Re: POTUS 45.33: ""We're rounding them up in a very humane way, in a very nice way."
I've been posting on this Board since 1997. If I've made posts like you suggest, please feel free to bring them forward.
As for the EPA, if I'm recalling the same event, this was some sort of public event where reps from the EPA were giving a report on drinking water safety? There was some dispute over a couple of reporters getting in. The EPA claimed there was limited space but the event was telecast so they could watch in a different room. The media said there was plenty of room.
Is this the same event?
Assuming that's the case, and from the limited amount that I know about it, it sounds like it was basically an elongated press conference in which speakers spoke on something clearly of public interest.
My guess is it's not something covered under any federal open meeting laws, since the EPA isn't actually taking any agency action at this event. That said, sure, we should be critical of the EPA. If they have bad information to tell the public, but announce it in an empty room, that's on them. Its basically a failure on their part to keep the public informed, although apparently there were other reporters there.
The fact that there were other reporters there, by the way, calls into question the notion that the EPA banned these reporters because they were trying to hide something from the public. If ten reporters show up and you want to keep bad news from the public, do you only throw two out of the room?
Originally posted by rufus
View Post
As for the EPA, if I'm recalling the same event, this was some sort of public event where reps from the EPA were giving a report on drinking water safety? There was some dispute over a couple of reporters getting in. The EPA claimed there was limited space but the event was telecast so they could watch in a different room. The media said there was plenty of room.
Is this the same event?
Assuming that's the case, and from the limited amount that I know about it, it sounds like it was basically an elongated press conference in which speakers spoke on something clearly of public interest.
My guess is it's not something covered under any federal open meeting laws, since the EPA isn't actually taking any agency action at this event. That said, sure, we should be critical of the EPA. If they have bad information to tell the public, but announce it in an empty room, that's on them. Its basically a failure on their part to keep the public informed, although apparently there were other reporters there.
The fact that there were other reporters there, by the way, calls into question the notion that the EPA banned these reporters because they were trying to hide something from the public. If ten reporters show up and you want to keep bad news from the public, do you only throw two out of the room?
Comment