Is Obama's decision to label only female reporters as "nice" sexist?

It is always possible that a random calling of reporters could result in only women being called (video here), though if the number of reporters were equally divided between men and women, say 50 reporters, and he then picks 8 women, the odds of that happening are just 0.2%.  But the more bothersome is that he prefaced his decision to call on only women by noting that he was only going to call on reporters who were on the White House's "nice" list.  My question is this: Is it sexist for Obama to only classify female reporters as "nice"?  Does Obama view female reporters as more docile than male reporters?  Does Obama view female reporters as more supportive of Democrats?

Sharyl Attkisson talks about how reporters and the Obama White House coordinate actions

Sharyl Attkisson was talking with Chris Stigall on WPHT when she explained how things work in Washington:

“I wouldn’t surprised if sometimes there is that level of cooperation with some questions. If I need something answered from the White House and they won’t tell me, I’ll call our White House Correspondent. They’re friendlier with the White House Correspondents in general. So the White House Correspondent may ask Jay Carney or one of his folks about an issue and they will be told ‘ask that at the briefing and we’ll answer it.’ They want to answer it in front of everybody. They do know it’s coming and they’ll call on you. 

"There’s that kind of coordination sometimes. I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s sometimes more coordination. I don’t think it’s everybody on every briefing, every day. I’m pretty sure it’s not. But I think people would be surprised at the level of cooperation reporters have in general with politicians.”

Obama morns victims of Boston Bombing with only a White House photographer present

Does this strike one as being extremely contrived and artificial?  This seems ripe for a SNL skit to poke fun at this self importance.  From Politico:

Tuesday morning, a peculiar announcement trickled out of the White House press office: President Barack Obama would be holding a moment of silence for the victims of the Boston bombings. At the White House. By himself. No press or other intruders allowed.

Except the White House photographer.

That Obama assumed Americans would want an iconic photo of him privately mourning the victims of the bombings was emblematic of a kind of hubris that has enveloped the president and his White House as the president commences his second term. . . .

Please explain why the Federal government is searching for parole violations for person who made the anti-Muslim movie

The Obama administration is falsely blaming the problems in the Mideast on this movie.  Just listen to Jay Carney here:

This discussion in the Weekly Standard nails it:

Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. . . . They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce .  .  . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up. . . .

The Associated Press reports that the Federal government is checking the film maker for parole violations and the only reason suggested is because he was involved with this movie.  Note also how the AP accepts the Obama administration claim that this film maker is responsible for the violence.

A Southern California filmmaker linked to an anti-Islamic movie inflaming protests across the Middle East was interviewed by federal probation officers at a Los Angeles sheriff's station but was not arrested or detained, authorities said early Saturday. . . .

Federal authorities have identified Nakoula, a self-described Coptic Christian, as the key figure behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film denigrating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Middle East. A federal law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that authorities had connected Nakoula to a man using the pseudonym of Sam Bacile who claimed earlier to be writer and director of the film.

Violent protests set off by the film in Libya played a role in mob attacks in Benghazi that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other American officials. U.S. Embassy gates in Cairo were breached by protesters and demonstrations against American missions spread to Yemen on Thursday and on Friday to several other countries. . . . .

UPDATE:  A consequence of the Obama administration publicly making an example of Nakoula.

Social media websites are flush with death threats for Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the newly unmasked 55-year-old filmmaker behind the anti-Islam film that is being blamed for nearly a week of violent unrest in the Middle East.Nakoula was detained briefly over the weekend in California after federal officials questioned whether the production of the film violated the terms of his probation, which stemmed from a 2010 arrest for bank fraud. In response to security concerns, law enforcement kept him under heavy guard during his transport to a local police station.
“Insallah [God willing], we will kill him,” one Facebook user, Shayan Khan, wrote from Karachi, Pakistan.
Some YouTube users envisioned particularly imaginative demises for Nakoula in the comments section of a video related to his detention.
“I wanna torture him with a shot [to] his knee cap, then blow his eyes with [a] knife, take a chain saw and cut his penis, then a hot rod would be given to his ass, then kill him until he is hanged till death,” funkyfolk1110 wrote. “Kill this bastard,” said another user. 

The reason that Obama chooses to do interviews with local media: He can tell them what to ask questions about

For a local reporter to get an interview with the president must be pretty heady stuff.  There are so many local reporters and so much competition that at least a few are willing to agree to almost anything for an interview.  I also seem to remember that local reporters who have asked Obama tough questions have been told that they will never get another interview.  From the White House Dosser:

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk. 

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases. 

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June. 

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly. . . .

Most voters think that reporters will do what is necessary to get Obama elected

New Rasmussen survey shows that there is little doubt in most American's mind who reporters want to win.

Fifty-one percent (51%) of voters think looking ahead to the fall campaign that most reporters will try to help the president, while only nine percent (9%) feel they will try to help Romney. Just one-in-five voters (22%) believes most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided. 

These findings are nearly identical to those just before Election Day in November 2008. At that time, 51% of voters felt most reporters had tried to help Obama win the presidency, while only seven percent (7%) thought they had tried to help Republican candidate John McCain. . . .

