And, as Turnstyle News reports, Marinucci would like an explanation about why that is:

We haven’t gotten any public statements from the White House on why no local reporters from any paper were allowed to cover the events this week. And I think that is the question that maybe they need to answer. Whether it’s the Chronicle, the Mercury News, or the Oakland Tribune someone from the Bay Area who knows the faces and people at these events in the public interest should be allowed to tell the public what’s going on in private fundraisers, especially since the Obama administration promised they would be transparent at such events.

The Chronicle, for its part, made its disappointment known, publishing an editorial piece this week noting the absurdity at play in having an administration call itself “open” while it simultaneously bars certain journalists or outlets from participating in and covering events:

The White House can draw the rules as it wants. But it shouldn’t expect praise for openness, candor and transparency with moves like this one. While a pool reporter from the regular White House media may be in attendance, local journalists are much better equipped to identify the contributors who are attending high-priced fetes.

These are not private events – not for a campaign that is talking about a $1 billion re-election, and not when people are writing checks of up to five figures to curry favor with the administration.

h/t Turnstyle News

The woman’s well-played response? “Well, you go for the money, obviously. That’s what she did.”

Todd gamely hangs in there, but the confrontation ends with the woman walking away, yelling “Sell-out!”

Aside from being a tasty morsel of deep-fried viral junk-food, the exchange illustrates the true folly of the media’s (admittedly waning) fascination over the “will she or won’t she” question. Setting aside all of Palin’s pros (energetic supporters, megawatt charisma) and cons (insert your own list here), the minute Palin’s presidential ambitions morph from entertaining bustravaganza to actual campaign, the fact that she quit the governorship instantly settles the question.

The Chronicle also captured an impromptu Palin press gaggle at the Iowa State Fair and Ambient Noise Jamboree, including some Palin responses that were left out of This Week‘s Iowa clips package. Palin talks a bit more about the time frame for her decision, and says she would run an “unconventional campaign,” and would look to hire people “outside that political bubble.”

Palin also made a rare admission of a mistake, backing off of an earlier statement (and possible dig at newly-minted candidate Gov. Rick Perry)that Alaska’s constitution provided for “very, very strong governor’s office,” as opposed to Texas. Palin volunteered, “We want conviction and passion and candidness — even if through that candidness you make mistakes and you say things like ‘the executive power in Texas is different than the executive power in Alaska.’”

On her deadline to decide if she’s going to run, Palin told Jake Tapper, “I don’t want to be seen as stringing people along,” and, in explaining how the long wait would be unfair to supporters, spoke about the necessity of letting them know who they should support. After several recent statements in which she talked about her decision in terms of releasing her supporters to other candidates, though, it certainly is beginning to seem like those supporters are being strung along.

Here’s the clip, also from The San Francisco Chronicle:

(h/t TPC)

The Chronicle readily admits that Marinucci broke the rules of the event:

“Chronicle senior political reporter Carla Marinucci was invited by the White House to cover the Obama fundraiser on April 21 on the condition that she send her written report to the White House to distribute to other reporters who did not attend. Such ‘pool reports’ are routinely used for press coverage at White House events that are not open to the entire press corps.

…

As part of a ‘print-only pool,’ Marinucci was limited by White House guidelines to provide a print-only report, but Marinucci also took a video of the protest, which she posted in her written story on the online edition of The Chronicle at SFGate.com and on its politics blog after she sent her written pool report.”

They also quote from a professor at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism who notes that this is not an unusual action by an administration, citing shaky press relations from the Nixon and Ford White Houses. However, Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee points out that times are different. Everyone has the capability to record video and share it instantly. What if something more substantial had occurred at the event like an attack on the President? Should the reporters have sat on their thumbs and not pulled out their Flip Cams? Also, doesn’t this go against Obama’s promises to have “the most transparent” administration in history?

So, what do you think? Is this reprimand and threat a suitable punishment for a news organization that didn’t follow the rules or is the White House wrong in trying to live by rules that go against modern realities and promises made while campaigning?

Marinucci’s video is still online. You can see it below:

He is generally considered to be very thoughtful, very thorough. And he’s gay. He’s gay and out. And it doesn’t seem to be an issue for anybody, including the supporters of Proposition 8, because when it was announced that Judge Walker was the judge who’d been assigned this case, they did not ask that he be recused from it.

