Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
In the case of the White House briefing room, it's always been the case that they decide who gets in and who doesn't and where they sit as there is a limit on space.
Beyond that however, I have no idea how it's been decided in the past.
|
That's deciding on who can be in the room, but that's not deciding on who actually gets media credentials. As far as I can find out the process is:
Get approved by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, elected by accredited reporters for a congressional press pass. They have to show they work for a news organization and that that organization is independent of any group that lobbies the government.
Pass the White House's additional background checks.
Reporters can be suspended. EDIT: Usually for security or similar reasons, obviously not for quality or leaning of reporting.
After that the pass can be renewed yearly with no additional checks. So on the surface it would seem benign as it doesn't seem the White House directly approves the credentials. But it will be interesting to see.
Got that info from here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Quote:
Originally Posted by killer_carlson
And where was this outrage when the CNN, aka the Clinton News Network, jumped the shark when it came to objective coverage?
Wolf Blitzer was most embarassing in my opinion.
|
I don't think you're understanding what I said, it had nothing to do with bias of any specific outlet, for every Fox and Breitbart there'll be a CNN and HuffPo.
I said the government doesn't get to decide which one is and which one isn't legitimate, or which one does and which one doesn't get media credentials.
EDIT: And I switched from CNN to PBS as soon as PBS's online stream came live, I don't have TV. So I didn't see much of CNN's coverage.