On Special Report, Bret Baier covered the decision made by AP and Reuters not to cover Fox News' May 5 Republican presidential debate, claiming that “Fox News is following the same procedures it has used in the past.” This has been denied by the AP and contradicted by a former South Carolina Republican Party chairman.
Baier Falsely Claims That Fox News' Rules For Photographing Its GOP Debate Are Unchanged From The Past
Written by Karen Famighetti
Published
AP And Reuters Decline To Cover Fox GOP Debate
News Agencies Cite “Restrictions Placed On Media Access.” From Politico:
The Associated Press announced Wednesday night that it's not going to cover tomorrow night's Republican presidential debate, citing “restrictions placed on media access.”
“The debate sponsors, Fox News Channel and the South Carolina Republican Party, will only allow photos to be taken in the moments ahead of the debate and not during the event itself,” the AP said in an advisory to editors.
“These are restrictions that violate basic demands of news-gathering and differ from other debates where more access was granted. Accordingly, the AP will not staff the event in any format nor will the AP disseminate any pool photos taken by another outlet.”
The AP said the decision was “consistent with longstanding policy” in coverage of events like these, and would be reassessed “should access conditions change.”
Reuters confirmed that it would not be covering the event photographically, because it shared concerns about access. However, Reuters did not confirm whether it would be going as far as AP and not filing text either. [Politico, 5/4/2011]
Baier: “Fox News Is Following The Same Procedures It Has Used In The Past”
From Fox News' Special Report:
BAIER: Meanwhile, both AP and Reuters have announced they are not going to publish any photographs of tonight's Republican presidential primary debate on Fox News Channel because of media restrictions. AP says it will not send a reporter either. The wire services are upset that still photographers will be allowed to shoot before and after, but not during, the debate. Fox News is following the same procedures it has used in the past. [Fox News, Special Report, 5/5/2011]
But AP, Former SC GOP Chairman Claim That Previous Debates Had Greater Photo Access
AP: “This Is A Change From Past Debates, When Fox Permitted Still Photographers Greater Access.” From a May 5 Associated Press article:
News agencies, including The Associated Press, are protesting limits placed on media coverage of a Republican presidential debate by its organizers.
Fox News Channel and the South Carolina Republican Party are co-sponsoring the first GOP debate of the 2012 presidential race on Thursday. But the sponsors are barring still photographers from entering the hall in Greenville, S.C., during the debate.
That is a change from past debates, when Fox permitted still photographers greater access. Both AP and Reuters photographers were permitted extensive access to the January 2008 GOP primary debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., including multiple photographers from each agency allowed in during large parts of the debate, said J. David Ake, the AP's assistant chief of bureau/photos. [Associated Press, 5/5/2011]
Former Chairman Of SC Republican Party “Remembers No Such Problems In The Past.” From Politico:
Katon Dawson, the former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party, oversaw the two previous debates leading up to the 2008 election, and remembers no such problems in the past.
He could not recall the exact rules that were given to the photographers, but said many of the circumstances this time around were different. 'We had a lot bigger staff, and we had 10 candidates," he said. “They'd been campaigning for 8 months. We had a professional photographer that provided something for them [the news organizations].
While he said ”no one took photos throughout the entire debates," he has gone back and seen Reuters and AP photos of the past South Carolina GOP debates taken by AP and Reuters, so there must have been at least some photography during the event. [Politico, 5/4/2011]