Obama Campaign To Charge News Outlets For Election Night Coverage

Chicago Sun-Times:

WASHINGTON---The Obama campaign is putting a hefty price tag on the best camera and reporting positions for news organizations covering Barack Obama's outdoor election night activities in downtown Chicago. If a reporter wants access to the file center--which will be the best place to find Obama officials and spokesmen--be prepared to write a check for $935. The cheapest place a reporter could stand on a riser with a view is $880.

That $935 covers one reporter in a heated file tent, power, cable tv, internet and food. I am told by an Obama spokesman who did not want his name used that this just covers costs and they are not turning a profit on this. The planners could have built in more al a carte options for Grant Park coverage.

This is an outrageous pay to play plan that caters to national elite outlets with deep pockets.

Read the whole story: Chicago Sun-Times

Comments

[MurrayAbraham]

There's no business like show business, which in many respects is what election night has become.

[metalpipe]

'This is an outrageous pay to play plan that caters to national elite outlets with deep pockets.'

Very opinionated statement. I totally disagree. I could afford this as a tourist. I am getting tired of people in our camp pointing fingers in rage over such a little matter. Neither campaign should be burdened with shouldering costs to house today's media rats. Any legit organization should have this kind of petty cash.

Is there anything worse than listening to a reporter whine? Nope. Go do your job, regardless of the seeming adversity, or find another line of work.

[PacoPup]

I agree. When I read the headline, I was thinking more along the lines of $10K - then when I saw that it was $935, I thought 4 words - cost of doing business. I could afford that out of pocket. I also think it's smart because it will enable them to maintain some order.- makes it's easier to keep control over mayhem. Personally, I hope it's an early night so that we get to see images of those adorable Obama girls celebrating with Daddy!

OBAMA/BIDEN '08

[paisleyprak]

Really. I'd pay that, for the experience. To be there, and blog about it, with all the comforts and amenities, and access? I'm totally there!

[partyofone]

The reasons this nation has had a non-stop 2-year campaign for president is to boost media ratings and revenues, and to keep dishonest, mercenary political advisors and campaign operatives employed full time at huge fees. The result has been HUGE profits, many supplied, once again, by the average American ctiizen who contributes to the campaigns.

The only people benefiting from non-stop media coverage is the media. They should pay at least the full cost for their useless swarms of "reporters" and technicians.

[metalpipe]

Payment should have been on a sliding scale, with $1000 being the base price, and the major networks paying much more as they stand to gain much more from the coverage.

The only potential downside is the right wing nut jobs screaming 'socialism', but do we really care about under informed social delinquents who don't have the intellectual curiosity to Google 'socialism' and find out they are spewing nonsence? I for one am having a hard time.

[buckbuck11]

Socialism?

This is FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY on the part of Sen. Obama! I think this portends good things to come.

[thegirlnextdoor]

I may be lost in some kind of past thing, yester year, etc, but is it customary for reporters to pay to attend an event like the coverage of a national election night? Seems odd to me. But then, they pay to be at the Olympics and they make money on it. And, I think then they build their own studio set ups etc.
I'd like a little history on this before I become hysterical.

[partyofone]

It's not an issue of principle, it's an issue of proportion.

Is it customary to have a two-year presidential campaign with non-stop, 24-7 coverage of every breath and sneeze? Who had the best convention converage? NBC with its legion of correspondents and technicians, or C-Span, who simply let us hear what was said from the podium?

Obama should offer one pooled feed for all media for free, but covering the expenses to accomodate and feed 25 reporters each from every media outlet is absurd.

It's not an issue of principle, it's an issue of proportion.

[Independenthinker08]

Actually the funny part about this is.... if he wins he won't need more money. And if that many people gave up that much money then its a horrid black tie affair... wonder if there will even be a red carpet event!?

[notthistime]

They are asking them to help foot the "cost" of the extras. They are not profitting from anything.

