Pretty sure this is what it
feels like to be
at a press gaggle.
Mar 6 // Feb 24 2017
Whitehouse.gov....serving the American people day and night.
Is it a coincidence that "gaggle" sounds a lot like "gag?" We don't think so.
Today’s health tip, from Two Weeks Ago News: Next time you find yourself sleepless, restless and desperate to find some way to nod off, might we suggest a quick trip to whitehouse.gov? Choose a press gaggle transcript and start reading. Trust us, you’ll be bleary-eyed and exhausted in no time.
A few weeks ago, it was the end of the fourth estate. It was unprecedented behavior. It was the Tass News Agency writ large on the Potomac. (Oh wait, that was in 2013.)
According to the stories we all read and expressed our understandable outrage about, a number of news outlets were “blocked” from attending a “press gaggle,” which is different from a press conference. No, we didn’t know the difference either so we looked it up. According to Political Dictionary – yes, there is one – a press gaggle is:
“An informal briefing by the White House press secretary that is on the record but video recording is not allowed. It can occur anywhere, such as on Air Force One, but it often describes the informal interactions between the press and the press secretary that occur before a formal White House briefing.
The term likens the members of the press corps to a “gaggle of geese” honking.
Washington Monthly: “Gaggles historically refer to informal briefings the press secretary conducts with the press pool rather than the entire press corps. They used to happen in the morning, they were more or less off the record, and their purpose was mostly to exchange information – the president’s schedule and briefing schedule, from the administration side; heads-up on likely topics or early comment on pressing issues, from the news side. Briefings were what everybody knows them to be.”
Let’s sum up. We’re not journalists here at Two Weeks Ago News but we’re guessing the operative word here is “informal.” But regardless, news is news and the press is the press and late last month the following news organizations were not in attendance at a press gaggle with Sean Spicer: BBC, Buzzfeed, CNN, Daily Mail, The Hill, Los Angeles Times, NY Daily News, New York Times, and Politico. They were – according to all the reports available at the time – blocked from attending.
The following news organizations were in attendance: ABC, Bloomberg, Breitbart News, CBS, Fox, NBC, One America News Network, Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Washington Times.
What follows is the promised sleep aid for those of you who need one: the transcript of the gaggle in question, specifically the section referring to the missing journalists. Enjoy. And sleep tight. And if anyone can explain this exchange to us at Two Weeks Ago News, we’re listening.
Q One more question just about the idea that it seems as though you're playing favorites with media outlets by excluding some from this conversation.
MR. SPICER: You're my favorite. (Laughter.) (TWAN note: laughter??)
Q No, that's not what I'm asking. But do you have a response to that, though, given that that is a concern to some that want to see press have access to you, all out?
MR. SPICER: No, I think that -- right -- I think that we have shown an abundance of accessibility. We've brought more reporters into this process. And the idea that every time that every single person can't get their question answered or fit in a room that we're excluding people -- we've actually gone above and beyond with making ourselves, our team and our briefing room, more accessible than probably any prior administration. So I think you can take that to the bank. When you look at --
Q But why not those other outlets today?
MR. SPICER: Because, Cecilia, there's 3,000 people that are credentialed to come in here.
Q But there are six outlets that want to be in here right now. The New York Times --
MR. SPICER: No, there's not. Actually, that is false. To say that there are six -- maybe six that reached out to you, but that is not --
Q Well, but --
MR. SPICER: No, no, hold on --
Q -- listed in the White House Correspondents' Association's response to this.
MR. SPICER: I understand that. There are way more than six that wanted to come in. We started with the pool and then we expanded it. So I get it. But why -- I can ask -- there are plenty that want to come in at all times for every event. We do what we can to be accessible. And if there's a problem with that, I understand it. But we do what we can to accommodate the press. I think we've gone above and beyond when it comes to accessibility and openness and getting folks to -- our officials, our team. And so, respectfully, I disagree with the premise of the question.
Thank you.
That’s it? He disagrees with the premise of the question? We’re going to try that the next time someone challenges us. “Respectfully, we disagree with the premise of your question.” Sounds significant and authoritative, doesn’t it?
So there you go. Were these reporters blocked because the President was cranky about their coverage of his administration and said “Keep ‘em out for the day, Sean, the rat finks. Maybe they’ll see we mean business.” Possible. (Petulant and pouty and possible.) Maybe even likely. And that's a problem.
Or were they blocked because of the numbers? Was this a case of plenty of people who wanted “in” with only so much room? Maybe.
Was this possibly a case of “business as usual,” given the nature of the event? Does it happen regularly? Some organizations attend; some don’t; and all the information get shared? It’s not as if the mainstream media were absent, given the number of broadcast networks and news organizations represented in the room.
Our prediction: We’ll never know.
But since then, which is just about two weeks ago at this point, we do know this: We haven’t read one new story about yet another press gaggle or conference with specific press being “blocked” and kept away from the president or his team.
Weird.
In the meantime, we thought this was a fun read, too, given the outrage. Goes to show: there is nothing new under the sun, or in Washington.
