Obama to charge reporters to cover the election

[editor]

Crain's Chicago Business is reporting that the Obama campaign wants news organization to cough up cash in order to cover the election on November 4th.

The price is $715 to $1,815 for access to the Obama campaign event, plus an additional $935 per person for access so reporters can talk to spokespeople and campaign staffers.

That means for a newspaper, the charge to cover Obama on campaign night (assuming one reporter and one photographer) would be $2,585-$3,685. The minimum TV stations can send to an election night event is a reporter, an engineer, a producer, a photographer, and in some cases a sound guy (election parties have special sound problems). So that's $5,390-$6,490.

Let's remember that Barak Obama is running the most well-financed presidential campaign in history. It raised $150,000,000 last month alone.

Election night coverage is a VERY expensive thing for a number of very complicated reasons. Even at a medium-sized newsroom, the costs can easily be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't think I've ever put together an election broadcast that didn't cost half a million or more. At the same time, the election night broadcast can go on for hours with few or no commercials, and the regular network revenue gets thrown away because the network feed is blown out (though I have noticed in the last few years that stations are waiting later and later to start their coverage, presumably to keep some of that revenue).

So now money that a station might have been able to spend on hiring five or ten stringers to bring in more local election results or to upgrade to a better election wire package (again for more local results) goes into Barak Obama's pocket.

Paying for access like this is not journalistically moral. I've never understood why some people think that journalists pay for stories, because in most news organizations that is strictly prohibited. Sure, you might throw $50 to someone who happened to catch a tornado on video, but that's not the same thing. I don't know how many times over the years I've turned down stories from people who demanded payment. And they always get really angry and offended when you do. For some reason they think that if something unfortunate happened that they should be able to cash in.

Sure, the networks can afford it, but what about the local stations and small newspapers? Are the viewers/readers in Victoria, Texas any less important than the viewers/readers in Dallas? Do people's votes in small towns count less than those in big cities? Is that the distinction the Obama campaign is making?

And before anyone says that the small stations and papers should just pick up the network feed or AP story, no -- that's not an option. Especially when papers are criticized for relying too heavily on the wires while at the same time even big newspapers (LA Times, Columbus Dispatch, Minneapolis Star-Tribune) are revolting against the AP. If Obama's policy on a particular issue (say, logging) affects your town (say, a paper mill town) and your job (say, as a mill foreman), then it's important that your local reporter be able to talk to the people in the Obama campaign to find out what's going to happen.

I see the local stations (not so much the networks, though they should) having a fit about this. The NFL tried to do the same thing last season. It put out an onerous set of rules about covering football games, including claiming the copyright to all video shot at the event, and even demanding that it should decide what video gets shown on the air. The local stations responded by threatening not to cover the NFL games. The NFL eventually caved.

It's a bad idea, and a bad precedent, if allowed. What's next? Auctioning off access to election results to the highest bidder? Restricting access to public government documents to big companies who can then re-sell them to the public at a profit? If that's how the Obama administration plans to finance its social programs, it's going to run into some constitutional problems.

Now when people (like my in-laws) talk about "greedy Republicans," this is something I'll always think of -- the greedy Obama campaign.

[editor]

More details from the Chicago Tribune:

Access to a 20-amp power outlet would be $165. A spot on the main riser would be $935, as would a table and chair in a heated tent with power, sandwiches, high-speed Internet and a good view of cable television. A covered television platform suitable for network anchors would cost $29,700. Parking a satellite truck would be $990.

It should be noted that this event is being held on PUBLIC PROPERTY in a public park.

[VicMan]

In that case the Obama campaign should cave in like the NFL did. It is one thing to offer something *extra*, but one shouldn't be forced to pay for journalistic access for an event being held in a public park.

[RedScare]

It's a bad idea, and a bad precedent, if allowed.

If you were to just stick to the exorbitant fees, I'd agree with you. But, you didn't, so I am forced to point out that the precedent was set long ago by both parties. The campaigns allow reporters to fly on their planes, stay at their hotels, and eat their food, but at a cost. The campaigns are not obligated to give the reporters access to heated tents, with internet and phone access for free, and none do so.

The campaign also has made available an area for journalists to cover the event for free, but the journalists have complained that it is "unappealing", and that it is outside, as opposed to the heated tents available for a fee. Just to put these complaints in perspective, I have read numerous accounts in the past of journalists complaining about the quality of the food at campaign events, and at sporting events.

