Despite reports to the contrary, no reporter has been banned from covering the White House because of taping singing Bradley Manning protestors or for any other reason.
In fact, the newspaper that was the subject of these reports, the San Francisco Chronicle, did not report that their reporter had been banned.
This is in fact what they reported:
SF Chronicle video prompts White House threat
(04-29) 04:00 PDT Washington -- The White House threatened Thursday to exclude The San Francisco Chronicle from pooled coverage of its events in the Bay Area after the paper posted a video of a protest at a San Francisco fundraiser for President Obama last week, Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee said.
White House guidelines governing press coverage of such events are too restrictive, Bushee said, and the newspaper was within its rights to film the protest and post the video.
http://www.sfgate.com/...
The White House said that they did not threaten any reporters with banning or ban any reporters over unauthorized taping of an event:
Jay Carney: 'No Reporters Have Been Banned'
WASHINGTON - White House press secretary Jay Carney pushed back Friday against a San Francisco Chronicle report that claimed the White House "threatened" to exclude the paper from having its reporter file print-pool reports at future Obama events in the Bay Area.
The San Francisco Chronicle violated the coverage rules that they and every other media outlet agreed to as part of joining the press pool for that event, Carney told The Huffington Post. If they thought the rules were too restrictive they should have raised that at the beginning."
However, Carney continued, no reporters have been banned from covering future presidential events and the White House of course would have no problem including any reporter who follows the rules in pool-only events.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
To review: 1) The SF Chronicle, the paper that employs the reporter that was said to have been banned, in fact ran this headline "SF Chronicle video prompts White House threat"
The item to note is, that the newspaper that is the subject of this report, did not write a headline that said "SF Chronicle video prompts White House ban," despite where you may see that assertion reported elsewhere. Presumably if the paper that represents the reporter had their reporter banned, their headline would have indicated that. It did not.
2) The White House denies threatening or banning any reporters.
3) Who you want to believe, as always, is up to you.
UPDATE: Thanks to Eric K for this update:
Might want to include this.
Update: Chronicle responds
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.