Reporters to tour Fort Sill, but no questions allowed

[n2sooners]

As members of Congress and reporters ask to visit federal facilities housing children who have been apprehended by the U.S. in recent months, federal officials are slapping limits on members of the news media who want a glimpse inside.

For example, an email sent to news organizations by Jesus Garcia, a public affairs officer for the Administration for Children and Families, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, sets out a number of restrictions on reporters if they want to visit "Unaccompanied Alien Children" being held at Fort Sill in Oklahoma.

"The purpose of this 40-minute tour is to show members of the press the interior of the shelter and explain the care we provide while these children remain in our custody," Garcia's email told reporters.

"The tour guide will detail what goes on from room to room and the services youth are provided on a daily basis," Garcia added in an email that was forwarded to reporters by Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), who had been barred from visiting the Fort Sill alien children shelter last week.

But the HHS email to reporters made clear that journalists won't exactly be allowed to do anything related to their jobs while on the tour of the facility at Fort Sill, other than jot some things down in a notebook.

"In order to protect the safety and privacy of the children," the email set out 'rules for participation' for the press corps, which included:

- No recording devices allowed for reporters
- No questions from reporters permitted during the tour
- No interactions with staff or children
- No on-site interviews with HHS staff before or after the tour
- No photos of the facility - photographs will be provided by HHS

Along with those restrictions, any questions that reporters have for officials at the Department of Health and Human Services must be submitted "via email or phone" after the tour to a to spokesman in Washington, D.C.

I asked for an explanation of the restrictions on reporters, but did not receive a reply from HHS officials.

Rep. Bridenstine, meanwhile, urged news organizations to reject the limits.

"The idea of no recording devices, no questions, and no interactions is not acceptable. This violates the 1st Amendment. This is not transparent," said Bridenstine in a statement, as he accused the feds of "trying to muzzle the media."

You can read the entire email from HHS about restrictions on reporter visits to the Fort Sill facility on Bridenstine's website.

http://m.ajc.com/weblogs/jamie-dupree/2014/jul/07/feds-limit-reporters-border-kids-visits/

Most transparent administration ever.......

 

[Spata]

Yes, most transparent administration ever.

 

[Glocktogo]

They really don't want the reporters to know how messed up these kids are. They don't want them to know the horrors they faces, such as robbery, assault, rape, etc. as they ultimately made their way to HHS custody.

Opaque is the new transparent.

 

[Spata]

I hope these reporters have all of their vaccinations.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

How is this a first amendment issue? I see nothing that says they can't report on their experience...

 

[n2sooners]

I can go to a play and report on what I see there too, but that would make me a critic not a reporter.

 

[mugsy]

How is this a first amendment issue? I see nothing that says they can't report on their experience...

Oh come on, yes the reporters in return for "access" and no annoying questions (well no questions period) can then write about the Potemkin Village they were allowed to see.

This is the kind of stuff North Korea pulls when they allow select "friendly" reporters to visit model communes and report on the happy, productive people under the Dear Leader's benificent guidance.

I have already left a voice mail with the Lawton Constitution news editor saying "reject this offer and instead run an article about how the cost of agreeing to such a visit is too high. Press access should not be conditioned on no questions asked." I can understand wanting to ensure that minors do not wind up on the front page or with pictures of their faces released. But why not supervised, no picture, first name only interviews? Why no interviews with staff? No, this is unacceptable and that the press would even consider it makes them look like lapdogs.

 

[Spata]

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Oh come on, yes the reporters in return for "access" and no annoying questions (well no questions period) can then write about the Potemkin Village they were allowed to see.

This is the kind of stuff North Korea pulls when they allow select "friendly" reporters to visit model communes and report on the happy, productive people under the Dear Leader's benificent guidance.

I have already left a voice mail with the Lawton Constitution news editor saying "reject this offer and instead run an article about how the cost of agreeing to such a visit is too high. Press access should not be conditioned on no questions asked." I can understand wanting to ensure that minors do not wind up on the front page or with pictures of their faces released. But why not supervised, no picture, first name only interviews? Why no interviews with staff? No, this is unacceptable and that the press would even consider it makes them look like lapdogs.

Without such preclusion, the media would do what they do best. Sensationalize a story to propagate whatever feeling their audience is suspect of. The media is far beyond evil

Pictures of 'everything seems fine' don't get published unless that's what the public wants to see...
Interviews are conducted for a single statement that can be taken out of context...
There is no 'innocent' act of the media. It's all for hype. It's all done for sensationalism.
Sensationalism leads to another 'like' on Facebook, a clicked link to an official website, another notch in the cume of 'ratings'... It's all for the end-game of money.

The media is nothing more than an industry of gossip and rumor. I can't even see the benefit of letting them in.

 

[Glocktogo]

Without such preclusion, the media would do what they do best. Sensationalize a story to propagate whatever feeling their audience is suspect of. The media is far beyond evil

Pictures of 'everything seems fine' don't get published unless that's what the public wants to see...
Interviews are conducted for a single statement that can be taken out of context...
There is no 'innocent' act of the media. It's all for hype. It's all done for sensationalism.
Sensationalism leads to another 'like' on Facebook, a clicked link to an official website, another notch in the cume of 'ratings'... It's all for the end-game of money.

The media is nothing more than an industry of gossip and rumor. I can't even see the benefit of letting them in.

Because it is taxpayer dollars being spent to the benefit of illegal immigrants. Because it involves the health and safety of children. Because the governmet is supposed to still work for The People, not the other way around. Everything you just accused the media of (which I agree with) is EXACTLY the same thing the government is guilty of. The difference is which of the two wields the power. I'd think that should be obvious.