There IS a story here. It is that the fees charged are gouging, an attempt by the campaign to finance the party with news reporter fees. The story is NOT that fees are charged at all, as this is common. After all, the number of reporters wanting to cover a presidential campaign could bankrupt many of them (this does not apply to the Obama campaign. Perhaps the McCain campaign in the summer of 2007).

As for the slippery slope attempt, last I checked, there are no election results controlled by the candidates, at least legally, so no, auctioning off election results is not in our future. And, that public park? I am quite sure the City of Chicago charges an adequate fee for the use of its parks, as well as the police officers used for security, insurance, and all the other fees charge to a group using a park for a festival or event. In fact, the fees charged to reporters will help defray these costs.

But, hey, it could be worse. At least the Obama campaign lets reporters in to cover their events at all. I seem to recall complaints by reporters about certain OTHER candidates not being made available for interviews at ANY cost. Some presidents do not allow anyone into their events unless they have sworn allegiance to the president and his political party. Even having the wrong bumper sticker can get you kicked out and arrested. Which is worse?

http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_5341085

[sarahiki]

interesting topic. I didn't realize reporters were charged for this stuff. Those costs seem outrageously high. Has the Obama campaign responded? How the McCain campaign--are they charging anything?

[editor]

If you were to just stick to the exorbitant fees, I'd agree with you. But, you didn't, so I am forced to point out that the precedent was set long ago by both parties. The campaigns allow reporters to fly on their planes, stay at their hotels, and eat their food, but at a cost.

The newspapers, etc... reimburse the campaigns for these expenses because it's the right thing to do. Traveling on a candidate's plane (or bus) is required because that's often where the candidate will give his media interviews, and flying commercial isn't an alternative since commercial routes don't mimic the paths taken by campaigns.

The campaigns are not obligated to give the reporters access to heated tents, with internet and phone access for free, and none do so.

There's two parts to this --

First, heated tents are a good idea because this event will be outside in Chicago in November. It's already in the 30's at night now and we're still two weeks away from the election. But you're right -- that's not required of the campaign.

However, the campaign could just as easily have held the event 300 feet away at the Hilton Chicago where countless other similar (both in size and prominence) political events have been held. In that case, the event would be inside and heat wouldn't be a factor.

The journalists aren't complaining about free internet and phone access. That's no big deal. When media events like this are held the news organizations run their own phone lines, their own internet lines, and even their own fiber optic lines to the event. It happens all the time. I've done it myself. You just call up the local provider and say, "I need six phone lines, fiber for video, and two ISDN lines in the middle of this field next Thursday." The phone company (or whatever provider you use) give you the price and you hang up. Two days later there's a stick in the middle of the field with all your cables hanging off of them. Ever wonder what all those AT&T trucks are doing zipping around town while you don't have a dial tone at your house? They're servicing last-minute, very expensive, business requests like these.

It's the Obama campaign that chose to bundle the food, heat, internet, phone, and tent into the access to the campaign people. That makes it seem like the journalists are unhappy about the food and glosses over the real problem.

The campaign also has made available an area for journalists to cover the event for free, but the journalists have complained that it is "unappealing", and that it is outside, as opposed to the heated tents available for a fee.

The area for journalists to go for free is outside the event, where Obama won't be, and where his campaign people won't be. The "free" area is just a patch of dirt outside of everything. In order to go inside where things are happening, the fee is required. That's the complaint.

Just to put these complaints in perspective, I have read numerous accounts in the past of journalists complaining about the quality of the food at campaign events, and at sporting events.

Just to put journalists in perspective, I have complained about food at campaign events. Journalists complain. They compare campaign amenities from one campaign to the next. It happens. Many of them are curmudgeons and it's a game of grumpy one-upmanship. It doesn't mean they're demanding anything. If the food is bad, the food is bad. But they'll take bad food and good access over bad access and good food.

There IS a story here. It is that the fees charged are gouging, an attempt by the campaign to finance the party with news reporter fees. The story is NOT that fees are charged at all, as this is common. After all, the number of reporters wanting to cover a presidential campaign could bankrupt many of them (this does not apply to the Obama campaign. Perhaps the McCain campaign in the summer of 2007).

