Fox News agrees to Holder’s demand for off-the-record meetings on leaks — or does it? Update: ABC to attend; Update: Fox says no

posted at 11:21 am on May 30, 2013 by Allahpundit

Business Insider published something this morning claiming that Fox would attend — I’ve reproduced the key bit from their post below — but as I’m writing this they’ve changed it to say that the network’s undecided, which Fox itself later confirmed. Attending would be a bad idea, even though arguably Fox can be cut a bit more slack than outlets like WaPo and Politico that simply want an audience with His Excellency on whatever terms he chooses. As the target of one of the DOJ’s probes, and knowing that they’re the White House’s least favorite news source, Fox might view this as an opportunity to confront Holder that’s unlikely to recur for the rest of O’s term. But that gets back to my point last night: If the injury from the DOJ’s actions is chiefly to the public’s right to know rather than to the guild’s right to operate as it sees fit, then Fox shouldn’t attend unless the meeting’s on the record. The AP was also targeted in an aggressive DOJ leak investigation and may want to confront Holder just as much as Fox does, but they’ve announced that they won’t go if Holder insists on keeping the proceedings hush-hush. The more media outlets that join that boycott, the more pressure there is on Holder to open it up. Fox is helping him out here, however inadvertently, if they decide to go.

A Fox News spokesperson told Business Insider that the network will attend an off-the-record meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder to discuss the Department of Justice’s guidelines for handling leak investigations.

The meeting has been pushed back against by other news organizations because of its off-the-record nature.

CNN, the New York Times, the Associated Press, and the Huffington Post have all said they will not attend the meeting unless it is on the record.

Join the boycott, force Holder to meet with the media on the record, and then you can confront him with digital recorders rolling. I for one want to hear the exchange between them about the Rosen warrant and not have it filtered second-hand through (irony of ironies) a leak to a reporter. Which is exactly what’s bound to happen, as Ron Fournier notes in his list of seven reasons why the press shouldn’t meet with Holder under these circumstances:

3. The public’s trust in media is already at an all-time low. Among the many reasons for the justified lack of faith is the perception that journalists curry favor with the elites rather than hold them ruthlessly accountable. A private meeting with the attorney general can’t help the lap-dog reputation. It would also fuel paranoia of conservatives who are convinced that the media is “in the tank” for Obama.

4. Though a relatively minor consideration, bureau chiefs compromise themselves and their newsrooms by meeting privately with Holder. Each chief has a team of reporters under orders today to find out what happened at the meetings. The chiefs can help their reporters with details of the talks, but that would violate the ground rules. They can keep their mouths shut but risk blowback from their teams when competitors report meeting details. There will be leaks; officials on one or both sides of the table will tell reporters about the conversations. So why not face that reality and conduct the meetings openly?

An ACLU rep who spoke to BuzzFeed added an eighth reason: If Holder asks them for input on how to reform DOJ leak protocols and the meeting’s off the record, how do they let the public know afterward whether Holder used any of their suggestions or not? Attendees might leak, but you can’t prove that what they’re saying is true. That goes back to Fournier’s point about currying favor — there’s no way to avoid the impression that Holder’s more interested in schmoozing them privately to lower the heat on himself than in having a legit policy debate on how to investigate leaks. I’m tempted to say that it’s unbelievable that WaPo and Politico either don’t see how it looks or don’t care, but it’s not unbelievable at all, is it?

We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though. Bret Baier is tweeting that nothing’s decided yet, which may or may not indicate pushback inside FNC to the decision. Stay tuned. A teaser:

Update: And the networks’ predictable cave begins:

An obvious consideration here: News outlets are surely weighing whether the White House and/or the DOJ might punish them for refusing to attend by giving their competition greater access to administration officials going forward. Now that ABC’s caved, what do you do if you’re NBC or CBS? Take a stand and reject the meeting, which gets you a day of applause online, or give in and make sure your sources are still willing to talk to you tomorrow?

Update (Ed): According to Bret Baier, the official answer is no dice:

Let’s see if this prompts other networks to rethink any acceptances.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why not agree to it, and then report in as much detail as possible?
If agreements don’t matter and integrity is something to pay lip service to, why not?

Mimzey on May 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Can someone attend and slap some cuffs on Holder making a Citizens Arrest??

