Were reporters requesting to be relieved? asked Issenberg.

AD

AD

No, replied Carroll: “The one that we did pull out we pulled out because it was becoming a dangerous situation for that person, but we were with every candidate all the way, every minute.”

The Erik Wemple Blog has asked AP for more information about the move. AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton replied, “It’s our policy to refrain from commenting on security matters.” Well, then Kathleen Carroll could be in some trouble.

Yet there’s another dimension to this story that extends way beyond the particulars: Why didn’t AP reveal this information before the election? Why wait until a post-election conference to reveal that a reporter’s safety was in danger in covering a presidential election?

AD

We didn’t get an answer from the AP, and searches didn’t reveal any coverage of the situation.

There’s a tradition among mainstream media outlets to keep their interactions with political candidates to themselves. Aside from noting that so-and-so didn’t return calls for comment — or something like that — treatment of reporters behind the scenes tends to stay behind the scenes. It’s a fine standard so long as those backroom machinations remain boring.

AD

Clearly a “dangerous situation” that prompts the AP to pull a reporter off the beat veers from pro forma. This is a newsworthy event — far more so than a good chunk of the day-to-day campaign-trail coverage that the wire service produced on an ongoing basis. What’s more important: “Sanders worries Trump is benefiting politically from Brexit” or “AP pulls reporter from campaign over safety concerns”? What’s more important: “Trump breaks with party on trade as he threatens tariffs” or “AP reporter pulled off beat over concerns about threats”?

AD

“We don’t report on every assignment change,” Easton replied when asked if the AP had publicized the situation.