“We won the access under the Bush administration,” laments Sachs. “And it has been taken away under the Obama administration.”
Bratty, petulant, self-involved prima donnas of the White House Press Corps once again throwing their little hissy fits because they aren't the Center of the Universe. This photo flap is all about WHPC feather-bedding -- making sure there are three people present to do a one-person job. Get over it!
Ed "My Job Is to Make News" Henry needs a paddling and a stern talking-to for his infantile behavior.
#1 Posted by Tom, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 04:29 PM
Tom -- No, it's the bratty, petulant self-involved prima donnas of the White House. That's all.
#2 Posted by liz, CJR on Thu 25 Mar 2010 at 06:08 PM
The real issue is that "our" government is restricting press access to newsworthy events. It is not up to our government to censor the news, in this case, the president signing major bills into laws.
Press access MUST be allowed when during official presidential business. It's about the public's trust in the process.
If the press is not allowed to cover official White House events, trust in the government can, and will, erode.The White House is taking the photos, editing the photos, and then submitting them to the press.
There's too much of a chance for the public to begin receiving doctored photos to show the "good" side of the presidency. Too much of a chance to cover.
Let the press in, they are after all, the 4th Branch, watchdogs of our government.
It is imperative to have an open and transparent government.
#3 Posted by Paul Conrad, CJR on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 12:56 AM
With all due respect, that's hogwash. The administration is trying to govern, they are not there to provide opportunities for political theater to a bunch of petulant drama queens who prance around as self-important, entitled peacocks, gossiping and throwing foot-stamping tantrums as they elbow each other for television face-time. There was nothing secret or nefarious about signing that executive order, and there was no need to have press attendance.
The White House Press Corps would do well to get over themselves. They are irresponsible prima donnas who add nothing to responsible news coverage. The public would be far better off if the administration stationed a couple of wire news reporters at the White House to receive announcements of events and policy, and send the rest of those blow-dried hacks on their way to do some real work. Better yet, send about two-thirds of them to the unemployment line. America would be better off.
Guess what? The public doesn't trust YOU, the press. And deservedly so. If you'd like evidence of that, please go to Journalism.org- The State of the News Media 2009.
Also, define "transparency." I've asked Greg on numerous occasions for his definition, and in the absence of response over the past year, I take it that you in the press are just using the term as a bludgeon, without a rational idea what it really means with respect to government.
#4 Posted by Tom, CJR on Sat 27 Mar 2010 at 10:40 AM
Tom, what did the WH press corps do to you? You seem to have a lot of resentment against a group of people that are trying their best to cover the WH against the restrictions that have been in place for several administrations.
Paul is correct in saying that restricting the tight pool allows the administration too much of a chance to cover, to filter the subtle nuances of body language and expression. The reason we need independent coverage is to capture those nuances and let the viewer decide what to think - not the White House.
I'd be willing to at least consider your overheated comments if you had the guts to sign your full name. You need to take responsibility for your opinions.
#5 Posted by Gary O'Brien, CJR on Tue 30 Mar 2010 at 09:57 PM
Just getting started in photography, EditElf.com has give me a huge advantage over well established photographers. I dont have to buy expensive editing software, learn all the tricks,and waste time on my computer. I started shooting weddings because I love photography and I love people, so thats what I spend my time doing!
#6 Posted by Edit Elf, CJR on Wed 14 Apr 2010 at 06:49 PM
what does the stupid hair straightener ad above have to do with this discussion?
who is vetting this column: Helen Keller?
#7 Posted by hal Weiner, CJR on Sun 25 Apr 2010 at 05:41 PM
sorry guys. There was this ad on the Columbia Journalism blog a minute ago and now it is gone so I look stupid. Won't be the last time.
#8 Posted by hal Weiner, CJR on Sun 25 Apr 2010 at 05:45 PM