RSN Denied Media Access In Bradley Manning Trial
Source: Reader Supported News
According to the Army, 350 reporters applied for credentials to the trial of Bradley Manning. Fewer than 100 received credentials, meaning over 250 were denied. Reader Supported News was one of the publications denied. The Army in its notification of denial said, "The U.S. Army Military District of Washington made every effort to ensure a variety of media were credentialed to provide the public (local, national, international) a continuous news feed of the legal proceedings." However the criteria for approval remains vague at best.
Read more: http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/367-wikileaks/17713-rsn-files-media-access-motion-in-manning-trial
If only there was someone in Congress who understood that "a free press" is vital in a supposed democracy. Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave.
Big_Mike
(509 posts)there are limits. I am frankly amazed that they allowed 100 passes. I've never seen a military courtroom that could handle even a quarter of that amount. Those facilities are normally quite small, and without much excess space. They must have made provision for some kind of overflow (hopefully not GP Medium tents!) for the press.
MADem
(135,425 posts)PSPS
(13,600 posts)brooklynite
(94,585 posts)Unless your argument is that Manning didn't leak the material to WikiLeaks, I don't see how you draw that conclusion. "It shouldn't be a crime" isn't a legal claim.
Purveyor
(29,876 posts)posting.
I'm bookmarking the site for future reference.
durbin
(73 posts)Those days, for the most part, are gone.
Newspapers rely upon their sponsors, as do radio and TV news. Readers just get what news their sponsors want them to get.
A sad day in the world when most news sources area NOT "reader supported"
sweetloukillbot
(11,026 posts)When they could access stories online. Then they decided they didn't want to pay for web access when news sites implemented paywalls. So hundreds of real journalists across the country (like myself) lost their jobs.
But that's a whole different story.
durbin
(73 posts)Did I just hear that the Chicago Tribune just let go all their photographer journalists?
I see small town papers dry up, I see big city papers fold or cut their staff to 1/3.
It's not a good day we live in for journalism.
sweetloukillbot
(11,026 posts)Reporters are to shoot pictures using their smartphones. I went through similar in my last few years - I was issued a backpack with a laptop and a Nikon Sure Shot and told to go find news and report on it from Starbucks. Good little camera which in the hands of a good photographer probably could produce decent shots. But not in my hands.
I was the local music reporter before the layoffs, we also had a national music reporter, a classical/opera reporter, a theater reporter, a TV reporter, a movie reviewer, an arts reporter, two GA arts reporters and two clerks on our arts team.
They currently have one music writer who does everything including classical, TV and Movies are combined, a visual arts reporter, and a theatre reporter (who also does dance and opera also). Plus 2 interns who do concert reviews. Every reporter works 80 hour weeks, shoots most of their own photography and some video.
The nice thing is they have a hefty freelance budget so I'm able to pick up good-paying work on a semi-regular basis.
durbin
(73 posts)The most important thing in journalism of today seems to be counting the beans!
I'd hate to be the bean-counter for those essays of Henry David Thoreau. I think his publisher died as a pauper. Which one among us hasn't been rewarded by reading Thoreau, or so many others?
Getting rid of photojournalism, how is this a "survival tactic" for news sources?
MADem
(135,425 posts)I have to say it sounds like "I Made This Up And It's Not Real or Funded" News. That probably informed the Army's decision.
They should have coordinated with other groups and gone into a "pool" arrangement.
Edward R. Murrow is not turning over in his grave--there's plenty of representation in the room.
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)Its kinda a "spin-off" of Truthout.org--as one of the TO editors started it (I believe). But you would have to ask Will Pitts (on here) about RSN as he probably knows more.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I wouldn't give "Truthout.org" a press pass either--they're an advocacy site. They advocate for stuff that most people here like, but they are definitely working from a POV.
Again, if a bunch of smaller outfits had come together and agreed to a "pool" scheme, they probably could have been accommodated. But everyone wants to be number one, I guess.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...of the new and improved ''optional'' 1st Amendment.
- K&R