Rich on May 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Come on Major, don’t fall for the trap, stand with your old co-worker James and declined for CBS.

/wishful thinking.

Lance Murdock on May 30, 2013 at 11:24 AM

When did it become acceptable for the msm to have secret meetings? Reporters are suppose to report. If they don’t, they are just obama’s p.r. hacks.

Blake on May 30, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Go in, but tape record everything. Then use it as leverage.

It’s what the White House would do.

portlandon on May 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM

IMHO there should not be any off-the-record meetings with this lying asshat…

I would suggest that if anyone does attend that any rules laid out be thrown out the window.

Integrity? Wot integrity…there is none with this admin and the news orgs should not agree to keep quiet…

Spill the beans!!

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 11:27 AM

aBC spox: “ABC News will attend the meeting and press for that conversation to be put on the record.”

It’s a trap!

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Go in and spill the beans…

Integrity? Wot integrity…

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Pffft, as if any of these slug networks would skip a chance to get patted on the head by their Dog Eating Messiah. Bark could have thugs pointing rifles at the heads of these executives in the meeting while telling them which stories they will be allowed to air, and every single one of the execs would pee their pants in ecstasy.

Bishop on May 30, 2013 at 11:29 AM

But…but…Obama’s approval rating fell by two points!

HB3 on May 30, 2013 at 11:30 AM

No, Holder goes on the record. You hear that, son. On the record.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Fox is LSM.

Nothing more to say.

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Who does he think that he is by issuing all of these demands? He’s up to his neck in trouble and he thinks he has a card to play??? WTH

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM

Fox News should go then leak everything, even a transcript.

Dare ‘em to go after them again.

MaxMBJ on May 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Please don’t tell me that Fox News is doing this.

SC.Charlie on May 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Holder was just a guy that Obama new in the neighborhood.

Electrongod on May 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM

If Holder asks them for input on how to reform DOJ leak protocols and the meeting’s off the record, how do they let the public know afterward whether Holder used any of their suggestions or not?

Here’s a better idea: how about the DoJ just follow current law? Not one but two judges told them they were breaking the law. We have further evidence of their consciousness of guilt by the level of effort they expended to keep the court filings secret – also in violation of current law. The only “reforms” that are necessary here are to fire the folks involved and hire more ethical people to replace them.

rcpjr on May 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM

knew…

Electrongod on May 30, 2013 at 11:33 AM

I did not read the update that Fox News would not attend. Good for Fox News.

SC.Charlie on May 30, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Of course ABC is going to attend. ABC and all it’s affiliations have been carrying Obama’s water more than any other agency out there.

ButterflyDragon on May 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

Don’t go Fox! Don’t let bho/holder use you for thinking them think they have you.
L

letget on May 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

President Barack Obama is the biggest threat to press freedom, one of the hallmarks of a true democracy, the United States has seen since former President Nixon, according to attorney James Goodale, widely seen as “the father of reporters’ privileges.”

Goodale is best known for using the First Amendment of the US Constitution to successfully defend the New York Times after the paper published the Pentagon Papers in 1971. The documents, leaked by Defense Department employee Daniel Ellsberg, revealed that four presidents had deliberately misled US citizens regarding the countries’ intentions in Vietnam. The Nixon administration sought to block the publication of the documents, citing national security and the Espionage Act.

The case is especially relevant today as the Obama administration seeks to punish WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for publishing diplomatic cables leaked by US Army soldier Bradley Manning. The New York Times, the Guardian, and other outlets would also go on to publish the same information revealed by Manning but have not been targeted for punishment by the government prosecutors.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:37 AM

James Goodale: Let me say one thing about Nixon. He was out to destroy the New York Times, he was out to destroy Brookings Institution, and a lot of other institutions in the United States. President Obama is not out to destroy the Times. What we’re talking about is a discreet area, which is the relationship of the press to national security. In the Pentagon Papers area of national security, Nixon was terrible. He also happened to be terrible in the whole First Amendment area. Obama, by contrast, is okay in the First Amendment area but not okay in national security. Why?