As I said on a post at the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association blog, what was so surprising about that statement is Walker’s being gay and open about it was reported as a fact that, as far as I can tell, has never been established.  And NPR isn’t alone.  On ABC’s Good Morning America, Walker is also described as openly gay in a report by Terry Moran.

Sure, critics of the decision talk about. The Drudge Report prominently played up a story about Walker’s sexual orientation on the day of the ruling. Fox News even ran an analysis piece on their website the day of the ruling suggesting it was evidence of bias.

And Stephen Colbert may have settled the issue, saying “Arma-gay-don” has arrived since Walker is gay, like the judges on Project Runway.

The chatter, of course, is nothing new. In February, two San Francisco Chronicle columnists wrote about “the biggest open secret”  in town: the unmarried 65-year old judge  was gay and not exactly closeted about it.  The New York Times used that story recently to bring up Walker’s sexual orientation, but avoided saying he was gay.

But hearing NPR report that Walker was “gay and out” was still shocking because so few reporters actually stated it as fact. People hint about it and there’s plenty of innuendo, but it appears the Chronicle’s outing of Walker has now largely turned into evidence without confirmation. Even Andrew Sullivan takes it as an issue of fact.

Lisa Keen, a long-time reporter in the gay press, wrote an analysis for the LGBT newspaper the Bay Area Reporter when the news first surfaced saying “various other reporters and gay people interested in the trial did openly discuss their belief that Walker is gay” during the time she was covering the trial but the “only evidence anyone offered, beyond the realm of ordinary rumor, was the claim that a third party had told them that they had seen Walker at a gathering of a local gay legal group.”

So where does that leave the press?

As I said before when talking about Elena Kagan for Mediaite, the question is why does it matter and is it newsworthy.   It also raises an even more provocative question about what is “gay and out” and how do journalists describe it.

A gay judge needn’t avoid ruling on issues involving gay people because it is viewed as evidence of bias.  African American jurists can rule on civil rights issues, Catholic jurists can rule on relgious liberty issues or abortion, and female jurists can rule on issues involving women’s rights without it being viewed as obvious bias.

But if people are discussing alleged bias and a judge’s sexual orientation, is then news?  In this case, the answer is probably yes.  It’s a newsworthy story and the mystery behind the judge’s sexual orientation is an issue being cited by critics and, well, it’s just really interesting. That makes it fair game for coverage.

It does not, however, require National Enquirer investigations and paid sources delving into Walker’s trash and personal life.  It’s not THAT interesting of a story.

The story also raises a larger societal–and journalism ethics–question that is connected to the sticky issue of “outing.”

Judge Walker should need to hold a press conference or issue a press statement announcing his sexual orientation. He should be allowed to lead his life as he wants, attend the parties he wants, and even have male companions in public without needing to contact public relations guru Howard Bragman and appearing on the cover of People magazine.

There will hopefully come a time when public figures–or even private ones–aren’t badgered about their sexual orientation and they can just live their lives.  This requires, of course, a certain candor from public figures who don’t actively work to hide their sexual orientation or refuse to bring it up.

But we don’t live in that world yet, so these issues are going to continue to arise likely with more frequency. People are going to be asked about sexual orientation, people are going to avoid answering, and journalists will still be left figuring out how to report it.

But there was a particularly ridiculous review of our new site, Geekosystem, that needs to be addressed.

First, some background. Geekosystem launched January 25, and serves to “unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner. There’s a lot of overlap between the different families of geekery.” The response has been mostly positive, and yes, jumping to this defense feels a little like defending my super smart and witty little brother in the school cafeteria.

But here is the review by Zennie Abraham, a blogger at SFGate.com (as part of the unedited “City Brights” blog) and video-blogger at his own site. His review was so far-fetched and absurd I thought about leaving it alone – but SFGate.com is the online outlet of the San Francisco Chronicle. And the level of offensiveness deserves a response.

Here’s how he begins his review:

This young, black, bald, geek blogger was totally underwhelmed by Geekosystem because it seems to reflect what Geek culture looks like from a young, white, frat boy perspective. (Not that Dan Abrams is such a person). Not the term “Geek” wasn’t used to describe that view. Geekosystem, to the extent such a thing really exists – and it does – contains blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos and Latinas, Indians, and a large number of people of color.

