The comments on that article are just insane! The writer states that there were more than 200 requests and only 40 seats but she did such a good job of jumping to the conclusion that is must be payback that nobody on the thread even questions whether this was payback or not.

Unbelievably terrible "reporting"!

I just emailed this to Rachel Sklar under the subject line "Are you nuts, Rachel?"

Having been a journalist most of my life, I understand the meaning of limited space. Sometimes there are enough seats on a plane. In the case of your assertion that Obama snubbed the New Yorker, there aren't enough seats on five planes to accommodate all the press that wanted to tag along. You're giving new meaning to "unfounded rumor."

I got this reply:

If you've been a journalist all your life, then I would love to know how much success you've had cold-emailing strangers leading with flat-out insults.

First of all, the information was reported by Mike Allen of Politico. Was his note that the Obama campaign was "furious" at the NYer just fun color? Come on.

Second of all, yes there were limited seats for lots of requests. But there are norms that are established, regulars that included for a variety of reasons. Carrie Budoff-Brown from Politico is on the plane - so is Karen Tumulty from Time - so is Lynn Sweet from the Chicago Sun-Times - but it looks like there's someone from the Tribune, too. Why two papers from the same city? Because it's Chicago? Can't Ben Smith pick someone else's reports? These decisions are entirely discretionary. We both know that. We also both know (I am assuming) that Lizza has been writing on Obama for ages, for TNR and GQ and the Atlantic too. He is an ace reporter and has been doing some work of real substance on this campaign, has been out on the trail with a vengeance, and is well-known to Team Obama (and probably well-loved, considering some of his previous material). This isn't a case of suddenly the New Yorker is small potatoes. And it's not like drawing straws. This also seems consistent with certain other reactions of the Obama campaign. I stand by my analysis, and the concerns it raises.

But seriously, dude, you might want to rethink the subject line. There's no need to be rude. I might get offended and then deny you access - I hear that's done.

RS

to which I replied:

So, you didn't like the opener? There's as much truth in my subject line as there was in your headline. And also less of that "facts not in evidence" thing your post displays. See, it's a long way from saying that Obama's campaign is "furious" to concluding without a scrap of evidence that the New Yorker was "BANNED." Or didn't you learn that in journalism school?

P.S. Rachel's reply came with a line at the end that says: "This email is off the record unless otherwise indicated."

Sorry, Rachel, you replied before I agreed to the ground rules. It's ON the record. I guess that's another one your professors overlooked.

This is status quo for huffpo.

"Obama's Revenge: New Yorker Reporter Banned From Press Plane For Overseas Trip"

This headline is a lie. It's not even stretching truth. It's plain false.

Rachel is a senior contributing editor to the Huffpost. If she doesn't see that it's false then that's indicative of a very serious problem not only for her, but for that site.

Must have a retraction.

Someone out there asked if Huffpo is turning into the Enquirer? I'm guessing it was a rhetorical question.

That there were 200 applicants for the seats on the plane does not mean there were 200 top tier applicants. Who were they? That matters. If he was kicked off to allow a reporter from the Bend Bulletin on the plane - that's retribution.

With only 40 seats, they can claim crowding, but there are some media publications whose position has been tradition, whose importance and reach is enough to guarantee them a seat. I think the New Yorker probably falls within the major media/ important grouping.

Still with monthly rather than daily deadlines - they can get along without access beter than most. To be honest, I think Sklar's headline went farther than is provable - and your headline completely missed the mark.

I hate to say it, but HuffPo has been yellow journalism since its founding. There may be some difficulty recognizing it here because, well, Obama's ox was not getting gored. I think the clue is, look down the right side of their page. Remember back to the dreadful, spread-wing VTech killer photo on their front page. And, in some future time when we can be objective, look at every single picture of Hillary over the primary campaign, and reflect that she's not really that unattractive, but the HuffPo found every possible unflattering shot, tight angle, close-up on wrinkles and prominent teeth to illustrate the fact that they didn't like Hillary. Sure, there's lots to criticize it, but the photo editors and the headline writers, and quite a few of the political writers, are attack dogs pure and simple. It really is a British tabloid with, because of the female editor-in-chief, no page three girl.