Because Obama has pursued six leakers, that’s the first bad thing he’s done. The second bad thing he’s done is pursued [reporter and leak recipient] James Risen. He’s also suing Julian Assange. If he’s pursuing Julian Assange as a co-conspirator and succeeds he’ll be worse than Nixon because Nixon tried to go after the New York Times and its reporters saying they were co-conspirators but Nixon failed.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM

I’m glad to know that Fox has decided not to go if off the record. I hope that if the AG agrees to go on the record (doubt it) that Fox does indeed send Rosen. That would be sweet justice for Holder to have to face Rosen eye-to-eye. Again I doubt this will happen.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Mimzey on May 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

I agree. If I could be sure they would follow through I think all news organizations should go with their fingers crossed behind their backs. This administration has been lying to the public since day one so to see them get treated the same way would make my day.

DaveDief on May 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Good for you Fox on the update deciding to not go!
L

letget on May 30, 2013 at 11:42 AM

the press needs to do a 1-2 punch on this guy…. boycott, then hammer him relentlessly on what a scandalous AG that he has been. Fast N Furious, IRS, Rosen and all of it.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

News outlets are surely weighing whether the White House and/or the DOJ might punish them for refusing to attend by giving their competition greater access to administration officials going forward.

Hey! The DoJ demonstrably infringed civil rights. Eric Holder, apparently committed perjury. The DoJ went on not one but two (that we know of) fishing expeditions to try and find out what the media was working on.

WHY THE HELL DO THEY GET TO MAKE RULES LIKE “OFF THE RECORD?”

The fact of the matter is that they could be told that the scandal is much more than Rosen and the AP. Well, then, it would be tough for the media to report on that fact after being told the information off the record.

I’m guessing that Holder is going have to relent and make it an on the record meeting. Even better, hold a press conference and let the public hear what today’s story for DoJ crimes is going to be. It isn’t fair that Holder doesn’t meet the press in public until he does the “more time with my family” speech. And I think that is coming within weeks.

Happy Nomad on May 30, 2013 at 11:43 AM

News outlets are surely weighing whether the White House and/or the DOJ might punish them for refusing to attend by giving their competition greater access to administration officials going forward.

The System ….. is working….

now, ring the bell, Pavlov, and watch them salivate.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM

The Holder Band
Eric Holder, Obama’s AG may be guilty of lying to Congressional Committee. If proven to be the case Holder will most likely be heading towards the door. For his next gig Holder has hinted at a music career. As seen here, Holder channeling Henry Rollins Band. Holder will release his first CD, a cover of Rollins big hit, Liar. To get a flavor of the musical stylings Holder will be pursuing have a listen. Liar

P.S. Holder has stated there is a box set already in the works.

Quote: “I Promise”

Bmore on May 30, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I’m sorry but we have come to a very sorry state indeed when what people say to the press is classified information.

What is even the reason for a press if they collude with the government to keep information from the people.

The press is superfluous!

petunia on May 30, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Politico of course is going.

And offered already to let him sit on their face.

Marcus on May 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM

he’ll be selling mustache rides at his OTR party…

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Thank God FOX and others said NO DEAL, Holder!
To go into this type of off the record meeting with Holder, would render the so called news organizations attending, no longer credible.

If Holder can get media outlets to attend, he also gets what he wants and that would be to render the news organizations impudent.
Anything reported by them would not be believed because all would know they were in the pocket of Holder and the Administration.
Why it took FOX so long to say NO is beyond my comprehension?

Delsa on May 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Fox should attend, tape the proceedings, then, give tape to somebody else to leak.

That would be the appropriate way to deal with these clowns.

trigon on May 30, 2013 at 11:50 AM

FVck Fox. And the entire LSM, when we get down to it.

They’re not honest with us at all.

Recall the yellow journalism that started the Spanish-American War? USS Maine went down by an internal accident. Yet there was Hearst, inciting a needless war.

Recall, too, his granddaughter Patty is a terrorist.

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 11:50 AM

I wonder if Holder will pass out a pre-constructed list of “Talking Points for Public Consumption” or if this is to be a “How to Save Eric Holder’s Job” brainstorming session…

Probably the latter, since All things Barack Company will be there and FOXNEWS won’t be.

ROCnPhilly on May 30, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Politico is just like MSNBC. In the tank for the Administration.
They each carry WH water now so there is nothing new here….move on!

Delsa on May 30, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Allah or Ed, Was HA or Townhall invited? I assume (dangerous I know)no because you would have told us, right? If not, what would have been the decision? Inquiring minds and all that.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 11:53 AM

maybe CBS will send Sharyl Atkisson……..

