Forums | MacLife

Chickenhawk · 2009-10-23 12:13 pm

resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press core.

I let this go the first couple times, but its driving me nuts.

Its Press corps not Press core.

Chickenhawk · 2009-10-23 12:16 pm

So... back in the bush days... would anybody be surprised if Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow or Al Franken (before he was a senator) were not allowed to talk to the prez?

bedstuy · 2009-10-23 12:18 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
CRISIS! CRISIS!

Don't forget the Nazi Germany comparison!

iSeamas · 2009-10-23 12:18 pm

resedit wrote:
It is not the job of the white house to decide Fox isn't good enough.

It might not be their job, but they cartainly have a right to do it. You had no problem when Bush pull all his garbage with the press.

resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press core.(sic)

That's debatable!

resedit wrote:
It is an abuse of power for the white house to decide to exclude them, they do not have that authority

It's not an "abuse of power" and they do have that authority.

Last edited by iSeamas (2009-10-23 12:19 pm)

Anonymous Delivers! · 2009-10-23 12:20 pm

resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press corps.

Then what's keeping The Onion from joining those ranks?

Warin · 2009-10-23 12:28 pm

Wasnt Helen Thomas barred from White House press events during the Bush years?

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 12:33 pm

Warin wrote:
Wasnt Helen Thomas barred from White House press events during the Bush years?

No, Bush just didn't take any questions from her.

iSeamas · 2009-10-23 12:35 pm

Warin wrote:
Wasnt Helen Thomas barred from White House press events during the Bush years?

I don't think she was barred, but she was prevented from sitting up front.

The Bush team was big on planting fake journalists with pre-set questions. Very sleazy.
James Dale Guckert who went under the false name of Jeff Gannon.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 12:39 pm

Chickenhawk wrote:
resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press core.
I let this go the first couple times, but its driving me nuts.

Its Press corps not Press core.

You pick that and not

nearly averted

?

ScifiterX · 2009-10-23 12:42 pm

Res you are definitely ignoring certain points. That precedent they seek to avoid was already long established before Obama was president, even before he was born. SS summarized a large part of what is wrong with your and the press's logic. Another point is real suppression can occur with or without precedent.

jerwin · 2009-10-23 1:29 pm

I don't often find common cause with Mickey Kaus, but

What's Your Beef With Fox, Mr. Dem-Basher?

I guess there are two distinct axes on which you can judge press organizations--actually, there are many more than two (see below), but two are important here: 1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc. 2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?
I think it's pretty clear MSNBC and the NYT and Breitbart.tv are not neutral. They all have an agenda and they pursue it. But they are independent. The Obama White House can't tell Bill Keller what to do. They can't tell Keith Olbermann what to do. (They can suck up to him, and it will probably work, but that's a different issue.) Breitbart is for sure independent--I can't see anyone telling him what to do.
I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views).

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-23 1:33 pm

ScifiterX wrote:
SS summarized a large part of what is wrong with your and the press's logic.

Which is why my post was ignored. Par for the course, really.

sturner · 2009-10-23 1:39 pm

No Shnicky, it's because there is a conspiracy to ignore you.

wink

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 1:41 pm

I'd like to see his arguments that the NYT has a definite agenda that is pushed through their reporting.

jerwin · 2009-10-23 1:57 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
I'd like to see his arguments that the NYT has a definite agenda that is pushed through their reporting.

Um. You can read kausfiles for yourself.

daemon · 2009-10-23 1:58 pm

Oh. You must mean Scooter's girl, the former Judy, or the recent reporting on Iran's production of IED's imported into Iraq or Bill Keller running things, OR their decision to spike the warrantless wiretapping/domestic spying story for a year after the '04 election?

Not to mention res' cites on all the liberties and bill of rights amendments supposedly demolished via this bruhaha vs. the real, actual and documented atrocities of same by that last admin.

Last edited by daemon (2009-10-23 2:00 pm)

Goat on Parade · 2009-10-23 2:14 pm

ScifiterX wrote:
SS summarized a large part of what is wrong with your and the press's logic.

well maybe once the whole 1930's Germany thing kicks into high gear, the people won't be able to ignore the SS, ya?

ScifiterX · 2009-10-23 2:27 pm

Funny Guy. Ve have vays of dealing vith funny guys like you.

ShnickyShnack · 2009-10-23 2:32 pm

Yez, ve make zem read ze zhreads zat are dripping viz FAIL.

sturner · 2009-10-23 2:48 pm

You do know that most Germans don't speak with a lisp, and have usually speak English better than 'Mericans?

Tallgeese · 2009-10-23 2:52 pm

No.

robco · 2009-10-23 2:57 pm

It's the Spanish that speak with a lisp. The Gerrys do tend to have trouble with f's and s's and they do speak better English English than we do, but that's what they learn.

jerwin · 2009-10-23 2:59 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
No.

I find Franka Potente's accent cute.

sturner · 2009-10-23 2:59 pm

Depends on where that they learn it. In the southern part of Germany, they tend to emulate an American accent, in northern Germany they tend to emulate an English accent. My particular experience with it.

resedit · 2009-10-23 3:02 pm

Chickenhawk wrote:
resedit wrote:
They are a member of the press core.
I let this go the first couple times, but its driving me nuts.

Its Press corps not Press core.

I apologize, I'm hard of hearing.
Thank you for pointing it out.

Forums | MacLife

#26 2009-10-23 12:13 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

#27 2009-10-23 12:16 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#28 2009-10-23 12:18 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Tallgeese wrote:

#29 2009-10-23 12:18 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

resedit wrote:

#30 2009-10-23 12:20 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

resedit wrote:

#31 2009-10-23 12:28 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#32 2009-10-23 12:33 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Warin wrote:

#33 2009-10-23 12:35 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Warin wrote:

#34 2009-10-23 12:39 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

#35 2009-10-23 12:42 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#36 2009-10-23 1:29 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#37 2009-10-23 1:33 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

ScifiterX wrote:

#38 2009-10-23 1:39 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#39 2009-10-23 1:41 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#40 2009-10-23 1:57 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Tallgeese wrote:

#41 2009-10-23 1:58 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#42 2009-10-23 2:14 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

ScifiterX wrote:

#43 2009-10-23 2:27 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#44 2009-10-23 2:32 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#45 2009-10-23 2:48 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#46 2009-10-23 2:52 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#47 2009-10-23 2:57 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#48 2009-10-23 2:59 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Tallgeese wrote:

#49 2009-10-23 2:59 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

#50 2009-10-23 3:02 pm

Re: Constitutional Crisis nearly averted

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Board footer