<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uXsmLMV1CrM&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uXsmLMV1CrM&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
No it hasn't. 65' is not significant and is in effect so the process of clean up etc is not being interrupted.
They said they were trying to get it pushed to 300ft.....but i agree. I dont trust the media over the government or vice versa.
As Azadre noted this is in no way a suspension of the First Amendment. I can understand Anderson Cooper feeling irate about this but this is actually fairly standard practice for disasters. Consider that at any house fire generally the press is not allowed within about a 100 feet of fire while its happening, when the the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis the public and press were kept about 500 ft away from the bridge for a week, and a very large exclusion zone was set up around Ground Zero for weeks. In principle I can understand wanting unfettered access for the press but that has to be balanced with the ability to do the clean up job. 65 ft seems a very good compromise considering that a lot of house lots are only that wide, or for a better comparison, that would be like just standing outside the 21 yard line looking at the endzone.
