The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


White House

White House Pool Reports to Stay Press Property

Anne E. Kornblut
The new White House web site is expected to display many cool things once it's fully operational (which, currently, it is not).

But pool reports -- the informal, quick accounts of the president's movements, generated by White House correspondents for their colleagues' consumption -- will not be among them.

Although there is a spot for pool reports on the site, the White House Correspondent Association says that was just for Inauguration Day, when it was unclear whether the administration would be able to distribute information given the technical glitches of assuming power.

Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press, the president of the WHCA, said everyone is in agreement that "pool reports are the media's product, not the White House's, and can't be a regular part of their Web site."

"The White House has told me that is their view, too, and it was never their intention to post pool reports on a permanent basis," Loven said.

Why does it matter if pool reports are made public? In short, because covering the president around-the-clock is expensive -- and pool reports belong to the news organizations funding the coverage. News organizations also want to be able to control the integrity and the use of their products. That is especially true on domestic and foreign trips, the costs of which are determined by how many reporters travel because they split the cost. If all news organizations could simply look up the pool reports online instead of paying to travel with the president, it could create a disincentive for some news outlets to actually go, thus raising costs for those organizations providing the news.

Posted at 1:55 PM ET on Jan 22, 2009  | Category:  White House
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Obama and Air Force One, the Video | Next: Cheney: Libby Deserved a Pardon

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

You're welcome.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 12:15 PM

"One crack in the armor does not mean they've taken him down by any means. I still expect a longer-than-average honeymoon period for the usurper."

The usurper? That is probably the funniest thing I've heard in the last eight years. Thanks for that!

Keep up the whining, crying, and petulant sniffles. Your tiny, incoherent mewlings of impotent rage are sweet, sweet music to the ears of every rational, patriotic American. Know why? Because that means the damage that you and your cohort have wrought on our country is over.

Look out! Here comes the "usurper"!

Posted by: icoleman | January 23, 2009 12:11 PM


If Obama is not a "natural born" citizen, do you think that irrelevant Constitutionally? Have you even read the Keyes lawsuit?

Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 at the time allowed for registration of birth in Hawaii of any child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence. In addition, between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, the law specified that if you were born outside of the United States and only one of your parents was a citizen, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least 10 years, at least 5 of which were after the age of 16.


“Short-form by declaration” fraud is a plausible explanation that seems to fit the known facts. If Obama was born in Kenya, and if his mother simply traveled back to Hawaii with him shortly thereafter, and falsely declared his birth (including the newspaper announcements), then she alone broke the law, without the assistance of any co-conspirators. He may not even know the truth -- although I doubt that, or he wouldn't be fighting the release -- the original LONG FORM vault record in Hawaii, if it exists, has not been examined, and Obama has refused to allow it to be examined. (The Government of Hawaii has stated that the “Certificate of Live Birth” (which appeared on Obama’s website) is valid, and it may be valid, if it was produced from short-form database records. However, if the short form records were fraudulently established by declaration, in the absence of a long-form witness of live birth, then a fraud has been perpetrated.

Constitutional crisis, here we come.

Posted by: JakeD | January 23, 2009 12:00 PM

And I love how the neck drooling knuckle draggers who supported George Bush & Sarah Palin are still focused on Barack's birth certificate! Pathetic.

I guess this means you really don't have anything on Barack Obama and are just pulling crap out of your bottom in the hopes it sticks to the wall, huh? *shaking head*

Posted by: KayInMaine | January 23, 2009 7:49 AM

One crack in the armor does not mean they've taken him down by any means. I still expect a longer-than-average honeymoon period for the usurper.

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 5:18 PM

So Obama's pledge of transparency is foiled by the press? And the conservatives said they'd be too nice...

Posted by: parkerfl1 | January 22, 2009 5:13 PM

There's a ?! COOL

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 3:15 PM






Posted by: scrivener50 | January 22, 2009 3:08 PM

"Am I at the wrong place?

Posted by: JakeD "
Yes you are, you should be at Fox news or

How about while they are at it they also investigate United Nations allegations of torture on the part of GW and Rumsfeld since they were mentioned by name yesterday by the person who is in charge of the issue of torture at the United Nations.

Personally, I would like to see them vindicated so I don't have to feel like I am a citizen of a country that tortures.

Posted by: JRM2 | January 22, 2009 3:04 PM

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 2:58 PM

roght = right (darn spellchecker ; )

Here's an interesting crack in the press lovefest for Obama:

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 2:49 PM

Whatever. How about some investigation into pResident-Evil Obama's original LONG FORM birth certificate instead? This IS the newspaper that once had Woodward and Bernstein investigate Nixon, roght? Am I at the wrong place?

Posted by: JakeD | January 22, 2009 2:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company