Holder: Ms. Atkisson, is this conversaion off the record?

Atkisson: I don’t know, Eric…… is it?

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM

News outlets are surely weighing whether the White House and/or the DOJ might punish them for refusing to attend by giving their competition greater access to administration officials going forward.

Those who don’t attend will ve set free and may once again report instead of repeat!

Delsa on May 30, 2013 at 11:54 AM

I’m glad to know that Fox has decided not to go if off the record. I hope that if the AG agrees to go on the record (doubt it) that Fox does indeed send Rosen. That would be sweet justice for Holder to have to face Rosen eye-to-eye. Again I doubt this will happen.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Here’s a thought. Send Rosen to the OTR meeting. And have him and others at Fox News create a few thousand new email accounts right before he goes.

farsighted on May 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

A Transparent Closed Door Meeting…is that like a Jumbo Shrimp?

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Well heck, somebody’s gotta go so they can leak it to somebody that didn’t go.

petefrt on May 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

A Transparent Closed Door Meeting…is that like a Jumbo Shrimp?

kingsjester on May 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

or an honest Democrat?

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Rule of thumb, folks: NEVER trust the media.

They’re out to make money, and we aren’t getting a slice of the pie.

For evidence, over and above the politics, tabulate the time of commercial breaks vs the show.

I’m not with Neilsen or anything. But by my offhand math, any one-hour show is 32 minutes long, when you subtract the commercials.

Tabulate, just for fun, the commercials Fox shows vs the program you want to watch.

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 12:00 PM

farsighted on May 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Would be funny if nothing else.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

If it is off the record why even talk to the press? What is the goal of an OTR meeting with the press, what is the point? It makes no sense at all.

equanimous on May 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Why it took FOX so long to say NO is beyond my comprehension?

Delsa on May 30, 2013 at 11:48 AM

I’m not surprised. I think they wanted to go. FOX has been trying to lean left for some time. Oreilly would have loved to have gone. And if he thought Obama might show up, he would have worn his best knee pads.

Alabama Infidel on May 30, 2013 at 12:02 PM

FOX, DON’T DO IT!

Obama promised to have the most transparent administration EVUH! At a time when America deserves answers, during some of the worst scandals our nation has ever seen, this administration only want to meet and talk OFF THE RECORD!

After being NAILED TO THE WALL over Benghazi (& rocked by these other scandals), the same man who promised transparency asked for & got a meeting with SELECT members of the press OFF THE RECORD.

During the Fast & Furoius Hearings, Eric Holder perpetrated 3 felony Counts of PERJURY, did not get charged with crimes because the DOJ refused to do so, & becamse the 1st Atty General in US history to EVER be Censured.

Once again Holder has perpetrated a Felony count of PERJURY in his testimony before Congress regarding the media Wire-Tapping that HE APPROVED/SIGNED OFF ON! Now HE,too, wants an OFF THE RECORD meeting with the press!

And Fox News — SHAME ON YOU! Holder went DOCTOR SHOPPING to get a subpoena to sp on & charge your reporter, James Rosen, with a false charge of a crime under the Espionage act…then snooped on more of your people.

JUST UPDATED / ANNOUNCED:
Fox News just announced it will NOT attend the meeting!

Common Sense, Intelligence, & ‘Transparency’ wins the day! HUAH!

easyt65 on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

equanimous on May 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

dang, I missed my chance to use a semicolon…

equanimous on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

abc wapo and politico…lapdogs

pathetic

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

glad fox saw the light

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

equanimous on May 30, 2013 at 12:01 PM

You are right, what is the point of a closed meeting…

This fish stinks to high heaven!

Wot is Holder gonna do eh? Get on his knees and beg forgiveness?

Too damn late smchuck…

YOU CAN’T GROVEL ENOUGH!!

RESIGN!!

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

ABC spox: “ABC News will attend the meeting and press for that conversation to be put on the record.”

Don’t press for it. Tape it (if you can, with your Dick Tracy wristwatch), then leak it.

petefrt on May 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Mimzey on May 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

good point….why honor off the record when this administration clearly doesn’t honor much

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I don’t know – sending James Rosen would have been kind of fun

gophergirl on May 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Delsa on May 30, 2013 at 11:52 AM

politico IS msdnc….