I think you're close, but not quite there. The fees being charged aren't anywhere close to what the campaign will spend on the amenities provided. What's going on here is an effort by the Obama campaign to reduce the number of reporters it is exposed to -- and this is key -- especially on its home turf. The nationals aren't going to be combing the tent looking for Rod Blagojevich, or any of the other slimy Chicago politicians who helped get Barak Obama where he is today. When the national TV networks see him shaking their hands it won't mean anything. But it'll be on the front page of the Sun-Times or the Tribune after the election when Obama shows who his real behind-the-scenes friends are.

That's just one aspect -- regardless of the motive, it raises serious questions when a presidential candidate tries to restrict access of the legitimate media. It raises serious ethical questions when that candidate's campaign asks for cash to accomplish it.

It's like an old-school Chicago politician asking for a bribe. "You need something to do your job? Well, just slip me a few hundred bucks and I'll make it happen for you."

I am quite sure the City of Chicago charges an adequate fee for the use of its parks, as well as the police officers used for security, insurance, and all the other fees charge to a group using a park for a festival or event.

At this time -- no. According to the Tribune, aside from a "nominal" permit fee, the Obama campaign plans to pay for putting the event together, security, EMS, teardown, and cleanup. The mayor yesterday said he hoped the up-front cost to the city would be zero.

In fact, the fees charged to reporters will help defray these costs.

Doubtful. Based on the planned size of the even (up to 100,000 people) the fees charged to reporters won't even cover electricity. If there's a reason to charge reporters other than to restrict access, I'm all ears.

But, hey, it could be worse. At least the Obama campaign lets reporters in to cover their events at all. I seem to recall complaints by reporters about certain OTHER candidates not being made available for interviews at ANY cost.

I haven't heard this, but then I've been out of action for the last ten months. Could you provide some citations?

Some presidents do not allow anyone into their events unless they have sworn allegiance to the president and his political party. Even having the wrong bumper sticker can get you kicked out and arrested. Which is worse?

http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_5341085

"Activists" and journalists are not the same thing. Also, we're talking about Saint Obama, not George Bush.

A lot of people have a lot of dumb reasons for choosing the way they vote. Some of my wife's friends are voting Obama because they don't like that Palin is a hunter. I know someone who is only voting for McCain because he's white. I also know a person who is voting for Obama only because he is black. So, I guess this is going to be my "stupid reason I voted the way I did." I worry about a president who treats the First Amendment so casually and is trying to dodge the press before he's even in office. My "bad things ahead" spidey sense is going off, so I think I'll vote McCain.

[editor]

interesting topic. I didn't realize reporters were charged for this stuff. Those costs seem outrageously high. Has the Obama campaign responded?

Responded to the complaints? I don't think so. The memo went out Tuesday, so the complaining only started Wednesday afternoon.

How the McCain campaign--are they charging anything?

Not to my knowledge. At both of this summer's conventions access to journalists was free.

[memebag]

Isn't this just capitalism at work? The news reporters don't have to pay the fee. They only pay it if they think they can make money by selling their news, right? And isn't election night a big revenue generator for news outlets?

[editor]

Isn't this just capitalism at work? The news reporters don't have to pay the fee. They only pay it if they think they can make money by selling their news, right? And isn't election night a big revenue generator for news outlets?

As outlined above, no. Election night is a huge money loser for news outlets.

[Jeebus]

In a perfect world, none of the news-media would play ball and it would blow back in the candidate's face. Ultimately however, the big outlets will cave and to the masses who tune-in, all will appear as normal.

Edited October 23, 2008 by Jeebus

[RedScare]

After reading the editor's responses, I have to retract my comment. I thought the city would be chipping in. I also thought that the fees charged to journalists were exorbitant. Given the editor's statement that the journalists' fees would barely put a dent in the costs associated with an event this size, I now have no problem with the fees whatsoever. I find this plan to be comforting to those who think Obama may be a socialist. This "pay to play" charge should allay those fears, as it is capitalism at its finest.

[editor]

This "pay to play" charge should allay those fears, as it is capitalism at its finest.

This seems to imply that you believe the only people who should have a voice in the media are the largest, richest organizations.

[RedScare]

This seems to imply that you believe the only people who should have a voice in the media are the largest, richest organizations.

Not really. There is free access to the event. I already stated that I believe the fees for the press "luxury suites" are high. I simply find your other statements overwrought, and so I went overwrought in the opposite direction.

