The Clintons have a history of secrecy that goes back long before they ever made it to the White House the first time around. So it’s of little surprise when Hillary gets a little testy with the media on the campaign trail. But, this isn’t a political rant written by a libertarian-anarchist who loathes all politicians equally. This is about photography.
While stomping the ground in Gorman, New Hampshire over the holiday weekend, Clinton campaign staffers decided that if words were not enough to corral the media that more assertive measures would have to be taken. This resulted in members of the media who were staying ahead of Clinton in the Independence Day parade to be literally roped off, with aides allowing the media to only go where campaign members wanted them to.
“This is humiliating for reporters who have to abide by Hillary Cliton’s rules of journalism,” stated CNN commentator S.E. Cupp. While some in the media see no problem with this, many are up in arms as relations with the campaign remain strained.
What is most disturbing about this is how reporters’ hands are being tied, almost literally, in coverage of the campaign. I may distrust the media to the same degree as politicians, but to deny even the attempt at thorough journalism is a shocking move.
On the other hand, the campaign asserts that the move was simply to allow Clinton the freedom to greet voters without being swarmed by the media. As the campaign’s press secretary, Nick Merrill, commented, “We wanted to accommodate the press, allow her to greet voters, and allow the press to be right there in the parade with her as opposed to preset locations.”
But, in a society that prides itself on freedom of the press, where do you draw the line? SHOULD a line even be drawn? I believe public figures of this magnitude have essentially resigned their rights as private citizens and should expect media attention of equal magnitude. No stipulations restricting access to the public, whether they be citizens or journalists, should be contrived or enforced.
[via Fstoppers]
She is a former 1st Lady, so there are also security concerns as far as the Secret Service assign to protect her is concern. The photographers CAN refuse to cover it, ignore her and she’ll come begging.
That’s BS. They should have just ignored the rope line.
I don’t know. I don’t think i would want that guy falling a pro video camera about on a monopod within 20 feet of me.
Really??? Look how close they are to her in that picture above. If that’s not close enough then you have your own issues. Since when did “news” journalists run up on people like the paparazzi? Good for her and her people.
And watch the masses vote for her anyway. Why should we worry? Benghazi, secret email server? The Clinton Foundation? Nothing to see here.
and Vince Foster and Mena and Whitewater and all the other fake fucking scandals from 20 years ago that we’ll get to hear about all over again. David Brock has the number on you douches.
Fake? HAHAHA!
“I believe public figures of this magnitude have essentially resigned their rights as private citizens and should expect media attention of equal magnitude”
Is this really what you think? Do you believe that paparazzis should have the right to screw up every little moment in their lives…?
To be clear: I believe that EVERYONE has the right of privacy. But as soon as they expose themself to the public as Hillary did in this case, you may right. But again – THIS is not a privacy issue but a try to handle media in a way that enables a people to people communication.
Although I am also in media – these days media is not needed anymore to communicate to the masses – and if some media guys still try to behave like this – THEY ARE WRONG and this needs to be shown to them. Maybe there are finer ways to do that – but in general I am fully with Clinton to “tear them back”!
‘Right to Privacy’ does NOT apply DURING a media Event, and certainly does NOT extend to tying folks UP!
I should have read the author’s credentials before I read the story. I used to be a news cameraman for 6 years, covering 2 Presidents, 1 VP and 1 First Lady. All of these events had physical barricades that prevented the media from swarming the VIP. Keeping the media 10 feet away during a parade is not censoring the media, it’s preventing the media from disrupting a parade and providing some sense of security. Reporters have long grumbled at the lack of substance at these photo ops, but then again they are free to go digging into government documents and conduct some real journalism…just a thought.
I seriously hate that woman
misogyny much?
Ah, so anyone who hates THIS woman automatically hates ALL women? And isn’t that the Standard Democrat/Leftist response, that anyone who disagrees w/ Your ideas is automatically a “Racist/Sexist/Misogynist/Homophobic/Bigot?”
When did DIYP get bought by Murdock?
Go hug your Hillary doll.
So these photographers must have never shot a sport? You are media… be ready for whatever comes your way… can’t shoot passed a rope? Maybe go try a desk job…
Reporters humiliate people all the time.
I don’t understand this article. It says she’s literally tying the media’s hands. Is it that much of a better shot when you take it right up in their face? The reporters would have a fraction of the circumference to work with and would have to shoot over each other’s shoulders tripping on each other as they walk backwards.
David Pinsent, that made me laugh out loud hehehe. I’m not a big fan myself. Your comment just jumped right out of the others lol.
Gives them more space to get a better photo, good idea, the togs do not crowd the subject this way.
HAHAHA!!! So, it’s for the ‘REPORTER’S’ Benefit, huh? I bet they’re really grateful – I sure would be!
1. Clinton-hating Right-wingers will complain about anything they can if it has to do with a Clinton.
.
2. S.E. Cupp IS one of those right-wingers, so there should be no surprise that she’s wigging out over this. Next week, she’ll find a reason to be outraged by the color or Clinton’s shoes or something.
2.a. Where was her outrage when Dubya was barring people from even attending if they didn’t agree with him, and roping people off into “freedom of speech zones”?
.
3. Candidates are protected from being easily approached by the Secret Service, as I recall. So why should someone with a camera be allowed to do whatever they want to get as close as they want? What’s to stop an assassin who happens to carrying a camera to get easy access?
no knife to cut this rope !? :-(
“LOOK OUT!!!!, the ‘journalist’ has a weapon!!!”
Brilliant idea
There’s photos at another Hillary event where ‘journalists’ are being walked about on leashes, individually lassoed by Clinton Staffers and walked about like dogs. That, for me, says it all about how ‘reporters’ are just servants for the Clintons.