(SF) Chronicle disputes White House response on video

[Newsjock]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

The White House told media outlets Friday that it did not threaten to exclude The Chronicle from pool coverage of events in the Bay Area after the paper posted a video from an event in San Francisco last week, contradicting statements from the paper's editor, Ward Bushee.

Bushee said Friday the White House press office is not telling the truth.

"Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday," Bushee said in a statement. "It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges required by key people in the White House communications office who told us it would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to The Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/29/MN5I1J9PMT.DTL&tsp=1

[MrModerate]

1. If this is Carney's office again, that's two embarassing gaffes in less than a week . . .

After the unnecessarily dismissive response to the "Easter Proclamation" question. He needs to be taken to the woodshed (if guilty).

On a factual level, I have no problem with a reporter being disciplined for breaking the rules of pool coverage to generate a personal exclusive. I think the rest of the WH press corps would feel the same. But to weasel about it seems underhanded and incompetent.

Shape up there, guys!

[Ohio Dem]

2. His name is Bushee?

Um...Shouldn't we take ANYTHING he says with a grain of salt?

[JJW]

3. Selective First Amendment

Only allowed in the form of corporations (personhood) giving unlimited cash to politicians.

[No Elephants]

4. I was on the side of the WH in the original dispute. If this turns out to be true, though,

it sucks. Beyond that, it would be beyond dumb politically.

As long as the "Solid South" remains solidly R, Dems will need California's electoral votes to win the Presidency. Geographically, Most of California is Republican. If Dems lose San Fran or LA or any of their California strongholds, who knows what will happen?

Luckily, no Republican showing up so far is likely to beat Obama, but no good can come from generating this kind of publicity in San Fran.

[iwishiwas]

5. When doubt and lack of trust enter into the equation, there

is trouble.

[still_one]

6. "Geographically, most of California is republican"??? As long as it is one person one vote that

statement means very little.

At the most you can argue that California tends to be independent

However, I do agree with you it is beyond dumb politically if true