"Lack of news coverage"???

This event will be given over-saturation coverage. It will appear on every cable station except the Golf Channel and every newspaper except The Racing Form. Managing the crowd of reporters alone will require a good-sized security force (no, the Secret Service doesn't do it). If every reporter from every media outlet wanted to cover this event, Grant Park wouldn't be big enough.

That's why they have pool coverage -- the very notion of which is older (and more cost-effective) than Mark Ragan (sorry, Mark) and makes incredibly good sense.

Media have only been asked to pay for their needs at just this one supersized event. What's next, asking a campaign to pay for the satellite trucks and reporters' travel expenses?

(And consider this: If a campaign pays for reporters' connections, etc., someone could turn around and charge the campaign with currying favorable coverage.)

I hate to say it, but all this whining gives immense credibility to the notion of "media elitism." Which worries me a lot more than asking the media to pay for what they use.

Media relations stories in themselves don't make much news, so the AP doing a story on this is all one can expect.

But having been a reporter who covered elections early in my career, and having hosted more than my share of press events, charging the press under these circumstances is very bad form and a reflection of an attitude.

Brian is right. If there's one thing the Obama campaign has is money. There is no way the campaign can even spend all the money it has between now and election day. It will finish the campaign with a surplus, so "defraying" cost is a joke.

Beware of an organization that by nature is full of takers.

I am a registered Democrat, yet this is a frightening trend. I refer to the lack of news coverage and the willingness to accept this outrageous idea as a "necessary requirement" of the reporter doing his or her job.

One way to eliminate this is to choose NOT to cover the event with a story instead about the high cost.

Please read again the comments posted by Brian. (below).

Are we all so complacent, so afraid of consequences that we accept whatever a "person with authority or title" tells us to do?

Too many people died for our Constitution for our generation to let it be sold or handed over to simply avoid a conflict.

BRIAN'S COMMENTS (EXCERPT)

This is a terrible, frightening trend with so many possibly disastrous outcomes that we should all take notice.

But, of course, no one will. As a nation we're way too busy tracking the Britney Spears comeback to understand that the U.S. Constitution has become more like a menu than a guiding document, and that the price for our freedoms will soon be listed next to each – à la carte.

Freedom of the Press – $935.

Does that come with fries?

"To me it actually looks like they are trying to de-fray some of the costs of this huge event." Pam at 3.56pm.

Are you kidding me?? Have you seen the size of his campaign bank balance? For someone who brags about how much money they have raised, it seems somewhat absurd to try and justify an $800 access fee to, quote, "defray some of the costs".

Hey, folks, call Verizon (or Qwest or whomever is your local phone company) and ask them how much it will cost you for them to install a high-speed internet line in a public park (not a pre-wired office building), PLUS the cost of having an electrician provide a code-compliant power feed -- all for 12 hours. You'll be shocked (pun intended).

Most small-town papers pay a hefty fee to AP or another news source for coverage of most national and international news stories because it's much more cost-effective than trying to do all-original coverage. (The same goes for broadcast media, who use network feeds to provide on-the-spot coverage.)

I'm glad the anti-Obamas have this horrific story to latch onto -- it's another excuse for dodging the real issues.

Mark, if you are going to defend this action, you should proofread to ensure you spell his name correctly.

As a former media campagin staff I see a little bit of both sides. Setting up the press risers, media filing rooms or tents, wi-fi, mult boxes, lights, sound, etc are incredibly expensive. Especially now that bloggers, videographers, online news sources attend the traditional campaign rallies. It used to be a much smaller group of media outlets.

To me it actually looks like they are trying to de-fray some of the costs of this huge event. Campaigns try to spend every last dollar on campaigning up to the last minute of election day. They fly around to airport hangers the last 24 hours of the campaign to get as much coverage as they can.

On election night they have a captive audience. Of course media outlets want to be there. Traditionally the small town media outlets do not go to election night coverage with the exception of the where the candidates are holding their election night rally. In this case Chicago. It sounds like small local media can still get in it just won't be as nice.

