On cnn.com there is a clip of someone from the Obama campaign being grilled by the press corps. The corps is upset because Senator Obama arranged some private meetings without the press in attendance. Evidently the press feels that they should be given unfettered access to the Senator during the campaign (though they did not actually demand to attend this meeting).
There are enough threads about Senator Obama and I’m not interested in the discussion of whether this will be good or bad for his campaign. Instead, I want to ask the Dope: how far do the rights of the press go? Should they be allowed to observe a private meeting, or to harass the individual the Senator is about to meet for the sake of a free press? Aren’t there times, such as a delicate negotiation, that privacy is in the greater interest of the public?
I have to say, my heart doesn’t bleed for the press corps being left out in the cold for once. The press, of whom I have a dim view, cannot always be trusted to rely upon its own discretion. At this stage of the campaign, no matter who Senator Obama meets and for what, the headline will be: “Obama’s Cat: Next VP?”
How much access should the press be guaranteed during the campaign? Why is this access so much greater for press following Senator Obama than for, let’s say, the press following Britney Spears? Is “the public has the right to know!” a rallying cry for a free press, or a mantra by a ratings-hungry media machine that’s just trying to make a buck?
Everyone, presidential candidate or not, has the right to have a private meeting with whoever they please, excluding whoever they please. It doesn’t matter what the public interest is, the press has no right to demand access (well, I guess they can demand whatever they want, but they shouldn’t expect to get it).
That being said, a public figure such as a presidential candidate probably needs to take into account that the press will be very interested in these meetings and their existence will be reported on and speculated about to a ridiculous degree.
I think Obama’s press secretary (or whatever his title is) gave a completely adequate answer. Some meetings are private, and the press doesn’t get to go along or know about it.
Some business cannot be properly conducted in the public eye. And some things really and truly are none of anybody else’s business.
I have no expectation that the press will accept this.
Except that they have. The talking heads all day long have said they thought it was understandable, necessary, and even endearing. I’ll admit I haven’t checked out Fox News, though. God only knows how they might paint it. But yes to the OP. People have a right to dodge the media.
The vast majority of meetings Bush holds are not done with the press looking on. That is true for every president and no big deal. The press merely expects to be kept informed of what is going on, not to be a fly on the wall in every room.
As for Obama his need to have this private meeting is totally understandable. Obviously Clinton wanted it that way too. Mostly the press has access to him but he is allowed private strategy sessions like anyone else.
I agree. I’ve been thinking about how I feel about this precisely because of the constant screaming over Bush’s secretiveness over the past few years. Not to mention Obama is pushing for transparency in government, which is at odds with his action here.
On the other hand, I do recognize that there are things better left unpublicized, and handled correctly I don’t believe some private meetings are a bad thing. This, for instance, gives Obama and Clinton both a chance to drop their game faces and get some honesty going on.
Obama is a presumptive party candidate. Comparing his circumstance (or his ethics, for that matter) with Bush’s is ridiculous.
ETA:
I think Republicans are going to have to get used to the notion that the guy with the teflon (and the gumption) is playing for the other side now. Enjoy.
Just to put everyone at ease, some information has come in now. Senator Feinstein, speaking on MSNBC, said that the two of them met together in her study, where they talked, watched television, and laughed.
With specific exceptions (e.g. if the city has a law requring that city council meetings be held openly, the members may not circumvent the law by hammering out a deal in private and then going through the motions in public), people have a right to meet and to exclude people they don’t want (either by holding the meeting on private property and telling the interlopers to get out or by taking evasive action).
The guys on the plane were probably pissed. But they’re peons, and the joke was on them. The important media people are more savvy. Tom Brokaw, for example, just said that the meeting “showed a great deal of maturity.”
I can understand their being unhappy about it, but tough. Yesterday, Obama threw them a bone that I don’t see McCain ever doing…he’s going to allow limited press at every fundraiser he holds, as opposed to the standard private fundraisers that prevail now. Ditching them to hold a very sensitive and very necessary private meeting with his recent rival for the nomination (a rival who still holds some serious cards in her hand) is small potatoes beside that concession.