I DO have concerns that the campaign is able to play with $600 million, or whatever the newest mind-numbing figure is. I had just as big of a concern in the previous two elections, when George Bush collected (up until then) record amounts of cash. The fact that Obama's cash comes largely in small denominations is cold comfort. It still allows him to swamp the electorate with ads, just as Bush did in 2000 and 2004. The concern here should be with these amounts of money subverting the entire electoral system, not simply because the candidate that you oppose got too much money THIS time. I don't recall reading your outrage during the 2004 election (perhaps because I only joined HAIF in 2005).

This sounds like a lot of complaints that I hear, that the Democrats are whipping the Republicans with their own playbook. While I enjoy a good comeuppance as much as the next guy, I am concerned that the citizen is left with no alternative, as BOTH parties are dipping into the same well.

I also find it interesting that you are in favor of "spreading the wealth", so to speak, when it comes to news reporters. Do you also take this approach with society at large? There are numerous parallels to be made that all citizens, not just the wealthy, should be given the opportunity to achieve in this great country, just as all reporters should be given the opportunity to cover a potentially historic presidential victory party. But, I can't help but feel that righteous indignation runs somewhat shallow in that regard. I predict that as the economic and financial systems are further eroded, we will see many more of these inequities that are unseen or unheard when the money is flowing. Perhaps the voters will see that there really is class warfare going on, but it is not Republican vs. Democrat, or white vs. Minority, but rather the powerful vs. the powerless. Maybe it will take a supposed populist like Obama, one who does not fit the usual stereotype, for all of us to realize that that we have been divided and conquered.

But, it will take more than a couple of months of lower stock prices for people to figure that out.

[memebag]

As outlined above, no. Election night is a huge money loser for news outlets.

Then why do they cover it?

[TJones]

After reading the editor's responses, I have to retract my comment. I thought the city would be chipping in. I also thought that the fees charged to journalists were exorbitant. Given the editor's statement that the journalists' fees would barely put a dent in the costs associated with an event this size, I now have no problem with the fees whatsoever. I find this plan to be comforting to those who think Obama may be a socialist. This "pay to play" charge should allay those fears, as it is capitalism at its finest.

You may be on to something here. Maybe Obama ISN'T the workng man, blue collar Dem. friend, that he tries to appear to be. I wonder what the cover charge is gonna be to attend the public park event ? This is a first I have ever heard of a Presidential candidate CHARGING for exposure to his followers ? Very strange.

[RedScare]

You may be on to something here. Maybe Obama ISN'T the workng man, blue collar Dem. friend, that he tries to appear to be. I wonder what the cover charge is gonna be to attend the public park event ? This is a first I have ever heard of a Presidential candidate CHARGING for exposure to his followers ? Very strange.

None.

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/obama.event.grant.2.846677.html

Given the city's demands that they be reimbursed for every dime expended, hitting up deep pocket media corporations...just as NFL owners do to wealthy ticket holders...doesn't sound as wretched as it did when I first read of this.

"We are demanding payment guarantees from the Obama campaign up front," Heard said. "Taxpayers cannot be asked to pay for a political party. We will bill the Obama campaign for city services needed. We may apply for Homeland Security money to pay for police and fire costs."

Officials said the senator from the Hyde Park neighborhood has already agreed to pay substantial, but so far undisclosed, amounts for security, emergency medical services and for cleaning up after the election.

Security would include perimeter fences, street closures and metal detectors, as have been seen at Grant Park in the past. But because Obama has requested more security, Secret Service agents would also be present, and snipers would be posted on buildings nearby.

Obama is also charging hefty fees for TV stations to get the better camera spots. But they maintain they won't make any profit by the event, hoping just to break even.

[TJones]

We are still 2 weeks out, maybe his campaign just hasn't thought that far ahead, or maybe they will just spring it on those as they enter the park.

[RedScare]

We are still 2 weeks out, maybe his campaign just hasn't thought that far ahead, or maybe they will just spring it on those as they enter the park.

Umm, this is the OBAMA campaign we're discussing here, not the McCain campaign.

[TJones]

Umm, this is the OBAMA campaign we're discussing here, not the McCain campaign.

HAR ! HAR !

Oh, so you are saying that Obama wanting to charge reporters was a calculated move. He intended to do this all along ? $600m isn't enough wealth to redistribute to himself, he has to get a little gravy from his FREE advertisers?