There is no utopia of equality in the media working on campaigns. If you have been traveling the stump with Obama all summer and fall then you have your folks to quote and media relations staff you can turn to. A journalist from Springfield, IL is not going to have that (regardless if he paid or not) if he shows up at the Election night coverage.

"Have you ever charged the media just to see your executive at a public event?"

There is NO, repeat NO analogy to Osama's election night party. That is NOT a "public event." It is NOT organized, sponsored, or paid for by the United States federal government or the City of Chicago.

It is a private event. As it happens, his campaign is renting a public space. They are reimbursing the city for police, fire, and streets and sanitation expenses. McCain's campaign is renting a private space for his election night party. I'm sure McCain's campaign will likewise pay that venue for security and whatever else costs are incurred.

Being PRIVATE events, the campaigns can invite WHO they want and charge WHAT they want to reporters or anyone else. Isn't media relations about influencing coverage by targeting certain media and regulating their access???

A lot of preaching to the choir in these posts -- Obama's campaign/staff is the correct target for (in my opinion justifiable) expressions of outrage.

The Obama Campaign keeps on getting away with this because the media keeps on letting him get away with it.

Bill Ayers? No story.
ACORN? Not worth a mention.
I will/no I won't take public campaign funding. No big deal.
Who needs a birth certificate?
You really don't need to see my transcripts.

You reap what you sew. Hey Chris, still get a shiver up your leg?

Has the strength of the American press weakened to a point where a presidential candidate can demand money for access? Are journalists now looked on as just another group of lobbyists, and the ones with the deepest pockets get the best stories?

This is a terrible, frightening trend with so many possibly disastrous outcomes that we should all take notice.

But, of course, no one will. As a nation we're way too busy tracking the Britney Spears comeback to understand that the U.S. Constitution has become more like a menu than a guiding document, and that the price for our freedoms will soon be listed next to each – à la carte.

Freedom of the Press – $935.

Does that come with fries?

"how disappointing and disillusioning"

Really? I find it par for the course in this modern "Do as I say, not as I do" world of politics.

Politicians don't endorse policies that would affect them personally. Some sort of government health care will be passed despite all the evidence of long waiting lines and shortages of medical resources in countries with socialized medicine. But that doesn't matter because the politicians will be fine. They can well afford to fly to Asia and have their their medical needs attended to right away if necessary while their constiuents suffer in pain. And it's really easy to convince the ignorant masses that some how, merely passing a law "guarantees" that they'll get top-quality health care on demand.

It's the same motivation that causes folks Al Gore to make a movie about "climate change" and then proceeds to use up 20x the amount of energy in his Tennessee mansion that the average American uses. And the motivation isn't a desire to see politics in America "change." I mean heck, just because Al's not in politics anymore doesn't mean he's going to stop fleecing the American people with the greatest scam of the 21st century.

American politics is nothing more than a race between two parties to see who can find the most creative ways to get their hands on our money.

If you think Obama genuinely cares about the average working shmo and isn't in this game for his own personal prosperity, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you...cheap.

What about the bloggers out there that have followed Obama's campaign and helped to "spread the message" of change we can believe in. Heck, they even got me believing and I live in Canada and can't vote in the U.S.!!

There are alot of small main stream media and bloggers out there that are being left out in the cold -- in more ways than one -- by this decision.

So much for the Main Street focus on real people during tough times...I guess it was bound to happen...at some point, even when you really, really, really want to believe that it's not a dream....you wake up. No offense to the big dogs of journalism ... but really, CNN needs more access to the candidate? The Wall Street Journal won't get a quote from someone important that worked on the campaign? The New York Times needs "special" access?

Yet - there seems to be little backlash to this.

If I was charged with managing the media on election night in Obama's camp... I would like to think that I would create this utopia of equality where bloggers and CNN and The NYTimes and Rolling Stone have equal access... to the quotables and notables...and fresh coffee and muffins :) and indoor heating and plumbing. Perhaps I am just a cockeyed optimist...Oh well, maybe next election.

I guess change we can believe in is really change our monster media parent company can pay for .... how disappointing and disillusioning (if that's even a word!).