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I will NEVER trust the govt. nor the LSFM… NEVER!!!!

To gain trust you have to earn it!

This admin has completely lost their minds, thinking that they could keep a lid on all they have been doing…

I am still so upset by what Obama did for Monsanto!

Lying liars lying…

*spit*

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Can anyone actually believe that this story is about what’s happening in America?

The fear that a president might harm someone in some manner if he isn’t pleased with their reaction to his and his administration flouting the Constitution over and over?

This debacle sounds more like Russia, Cuba, or a third-world dictatorship every day. What country are we in?

avagreen on May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

glad fox saw the light dollars

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Fox is no less a media slut, in my view.

Really, Lady — Do you think they don’t want to get into Obama? He’s a money-maker.

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

avagreen on May 30, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I don’t know any more where we are…

This isn’t My America!

The whole govt needs to be cleaned out, swept away…

Out with the old and in with the new…

I am sick of the lying the treachery behind closed doors, the scheming, the obfuscation…

Whilst all this is going on and has many of us freaked out, what the heck is going on under our noses that the press is NOT looking into!

These elitists want to Control Us, their only aim…

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I don’t know – sending James Rosen would have been kind of fun

gophergirl on May 30, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Oh I think Rosen needs to save his fire for the inevitable civil rights lawsuit against the government. I hope he gets millions.

Happy Nomad on May 30, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Liam on May 30, 2013 at 12:16 PM

good point…the only show I watch religously is special report…

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Weiner/Holder
…….2020

KOOLAID2 on May 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Since Holder lies every time he opens his mouth, I am starting to think he believes every conversation is off the record, and he can lie about it without consequence.

goflyers on May 30, 2013 at 12:23 PM

James Goodale: Let me say one thing about Nixon. He was out to destroy the New York Times, he was out to destroy Brookings Institution, and a lot of other institutions in the United States. President Obama is not out to destroy the Times. What we’re talking about is a discreet area, which is the relationship of the press to national security. In the Pentagon Papers area of national security, Nixon was terrible. He also happened to be terrible in the whole First Amendment area. Obama, by contrast, is okay in the First Amendment area but not okay in national security. Why?

Because Obama has pursued six leakers, that’s the first bad thing he’s done. The second bad thing he’s done is pursued [reporter and leak recipient] James Risen. He’s also suing Julian Assange. If he’s pursuing Julian Assange as a co-conspirator and succeeds he’ll be worse than Nixon because Nixon tried to go after the New York Times and its reporters saying they were co-conspirators but Nixon failed.

ted c on May 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM

Goodale can’t let go of his biases. He’ll offer a narrow criticism of Obama in just one area, but then defend him as “okay” otherwise on the First Amendment.

Dead wrong. The IRS issue, at heart, is also about the First Amendment, and not just about free speech, but also about the freedom to peaceably assemble. They used the legal pretext of an investigation to whether a group can be considered a nonprofit under the tax code, but they then tried to stifle the speech and sideline the groups by extreme interrogations. Plus, it’s clear that this was more than just the IRS. See what happened to the organizer of “True the Vote.” They were audited, they were investigated by OSHA, they were harassed. And when Franklin Graham made statements against same-sex marriage, both Samaritan’s Purse and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association were suddenly targeted for audits.

Nixon was a piker compared to Obama.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 30, 2013 at 12:23 PM

abc wapo and politico…lapdogs

pathetic

cmsinaz on May 30, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I hope we get a complete list of all who attended. I want it as ammunition for future kissy face articles these rags and “newscasts” do on Oblammo.

neyney on May 30, 2013 at 12:28 PM

ABC is nothing more than Obama’s compliant stooge.

rplat on May 30, 2013 at 12:29 PM

What would be the consequences of attending it, and just putting it On The Record? Especially since this is the most transparent Admin ever, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. Why so secretive?

kirkill on May 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Disagree. EVERYONE should attend – and then print full transcripts.

mojo on May 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM

KOOLAID2 on May 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Very funny KA2!!! Lol… ;)

Scrumpy on May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Allah or Ed, Was HA or Townhall invited? I assume (dangerous I know)no because you would have told us, right? If not, what would have been the decision? Inquiring minds and all that.

D-fusit on May 30, 2013 at 11:53 AM

.
Allahpundit would put up a long-winded, 37 paragraph post about their decision and no one would still know what it was.
.