The most transparent administration ever won't even let reporters interview people outside an Obama event

Dave Davies is a report for a Philadelphia Public Radio station (WHYY). Pretty amazing. The audio available with the story is also pretty amazing. From WHYY:

Presidential campaign events are always orchestrated stage shows, and reporters are used to campaigns doing their best to manipulate the media and control the day’s narrative.
But my experience Thursday at a Michelle Obama event in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania was a first.
Obama campaign operatives barred me from talking to voters outside the event, to the point of interfering with my interviews and grabbing my microphone.
You can hear some audio of one encounter by playing my radio story above.
Here’s what happened:
During the two-hour wait for the rally to begin, I wanted to talk to some of the supporters attending the event. Since I couldn't leave the media pen at the Upper Dublin High School gymnasium, I told press aide Devora Kaye I'd like to go and find some outside.
Kaye, who is exceptionally pleasant, said I could go out and come back in, but that I couldn't talk to people waiting in line for the event. When I asked why, she mentioned security and crowd-control concerns, which honestly made no sense. Everyone coming into the building would have to go through security again anyway.
I went outside. The line was short and things were peaceful. The only members of the public around to talk to were the people in line to get into the rally, so that’s where I went. . . .

I was troubled by this part of the story:

I spoke to Dick Polman, national political writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer, a 20-year veteran of national politics and also a blogger on Newsworks.org. I described what had happened, and asked for his take. “I've never had that experience, ever, and I'm talking about Republicans and Democrats, in the primaries, in the general election,” Polman said. “I've never been told you can't talk to the people who are right in front of you. It's a sign that the campaigns really really want to control the narrative.” . . .

Campaigns? It was only the Obama campaign. Why would this reporter tar both Romney and Obama?

UPDATE: Apparently, the Obama administration has gone even further in trying to control what is reported by the news media.  A video is available here.

Politico's Jonathan Martin and Washington Post's Chris Cillizza talk to NBC's Chuck Todd about the Obama-Biden campaign's control over reporters and the pool report on Todd's MSNBC program, "The Daily Rundown."
The pool report is a brief memo that is usually written by one reporter that goes out to members of the press who were not able to make it to an event where the president or vice president attended. The pool report often contains a few lines that the president or vice president . . .  said. Sometimes gaffes made by the candidates are included in the report.
Martin says that as of late the Biden campaign team has gone through pool reports and then tells the reporter what is okay and what is not okay to print.
As Martin and Chuck Todd note, this is a memo that is by the press and for the press.
"The Biden aides are trying to edit what's in there while it's been drafted, and then after you send it to them and they're reviewing it, they're looking for potential land mines," Martin revealed. 
"By the way, the only reason it gets sent through them, and I think we're going to have to change the system -- this is an outrage that they do this! The only reason we send it to them is it's the fastest distribution to the press," Chuck Todd said. . . .
"It's a reflection of how much the Biden staff is determined to police him and really save him from himself," Martin observed. . . .

Should media be allowed to cover the White House events based on whether they give Obama positive coverage?

At what point will these types of events become news worthy? Doesn't the media get upset about this type of political favoritism? From the Boston Herald:

The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama’s Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper’s front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news “fairly.”

“I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters,” White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit. . . .

But Lehrich said the Herald wasn’t purposefully barred from the press pool, saying local pool duty by the Boston Globe was arranged earlier with the White House Correspondents Association. And Lehrich insisted the Herald may yet be allowed into Obama events.

“As we have in the past — including the multiple occasions on which the Herald has supplied local pool reporters — we will continue to consider the Herald for local pool duty for future visits,” Lehrich wrote.

Obama is in town today to raise money for his 2012 re-election campaign. His afternoon speech in the South End’s Cyclorama is open to all media, but only a selected pool can attend other aspects of his fund-raiser. Pool reporters must share all their material with other press. The Herald has been bypassed for pool duty during Obama’s last two visits despite asking the White House to be the local pool reporter.

“Newspapers don’t have to be unbiased to get access. You can’t just let only the newspapers you want in,” said Boston University journalism professor Fred Bayles. . . .

SF Chronicle: Obama White House Lying about threats it made to Reporter

The SF Chronicle blasts the Obama White House here.

Update: In a pants-on-fire moment, the White House press office today denied anyone there had issued threats to remove Carla Marinucci and possibly other Hearst reporters from the press pool covering the President in the Bay Area.

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee called the press office on its fib:

Sadly, we expected the White House to respond in this manner based on our experiences yesterday. It is not a truthful response. It follows a day of off-the-record exchanges with key people in the White House communications office who told us they would remove our reporter, then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be removed after all.

The Chronicle's report is accurate. . . .

As of about 1 PM today, there has been virtually no news coverage of this event from Friday. The SF Chronicle caught the Obama administration in a lie, but the rest of the media has ignored it.


Even more telling is how the few media outlets who have covered it have done so. I searched under "San Francisco Chronicle "White House" Reporter threats AND lie OR "not a truthful" OR "pants-on-fire moment"," and got only seven news stories.