The Chronicle isn’t the only newspaper the White House is punishing for unfavorable coverage. The Boston Herald reports this morning that its access to an Obama fundraising event has been limited because it put a Mitt Romney op-ed on its cover.

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit. “My point about the op-ed was not that you ran it but that it was the full front page, which excluded any coverage of the visit of a sitting U.S. president to Boston. I think that raises a fair question about whether the paper is unbiased in its coverage of the president’s visits.”

Lehrich said that despite the administration’s beef with the Herald, the paper wasn’t purposely barred from the press pool, and that the White House Correspondents Association picked the rival Boston Globe to serve as the local reporter.

Obama’s speech in Boston is open to all media, but only a selected pool can attend other aspects of his fund-raiser. Pool reporters must share all their material with other press. The Herald said it has been bypassed for pool duty during Obama’s last two visits despite asking the White House to be the local pool reporter.

Last month, the White House barred Chronicle reporters from pool duty after the Chron’s Carla Marinucci shot video of protesters mocking Obama at a fund-raiser at the St. Regis Hotel. Unlike the Herald, the Chronicle declined to identify the White House official who made the threat.

Bay Area Media News


  1. What good is covering a presidential fund-raiser anyway? Why aren't reporters spending their time analyzing the legislation, new regulations and executive orders that affect our lives, rather than writing down all the platitudes and generalities Obama gives during a typical speech. The devil is in the details, and reporters seem to be allergic to serious research. Instead they want to take down a few quotes and make a story around that.

  2. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is is possible that the Chronicle blew their incident out of proportion to elevate their own importance? Was it self-promotion?

  3. I've got to agree with the White House that the Herald won't be that objective.

    The subject of that Op-Ed was the former governor of the state. That should count for something.

  4. You should have pointed out that the Herald is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the same guy who owns Fox News.

  5. A front page op-ed by Obama's possible opponent? Yeah, I've got to agree with the White House that the Herald won't be that objective. What kind of rag puts op-eds on the front page?

  6. the comical's story this morning on politicians who had affairs had a few interesting omissions — why didn't they say anything about willie brown? maybe because he now works at the chron? nothing about gavin newsom. and nothing about ted kennedy, who not only cheated on his wife but killed the woman he was cheating with. … how does ted kennedy get left off a list like that?

  7. Betcha, when all is said and done, that the Chronicle's editorial page will still endorse Obama for reelection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>