Dr. Carlo Lombardi on May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM

What would be the consequences of attending it, and just putting it On The Record? Especially since this is the most transparent Admin ever, I’m sure they wouldn’t mind. Why so secretive?

kirkill on May 30, 2013 at 12:31 PM

Because they wouldn’t get anything from the administration ever again. Perhaps even have their credentials pulled.

Keep in mind, whenever you read of an un-named top administration saying something, whatever is said has been cleared by the White House. Not to mention off-the-record background briefings do have a place in journalism.

Happy Nomad on May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM

May the WaPo, Politico and ABC to to Hell, traitors.

The media are corrupt.

The Puffington Host has more decency than the three, above.

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2013 at 12:39 PM

Happy Nomad on May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Ah yeah, as someone said, play the game. It’s all just a game to these Marxists.

kirkill on May 30, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Nice work, Bmore!!!

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Not to mention off-the-record background briefings do have a place in journalism.

Happy Nomad on May 30, 2013 at 12:36 PM

What is the purpose of an off the record “deep background” meeting with the press?

equanimous on May 30, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Weiner/Holder
…….2020

KOOLAID2 on May 30, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Oh, that could totally happen in this … But it would sound funnier if they reverse the ticket though: Weiner/Holder :)

jimver on May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Looks like most have the same idea. Go to the meeting then provide a complete transcript.

TerryW on May 30, 2013 at 12:53 PM

If Holder asks them for input on how to reform DOJ leak protocols and the meeting’s off the record, how do they let the public know afterward whether Holder used any of their suggestions or not? Attendees might leak, but you can’t prove that what they’re saying is true.

Even worse, if any of the attendees leaked anything to their reporters or subordinates, Holder would then prosecute them for leaking! What’s the point of ANYONE from the press attending Holder’s “off-the-record” meeting if they can’t publish anything about it, and risk jail if they do?

Steve Z on May 30, 2013 at 12:58 PM

But it would sound funnier if they reverse the ticket though: Weiner/Holder :)

jimver on May 30, 2013 at 12:48 PM

But we already had one of those in the White House: Monica Lewinsky!

Steve Z on May 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM

I told you all this was not going to work out the way Holder and Zero wanted. They are making the situation worse. Anyone working as a journalist now knows they will be targeted by these fascist goons if they get out of line.

dogsoldier on May 30, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Iowahawk for the win

What if Eric Holder held an off-the-record press briefing, and the only reporter to show up was James Rosen?

pt on May 30, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Fox should send Rosen…to picket. And O’Reilly can send Jesse Watters to ask obnoxious questions after the confab concludes.

BuckeyeSam on May 30, 2013 at 1:14 PM

If I was Fox, I just might send James Rosen, have him sit down, and pull out a recorder and start recording- and DARE Holder to stop it.

michaelo on May 30, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Maybe the Attorney General and Justice Dept and even the leadership of the FBI needs to be taken out of the hands of the federal government entirely. Maybe the heads of these departments should be selected and voted on by the 50 state governments totally independently of the federal government, the feds having no authority over them any longer.

FloatingRock on May 30, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I’m reminded of a while back, when FOX News was cut out of the White House press pool…I can’t remember what it was for…Tim Geithner maybe?…but all the other network new orgs. in the WH pool demanded FOX News be able to attend and broadcast it’s turn.

Let’s hope the press will send another message to the Obama administration that this “off the record” nonsense is ridiculous.

JetBoy on May 30, 2013 at 2:19 PM

I actually would send James Rosen

gerrym51 on May 30, 2013 at 2:34 PM

I would send James Rosen then let Holder prosecute him for reporting on it

gerrym51 on May 30, 2013 at 2:36 PM

How is it possible that an ‘off the record news event’ is a ‘news event’ of any sort?

WHO in Holder’s justice department decided which news organizations should be EXCLUDED? Are those EXCLUDED news organizations now going to be the target of Holder’s justice department?

Holder is an absurdly biased political hack that is totally unfit for public office. I limit my comment to this as beyond perjury, other money laundering crimes have yet to be proven.

Freddy on May 30, 2013 at 4:45 PM

This is the first comment left here in a week.

:-(

Why does it seem like Palin has vanished?

bluegill on June 7, 2013 at 3:14 AM