[Ermasdaughter]

This is ridiculous and inflammatory. Lynn Sweet has had it in for OBAMA from day one. I can't see the problem with charging for this event. It's expensive!!!! Reporters pay for their seats on the planes too. This is just another digg form Lynn...

[partyofone]

Billed for real costs. I'm certain the McCain campaign will do the same, IF anyone is interested in covering them on election night.

[BarackstarObama]

LOL ... their election night will be like a morgue. LOL

Obama/Biden 08

[deeoneakin]

This is certainly an interesting approach to raising money for a political campaign. If there ever was proof that Obama doesn't have a socialist bone in his body, this is it.

[notthistime]

actually they are not raising any money. There are free seats available for everyone. However it is reasonable that if they want extras as listed in the article, $935.00 is reasonable to cover cost of the technology, heating etc.

[deeoneakin]

I see your point but it still doesn't look right. After all the money he's raised in this campaign, election night is not a good thing to commercialize especially if he wins. It just looks opportunistic.

[nellie]

I have mixed feelings about this.

First of all, if Obama is charging reporters, that means it's been done already. And $1,000 is a pretty paltry sum for these rich media outlets. I mean, talk about whining.

HOWEVER, I get more and more uncomfortable with the way the relationship between the press and politics is evolving. We have shills on tv. We have McCain kicking people off the plane. We have retaliatory stories (it seems) from the NYT, we have threatening memos from the White House. It's a mess. And this doesn't seem to help.

What this story really says to me is that Obama doesn't give a dam* about whether the press is there or not. This is his event for his supporters. He knows the election is going to get covered. He doesn't feel the need to ask for exposure.

[uheardme]

Is the campaign simply recouping the costs of having to dedicate some resources to help the media set up? That's what it sounds like to me.

[notthistime]

read the article again nellie. There are free seats for everyone. The campaign is saying if they want "extras" i.e. internet hook up, heating, food etc. they should pay cost. No extras, just the cost of the extra material.

[smoo]

This event is being covered by the entire world. The planners have to put in place a mechanism that allows for media outlets with wide reach "C-SPAN, MSNBC, CNN, BBC, ABC, ALJAZEERA, FOX, and station from CHINA, FRANCE, TURKEY, BRAZIL, SOUTH-AFRICA. etc. Larger more wide-reaching station shouldn't have to haggle with the local college news papper. So $1000, to have access to history unfolding. Hell, some people $1000 for the superbowl, for olympics, for airfare to NY. It's no big deal and it isn't about the money. Assume 100 stations paid the simple $1000, that would only amount to 100,000. Your girl Palin has spent 150,000 on clothes in just the last 6 weeks.

[Independenthinker08]

I personally believe that the free ride to Obama has been outstanding... I mean think about logically I was trying to release his Radical Pro-Abortion votes and other things to the AP in January of 08 and The editor didn't post anything I had spoken of.. I sent his voting record from the state house.. I sent a news article from the Sun times of the Illinois planned parenthood stating "We could tell Obama how to vote" and Nothing was brought up its just amazing how people point fingers and forget that there are two sides to every story..

[metalpipe]

You not an independent thinker in my mind. There is no way in this lifetime that Obama, or any other compasionate human being, is pro-abortion. You are another of the right wing sheep led to believe in the boogey man. Go back to your closet for another four years, please.

[AnaisKarim]

They didn't respond to you because you are a loon.

[cnobody]

there is no such thing as "pro-abortion."

[NTO08]

America settles in to watch coverage election night, but this message appears on all stations:

DUE TO THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN'S ATTEMPTS TO CHARGE FOR COVERAGE OF HIS CAMPAIGN, THERE WILL BE NO FOOTAGE, NO LIVE FEED, NO SHOWING OF ANY SPEECH BY HIM THIS EVENING. ONLY THE POLL NUMBERS WILL BE REPORTED AS WELL AS COVERAGE FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY INTERVIEWING VOTERS...UNTIL THE OBAMA CAMP DECIDES THAT PAY TO PLAY IS NOT WHAT WE DO ON AMERICAN TV AND RADIO, THERE WILL NO PRESENTATION OF HIM ON YOUR SCREEN.