Ok, let’s break this down. Apparently posts about who the new Batman villain will be, Homeland Security monitoring blogs during the Olympics, the origins of Chatroulette or “heart-shaped things” (all posts on the front page) are aimed at the “young, white, frat boy” crowd. This of course, is absurd. I wouldn’t exactly classify myself a geek, but I’d imagine the geek community isn’t as segregated as Abraham makes it out to be. If Geekosystem is somehow a Caucasian-interest site, what would BlackGeekosystem.com look like?

It’s an odd argument to make, and a head-scratching decision to insert race and gender into the picture. It’s offensive to the creators of the site, to its readership, and frankly, to frat boys. Here’s more:

The Geekosystem also contains a large number of women that aren’t represented in Dan Abrams’ version of The Geekosystem.

Aren’t represented? Did Abraham not bother glancing at who writes the posts? Robert Quigley is the managing editor, while editorial intern Susana Polo writes nearly 50% of the content as well. Or, say, today, when guest columnist Cindy Au wrote “What is it about Movies Called Avatar and Race?” The claim that women “aren’t represented” would be laughable if, again, it weren’t so offensive.

Abraham closes with:

It’s the in the “oft-overlooked personalities” that Dan Abrams new venture fails. More often than not, the “oft-overlooked personalities” are geeks who women and people of color. A token mention does not solve the problem; a total Geekosystem overhaul is necessary.

Well we won’t be overhauling anything. And some will have legitimate complaints about Geekosystem in the weeks and months ahead. But this review introduces a storyline of race that is totally unwarranted and unfounded. It actually serves to undermine Abraham’s entire argument. In the absence of any examples of how the content is “white, frat boy” or what would be the opposite of that, we’re left with the obvious conclusion that it is 100% false. Instead, it propagates a strange theory that geek culture is separate for those of different races, different genders.

And we shouldn’t just let it slide.

> Update: Abraham has written this response, and posted this video response:


Just like his original post, there are no specifics, or examples, anywhere.

—–
» Follow Steve Krakauer on Twitter

Phil’s also known as a celebrity, but my feeling going in was that I want to focus on the more substantive issue of media’s future with someone I work with, and that I wasn’t interested in adding to someone’s caricature of “Phil Bronstein.” We met at Phil’s office at San Francisco Chronicle headquarters in San Francisco.

(The text picks up after the video introduction. The blog post breaks down the most interesting parts of the discussion with summaries in between. The video below is over 27 minutes long.)

Stay tuned.

–The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on the Salahi gate-crashing incident

The media has yet to come to a consensus over the meaning of “Crashgate.” Some outlets see the news that socialites Michaele and Tareq Salahi were able to get past state dinner security and even snap photos with President Obama as an alarming sign of poor security, some find fault with the Obama administration itself, and some think that the whole affair is funny. Not to be overlooked: it is possible that the Salahis had help from the inside.

The members of the San Francisco Chronicle‘s editorial board, for their part, does not think that the incident is a laughing matter. If they’re not explicitly calling for the heads of Secret Service or White House staff, they at least see their firings as inevitable.

But is that fair? A poll: do you think anyone should be fired over the incident? Who, if anyone, do you think is at fault?

When the Congressional debate of health care kicked into high gear Saturday afternoon, many news outlets had their coverage follow — from endless updates on the Huffington Post to CSPAN’s exhaustive video cataloging. Meanwhile, printed newspapers doubtlessly spent the day preparing their Sunday covers — unable to foresee exactly how the vote and bill would shake out, but fully aware of its inevitable headline grabbing appeal.

With the debate and vote pushing late into the night, it must have been a scramble — there are matters of placement, prominence, photo selection and of course, headlines.

In some papers the story receives top billing, while other relegate it to a smaller side column. The results vary across the nation, but provide an interesting look into the disparate layouts of the nation’s prominent printed papers.

Using the Today’s Front Pages feature of Newseum as a resource, we’ve collected some of the standout covers from this Sunday, November 8, 2009.

From South Carolina to California to New York City — here are today’s covers from around the United States!

]]> http://www.mediaite.com/print/the-nations-newspapers-react-to-health-care-bill-on-sunday-covers/feed/ 0