General Discussion

Dennis Donovan

(18,770 posts) Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:00 PM Jan 2020

Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/impeachment-trial-security-crackdown-will-limit-capitol-press-access

The Senate Sergeant-at-Arms and Capitol Police are launching an unprecedented crackdown on the Capitol press corps for the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, following a standoff between the Capitol’s chief security officials, Senate Rules Chairman Roy Blunt and the standing committees of correspondents.

Capitol Police Chief Steven A. Sund and Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger will enact a plan that intends to protect senators and the chamber, but also suggests that credentialed reporters and photographers who senators interact with on a daily basis are considered a threat.

Additional security screening and limited movement within the Capitol for reporters are two issues that are drawing criticism from Capitol Hill media.

The Standing Committee of Correspondents, which represents journalists credentialed in the daily press galleries in the House and Senate, has come out forcefully against the planned restrictions that they say rejected every suggestion made by the correspondents, “without an explanation of how the restrictions contribute to safety rather than simply limit coverage of the trial.”

</snip>

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Impeachment trial security crackdown will limit Capitol press access (Original Post) Dennis Donovan Jan 2020 OP

The GOP would prefer no witnesses to what they plan to do. guillaumeb Jan 2020 #1

A little more from the article Mike 03 Jan 2020 #2

Most of me is outraged by this proposal gratuitous Jan 2020 #3

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)

1. The GOP would prefer no witnesses to what they plan to do.

Reply to Dennis Donovan (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:03 PM

Jan 2020

Disgusting.

Mike 03

(16,616 posts)

2. A little more from the article

Reply to Dennis Donovan (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:09 PM

Jan 2020

During the trial, a single press pen will be set up on the second floor of the Senate, where lawmakers enter and exit the chamber. Reporters will be confined to the pen, unable to move with senators. No movement will be allowed outside of the corrals and reporters and photographers will need to be escorted to and from the pen.

In the course of a day on Capitol Hill, many senators stop and talk or walk and talk as reporters gather around to catch the latest comment. Others employ age-old avoidance tactics, including fake phone calls or staffers by their side firmly stating, “We’re late, she can’t talk,” or a similar excuse.

Journalists’ time-honored practice of “strolling” with lawmakers — the walking, talking and relationship building considered necessary by many resident reporters in the Capitol — is one that the new security apparatus will squelch during the trial.

Credentialed members of the media, who go through security screening to enter the Capitol each day, will be screened a second time to enter the Senate chamber to watch the trial proceedings. Magnetometers will be set up in the Senate Daily Press Gallery, requiring reporters to enter the chamber one by one after being cleared by Capitol Police operating the machine.

This is despicable. They are stealing our democracy from us in front of our faces.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)

3. Most of me is outraged by this proposal

Reply to Dennis Donovan (Original post)

Tue Jan 14, 2020, 06:14 PM

Jan 2020

But there is a small part of me that wonders, "And just what is it you do with your access, O dauntless bulldogs of the fourth estate?" Which is to say, how are the people going to know that press access has been limited? The White House press secretary hasn't held a daily briefing in nearly a year. Nary a peep from the media beyond some pro forma complaints that the White House should hold daily briefings, if you please and it isn't too much trouble.

When a quote somehow makes it through the no man's land between source and reporter, likely as not the quote is on background or deep background, and news consumers are left to their own devices on how to evaluate what the reporter wrote. Is the reporter generally trustworthy? Is the reporter's employer a good media outlet or hopelessly biased? What about the unnamed source? Does the quote ring true or does it seem suspicious? Is the source getting vital information out or getting even with a rival? And why did the reporter grant anonymity to the source if the quote isn't all that incendiary or controversial? More and more reporters seem to default to granting off the record status to their sources.

I'll be more outraged if the media were afflicting the comfortable a little more, and using named sources to do it.

Reply to this discussion