Whitehouse.gov....serving the American people day and night.
Is it a coincidence that "gaggle" sounds a lot like "gag?" We don't think so.
Today’s health tip, from Two Weeks Ago News: Next time you find yourself sleepless, restless and desperate to find some way to nod off, might we suggest a quick trip to whitehouse.gov? Choose a press gaggle transcript and start reading. Trust us, you’ll be bleary-eyed and exhausted in no time.
A few weeks ago, it was the end of the fourth estate. It was unprecedented behavior. It was the Tass News Agency writ large on the Potomac. (Oh wait, that was in 2013.)
According to the stories we all read and expressed our understandable outrage about, a number of news outlets were “blocked” from attending a “press gaggle,” which is different from a press conference. No, we didn’t know the difference either so we looked it up. According to Political Dictionary – yes, there is one – a press gaggle is:
“An informal briefing by the White House press secretary that is on the record but video recording is not allowed. It can occur anywhere, such as on Air Force One, but it often describes the informal interactions between the press and the press secretary that occur before a formal White House briefing.
The term likens the members of the press corps to a “gaggle of geese” honking.
Washington Monthly: “Gaggles historically refer to informal briefings the press secretary conducts with the press pool rather than the entire press corps. They used to happen in the morning, they were more or less off the record, and their purpose was mostly to exchange information – the president’s schedule and briefing schedule, from the administration side; heads-up on likely topics or early comment on pressing issues, from the news side. Briefings were what everybody knows them to be.”
Let’s sum up. We’re not journalists here at Two Weeks Ago News but we’re guessing the operative word here is “informal.” But regardless, news is news and the press is the press and late last month the following news organizations were not in attendance at a press gaggle with Sean Spicer: BBC, Buzzfeed, CNN, Daily Mail, The Hill, Los Angeles Times, NY Daily News, New York Times, and Politico. They were – according to all the reports available at the time – blocked from attending.
The following news organizations were in attendance: ABC, Bloomberg, Breitbart News, CBS, Fox, NBC, One America News Network, Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Washington Times.
What follows is the promised sleep aid for those of you who need one: the transcript of the gaggle in question, specifically the section referring to the missing journalists. Enjoy. And sleep tight. And if anyone can explain this exchange to us at Two Weeks Ago News, we’re listening.
Q One more question just about the idea that it seems as though you're playing favorites with media outlets by excluding some from this conversation.
MR. SPICER: You're my favorite. (Laughter.) (TWAN note: laughter??)
Q No, that's not what I'm asking. But do you have a response to that, though, given that that is a concern to some that want to see press have access to you, all out?
MR. SPICER: No, I think that -- right -- I think that we have shown an abundance of accessibility. We've brought more reporters into this process. And the idea that every time that every single person can't get their question answered or fit in a room that we're excluding people -- we've actually gone above and beyond with making ourselves, our team and our briefing room, more accessible than probably any prior administration. So I think you can take that to the bank. When you look at --
Q But why not those other outlets today?
MR. SPICER: Because, Cecilia, there's 3,000 people that are credentialed to come in here.
Q But there are six outlets that want to be in here right now. The New York Times --
MR. SPICER: No, there's not. Actually, that is false. To say that there are six -- maybe six that reached out to you, but that is not --
Q Well, but --
MR. SPICER: No, no, hold on --
Q -- listed in the White House Correspondents' Association's response to this.
MR. SPICER: I understand that. There are way more than six that wanted to come in. We started with the pool and then we expanded it. So I get it. But why -- I can ask -- there are plenty that want to come in at all times for every event. We do what we can to be accessible. And if there's a problem with that, I understand it. But we do what we can to accommodate the press. I think we've gone above and beyond when it comes to accessibility and openness and getting folks to -- our officials, our team. And so, respectfully, I disagree with the premise of the question.
Thank you.
That’s it? He disagrees with the premise of the question? We’re going to try that the next time someone challenges us. “Respectfully, we disagree with the premise of your question.” Sounds significant and authoritative, doesn’t it?
So there you go. Were these reporters blocked because the President was cranky about their coverage of his administration and said “Keep ‘em out for the day, Sean, the rat finks. Maybe they’ll see we mean business.” Possible. (Petulant and pouty and possible.) Maybe even likely. And that's a problem.
Or were they blocked because of the numbers? Was this a case of plenty of people who wanted “in” with only so much room? Maybe.
Was this possibly a case of “business as usual,” given the nature of the event? Does it happen regularly? Some organizations attend; some don’t; and all the information get shared? It’s not as if the mainstream media were absent, given the number of broadcast networks and news organizations represented in the room.
Our prediction: We’ll never know.
But since then, which is just about two weeks ago at this point, we do know this: We haven’t read one new story about yet another press gaggle or conference with specific press being “blocked” and kept away from the president or his team.
Weird.
In the meantime, we thought this was a fun read, too, given the outrage. Goes to show: there is nothing new under the sun, or in Washington.