[Carolab]

Do you usually engage in this much wishful and/or delusional thinking? Or are you just off your meds?

[metalpipe]

Dude, you are tripping. Have you been out of work for a while, or what?

[elyely]

Of course there will be coverage. If media won't pay the US$1000, they can stay at the free seats.

[NTO08]

We'll see...how does a blank screen grab you when it comes time to show Obama on all outlets in America???

You don't pay for play...period...if you try it, you get no coverage, period, Obama...talk to Iranian TV or how about Zimbabwean TV? They can relate to your ideas of dictatorship, now, can't they?

[Shannon2008]

No coverage is what John McCain is going to get for kicking people off his plane.

[partyofone]

What a laugh. "Pay to play?" They are just calculating the cost providing a temporary, heated event tent, providing wireless connectivity and electrical hook ups, security, food for a couple of days, for set ups, 12 hours of coverage,charges by the City of Chicago for venue preparation and repair after the fact.

These are real costs. Why should the campaign cover while the networks are racking in mega-millions by the minute in advertising revenue, and producing copyrighted material they use again and sell forever.

Compare to what the networks pay to cover one sporting event ..... millions and millions.

[NoneSoBlind]

Sweet writes:
"This is an outrageous pay to play plan that caters to national elite outlets with deep pockets....A general media area will be created where a reporter could watch for free, but the set-up is separate, unequal and clearly second class when it comes to getting top access...."

Ha-ha-ha--does the irony escape her?

This parallels what middle America has lived for many years. Second-class access to opportunity...and worse for the impoverished.

C'mon, reporters, pull yourselves up by your bootstraps! File that first-class story from that "second-class" general media area! What are you waiting for--a handout? You want the same access the "national elite" get without paying for it?? The gall!

--Is there a cost associated with setting up Grant park for the election night event? YES.
--Is there a cost for setting up the media risers, tents, heaters, internet connections, telephone connections, electrical connections, radio connections, satellite access, catering? YES.
--Do the media make money on their coverage and reports? YES! YES! YES!

So, why should the media not pay for using these utilities, which facilitate their reporting? (Again, reporters can have FREE general access.)

If the media don't pay, who should?

Obama's campaign? (They are paying for the park set-up and clean-up.)
Chicago taxpayers? (In some part they are, but they'll also reap some benefit from the "outside" money being spent there.)

So, why shouldn't the media pay their part again??

[Ethics101]

This story is so baiting.
It's unprofessional not to have an explanation to accommodate Ms. Lynn Sweet's
article. I believe it's an "opinion" article. The picture sucks. But that's what sells.
Right?

[ccrane]

It's an opinion article and what's worse, she is censoring all the comments she doesn't agree with. Talk about sour grapes.

[Independenthinker08]

I am truly mind boggled by this idea of the Obama campaign I am a McCain supporter I served in the US Army. I was injured and I am medically retired.. the way most of you speak is pretty impressive to me.. you have to hear it from the candidate to believe it true. Please tell me you have (well maybe one or two of you) heard of Factchecker.org.. It is a nonpartisan organization to produce fact over fiction both candidates have spoke falsely in both campaigns it was not one over the other it was both I watch all news outlets read every political report on anything to do with either candidate I have donated money to both McCain and Hillary s campaign but neither the less I find it appalling the audacity most of you have to demean freedom of speech and expression by saying a certain opinion is invalid unsubstantiated but truthfully I understand your fears and ideals... to keep unwavering support by many people it needs force.. its a sad way of life but realistically very few people will see the way you act its many sheep in a land of wolves. though I can not change your behavior or ideals I believe everyone has a place to say how they feel and although you sent money I do not believe this is Barack Hussein Obama's website. this is a news outlet though a blogging community.
God Bless America.

[LiberalBuzz]

HUFFPOST:

PLEASE CHANGE THAT PICTURE. The rightwing can take that and make it into something it isn't.

PLEASE CHANGE IT!