In what could best be described as a “love/hate” relationship with Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a group of "about 17" journalists met at the Los Angeles Times/Tribune offices in Washington on Monday to complain among themselves about limited access to Clinton and her campaign.
Michael Calderone at The Huffington Post says they accuse Hillary’s camp of “keeping an excessively tight grip on information, even when it comes to logistical details that don't seem particularly sensitive or revelatory.”
The private gathering included journalists from Politico, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Time, and McClatchy Newspapers, among many others. The two-hour meeting was held in an effort to not only express their concerns on limited access to Clinton, but eventually take those concerns to the White House Correspondents’ Association in a unified voice.
The WHCA has been around for over a century and though it elects representatives to bring journalistic concerns to the White House, there isn’t any organization that does the same for journalists working on the campaign trail. The whole thing hints at how Hillary is running like an incumbent president, and the only kind of press she wants is adoring tributes.
Some of the concerns they brought to the table were not only Clinton’s aversion to questions from the media, but “failure to provide adequate notice prior to events, the lack of a clear standard for whether fundraisers are open or closed press and the reflexive tendency to opt to speak anonymously.”
Those in attendance felt they were not given enough notice or information for events, which often resulted in difficulty trying to report them. In order to plan accordingly, networks need to dispatch satellite trucks and camera equipment, not to mention the need to book flights for the event. Since the Clinton camp seems to give logistical information at the “eleventh hour”, this often leads to many missed opportunities of campaign coverage, which appears to be what the Clinton camp would like.
The Huffington Post cited another concern:
“…according to attendees, was that the campaign had initially said that fundraisers of more than 100 people would be open to the press through a pool system. Under this arrangement, certain reporters are designated to cover events that cannot accommodate large numbers of journalists, and those reporters then provide information to the larger press corps. But recent Clinton fundraisers have been closed press.”
The group also voiced their displeasure over ground rules for a Thursday briefing at the Clinton camp headquarters in Brooklyn. According to CNBC’s John Harwood, this is some of what he took away from Thursday’s meeting:
She plans to lay out some policy proposals after that. Can't say which ones.
She'll take questions from reporters. Can't say how often.
She'll start having rallies. Not too many, because the election's a long way away. But some.
She might take a summer vacation, which means reporters covering her can, too. Don't know when, but one senior official observed that summer vacations traditionally occur in mid-August.
They are also taking their Republican opposition very seriously—some in the sprawling GOP field more seriously than others. Can't specify which ones.
Her husband, Bill, and daughter, Chelsea, will play roles in her campaign. Can't say exactly what, or when.
She might even be able to expand the roster of battleground states beyond those Obama targeted. Can't say which ones.
This kind of vagueness doesn't exactly give you compelling copy for your editors. When Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill was asked about reporter complaints, he responded in an email to the Huffington Post:
“I’d say two things,” he wrote. “First, we want a happy press corps as much as the press corps does. Not in an effort to obtain favorable coverage, but because we're decent humans who want people to be able to plan their lives. It's a long campaign, and we are going to do our best to find equilibrium. Griping on background is not a constructive solution though, and I can't help but point out the irony here."
So much for another promise of transparency. But snark? They have that in buckets.
