Access depends on who's holding the camera / Photo
1:15 PM Fri, Oct 27, 2006 | Permalink
Email this author | Email this entry |
 |
Projo Politics Blog |
|
« Former U.S. attorney Curran backs Chafee |
Main
| Candidates for Kennedy's seat debate tonight on TV »
PROVIDENCE -- The main stage was former U.S. Attorney General Meg Curran's endorsement of U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee today. But it was a sideshow that offered a revealing look at the clashes underlying the final days of the Chafee and Democratic challenger Sheldon Whitehouse campaigns. Lacy Dwyer, a $3,000-a-month Democratic Party operative, has been following the Chafee camp for weeks. She has become such a frequent presence on the Chafee campaign trail that the senator's staff knows her by name, and says nothing when she aims her video camera at the senator and starts taping. That is, until today. Chafee spokesman Ian Lang blocked Dwyer from entering the Federal Reserve this afternoon where the Chafee campaign was holding a press conference to announce Curran's endorsement. "Media only," Lang said as he blocked Dwyer from entering the restaurant. Dwyer was holding her small video camera the whole time, apparently taping the confrontation. After the press conference began, Dwyer could be seen peeking in the window as Curran and Chafee took questions from the media. What changed? The action did follow a Journal story yesterday , which noted the role played by the filmmaker at a Chafee press conference earlier this week, saying in part: "After the Democratic Party operative filming the news conference alerted the Whitehouse camp to what was said, Whitehouse held his own hastily called news conference to defend his record, and assail Chafee for having 'shrugged off' the behavior of a repeat-batterer." -- projo.com staff writer Steve Peoples 
CommentsLeave a comment |
New comments
New photos
Authors
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
more signs that the Chafee Camp is getting desparate
Report Abuse
So let me see if I get this straight. The projo is suddenly interested when a democratic operative (not a media member) does not have access to a media-only event, but has never thought it worth covering that the GENERAL PUBLIC does not have access to media only events?! Just more evidence that the lines between the media and the Democratic party have become very blurred if they ever existed at all.
Report Abuse
There's a difference and you know it Steve.
They're reporting it because there is a direct relationship between Chafee's newfound desire to smear his challenger and the fact that the dem. tracker is able to get it back to Whitehouse's camp and they're able to repudiate him with amazing speed.
Other places, they don't care about the people who follow the candidate around. Allen in VA, Burns in MT, those guys know that they're being followed and they do not do anything to bar it. Why? Because the act of barring the tracker makes it look like they have something to hide.
And that is the story. Not your thinly veiled allegations of a liberal media bias.
Report Abuse
Shep - if it had a been a Republican candidate that had pulled that spying stunt the other day, then you would have been calling it "Rovean" or some other paranoid term. Chafee has a right to eliminate the opponents spy so that he may attempt to have a press conference without the opponent calling a press conference at the same time. Your suggestion that they are hiding something is also paranoid, and frakly lacking in, well, intelligence, since it was a PRESS CONFERENCE with lots of PRESS in attendence!!! Anything they said would be all over the news, newspapers and talk radio in a matter of minutes. All he wants is a chance to make a statement without the press being called away to an opposing press conference. No hiding, no consipracies, just an attempt to deliver his message while it is his turn. The operative is welcome to watch the news or listen to the news conference along with the rest of us. Remember us?! The General Public?! The press and Dems seem to have forgotten about us.
Hmmmmm. I wonder why the Projo blog removed that article? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Editor's Note: The item was not removed. See it here:
http://www.beloblog.com/ProJo_Blogs/politics/2006/10/access_depends_on_whos_holding.html
Report Abuse