Posted on 10/28/2014 10:21:26 AM PDT by Rusty0604
The Obama administration, despite the president's promises of transparency, is "more dangerous" to the media than any other White House in history, USA Today's Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page said this weekend.
Page, speaking Saturday at a White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) seminar, also said the administration is "more restrictive," in reference to the its leak investigations and naming Fox News' James Rosen as a co-conspirator in a violation of the federal Espionage Act, writes The Washington Post's Eric Wemple in an opinion piece Tuesday.
Veteran New York Times reporter Peter Baker, telling one of the stories, said that while he was covering a breaking news story, he got a note from an aide that Obama had been briefed on the matter, but was told that the information was "on background," which could be taken to mean "not from me — a meeting has occurred."
Other correspondents spoke of "deep background" meetings, in which they are not permitted to report names of officials or quote anything they say, wrote Wemple, ...
For example, ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Jonathan Karl said to get information about the Boston Marathon bombings, he had to go around the White House to find out a federal interrogation team was being sent to Boston.
But the current complaints aren't the first from journalists about the Obama administration.
Former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson, has said that "it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering”; New York Times reporter James Risen has said he thinks that "Obama hates the press;" and CBS News' Bob Schieffer complained last year that "this administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I think she really means ‘dangerous for journalists’ but safe for lap dog ministry of propaganda types.
This will just make them love him more.
Maybe this is the reason for the election silence this year.
They are afraid to speak out against the administration. And they don’t want to speak out for the administration. So they say nothing at all.
Its not dangerous at all for Obama’s tail wagging lackey news media. Such was the case when CBS news interviewed Elizabeth Warren today. She was asked a question, and before she could
answer, Charlie Rose blurted out the correct answer for her to repeat verbatim. One of the most disgusting recent tail wagging lackey moments on TV.
Where are today's people of substance and goodness?
The lapdog is simply maneuvering itself for another belly rub. After a few strokes it'll calm back down.
No, Obama is only dangerous to Liberal reporters, who have been relegated to propagandists. Their journalist credentials have been revoked permanently.
Buh-bye MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, & NBC. Thinking Americans have abandoned you.
Yes it is but you will still swing from his nut sack
~ Tom Clancy, Executive Orders
“Most Transparent Administration, EVAH!!!”
I have said repeatedly that the threat of career-ending and very personal consequences, is keeping the media (Those that aren’t willing Journo-listers) in line with the Obamunists.
It was like this in 1930’s Germany, as well.
dangerous for journalists’ but safe for lap dog ministry of propaganda types.
I don’t think the liberal cowards at CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN need to fear.
Obama WH ‘Dangerous’ /fixed
They are not afraid or they would not be afraid if it were a Republican in office acting like Stalin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.