FCW Insider

Blog archive

Denied! Event with White House leader closed to press

 Does closing a meeting to the press mean anything anymore?

Did it ever?

And when government officials do it, is it even legal?

White House Cybersecurity Coordinator Howard Schmidt spoke to an audience earlier this week at a breakfast hosted by the Northern Virginia Technology Council. Although it was not in any way a classified or secret event, the administration asked that it be closed to reporters, for some unfathomable reason. (NVTC confirmed that it was the administration's request, not the NVTC's idea, to close the meeting to media.)

It was a shocking display of hostility to the very idea of transparency, one of the Obama administration's watchwords, so that alone is ironic. But it's also a singularly ineffective way of preventing the message from getting out past that room, if that was the intent.

The press, as it always has, will get any important news from those who attended -- as we did in reporting Schmidt's comments about coming enforcement of Personal Identity Verification card use. All the press ban accomplishes is forcing reporters to rely on second-hand accounts rather than witnessing the presentation themselves. (Which adds opportunity for error and misconstrual that wouldn't exist if the even had just been open to coverage.)

But there's more to it than that. Everybody at the event who heard Schmidt speak has a mobile phone. Most have Twitter accounts. It's inconceivable that the White House actually believed that closing out the media would prevent the spread of anything important that he said. And a quick Twitter search using the hashtag #NVTC -- just one of several that apply -- brings up several  tweets relating parts of Schmidt's presentation.

We just don't get it. What did they accomplish with this ban, other than to contradict their own stated commitment to transparency?

Posted on Dec 16, 2010 at 7:25 PM


Reader Comments

Fri, Dec 17, 2010

Maybe Schmidt really had nothing new to say and White House were afraid media would quickly pick up on that. In essence, no solutions...

Fri, Dec 17, 2010

"We just don't get it." This entire article just doesn't get IT. First of all, SO WHAT? Wow, we miss the policy pronouncements made by an appointee to a trade group? Mmmm, mmm! To arms, to arms! Get some blogging flack to ride to Lexington and Concord!! Secondly, plausible deniability mean anything to ya'? Wait until we are blessed with an administration of mama grizzlies...

Please post your comments here. Comments are moderated, so they may not appear immediately after submitting. We will not post comments that we consider abusive or off-topic.

Please type the letters/numbers you see above

What is your e-mail address?

My e-mail address is:

Do you have a password?

Forgot your password? Click here
close

Trending

  • Dive into our Contract Award database

    In an exclusive for WT Insider members, we are collecting all of the contract awards we cover into a database that you can sort by contractor, agency, value and other parameters. You can also download it into a spreadsheet. Our databases track awards back to 2013. Read More

  • Navigating the trends and issues of 2016 Nick Wakeman

    In our latest WT Insider Report, we pull together our best advice, insights and reporting on the trends and issues that will shape the market in 2016 and beyond. Read More

contracts DB

Washington Technology Daily

Sign up for our newsletter.

Terms and Privacy Policy consent

I agree to this site's Privacy Policy.