If White House reporters are upset about “Secret off-the-record” meetings, there IS a way to stop it

Just get up, and walk out

With Benghazi heating up (finally) in the news, and people demanding answers (still after all these months), the White House announced a Press Conference for today.

Then, oops:

Suddenly, there turned out to be ANOTHER White House press conference, this one “off the record”

If there’s one thing you want to do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media, it’s holding an off-the-record briefing.

Time for the team to huddle.

The White House held an off-the-record briefing with reporters on Friday afternoon to discuss recent revelations about the Benghazi investigation, sources familiar with the meeting tell POLITICO.

secrecyThe meeting began around 12:45 p.m. and postponed the daily, on-the-record White House press briefing to 1:45 p.m. White House press secretary Jay Carney did not respond to a request for confirmation of the meeting.

The off-the-record session was announced to reporters in the wake of an ABC News report showing that White House and State Dept. officials were involved in revising the now-discredited CIA talking points about the attack on Benghazi.

Were they discussing troop movements or something? What reason could there be to go off the record, and why would the press agree to it? If there’s classified material involved, just redact the bits that can’t be publicized. Or maybe I have this wrong; maybe the reason Carney wanted to huddle is because Ron Fournier was onto something this morning in sensing that the White House is trying to point a finger at Hillary and the State Department for redacting the first draft of the CIA’s talking points. For obvious reasons, if Carney wants to steer them in that direction, he wouldn’t want to do it on the record. Then again, there’s no reason to task the White House press secretary with that; if Team O wants to push Hillary under the bus, they’ll do it the old-fashioned way, through anonymous leaks. So again, why is this briefing off the record?

Yeah, way to be “Open and Transparent, there, Obama.

Twitchy has more. Lots more.

One correspondent, April Ryan, seems especially upset –

Dubious, I had to ask her:

To which she replied:

…which, I guess, means if she were in the secret meeting, she’d be equally unhappy? I’m again dubious…

Dana Perino, former White House spokesperson after the untimely death of Tony Snow, said it all right here:

Yes. If you call yourself a “Journalist” and don’t want it to be said of you you’re nothing but an “Opinion Journalist” – refuse to go unless it’s on the record. Supposed to be watchdogs, aren’t you? Or is this reserved for when a President you don’t agree with ideologically is in office?

Crossposted to Unified Patriots

Advertisements

About Erick Brockway

Living in Camarillo, CA, about 45 miles North of LA. I have a son, and two daughters. Working two jobs (welcome to California life), plus a (now retired) reservist in the US Navy Seabees so life is busy!
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to If White House reporters are upset about “Secret off-the-record” meetings, there IS a way to stop it

  1. Pingback: If White House reporters are upset about “Secret off-the-record” meetings, there IS a way to stop it | Unified Patriots

  2. Steve says:

    ABC News: Benghazi Attack Talking Points from CIA Edited by White House, Obama Administration

    http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/05/abc-news-benghazi-attack-talking-points.html

  3. Mustang.Koji says:

    Don’t you love it? Obama hand picked dogs that like his trouser legs. I hope they pee on It… Or worse thinking its a female leg. Azzhole.

Comments are closed.