Bush banishes Press

Remove all ads!

Probably not the most important story ever, but just thought id see what you guys think of this

So does this mean less insider scoops etc... for the next 9 months? and where will he be holding press conferences? will he walk over the street to have them? or jsut invite the press in every time?

 

It is called a renovation.

 

Now I like Bush-bashing more as much as the next (non-Snook ) guy, but am I the only one who thought the article was tongue-in-cheek? Or at least taking tongue-in-cheek comments a bit too seriously?

Now if that's not inflamatory, I don't know what is.

Anyway, as Snook says, it's a renovation.

 

Yes, but they make ake this oppertunity to "have delays in the renovation" and keep the press out for permanent by having so many delays, the press forget and get used there new accomodation, hence finally booting the press from the White House

 

As the T-Shirt reads. Rope, tree, journalist- some assembly required.

 

Do you want to explain that Snook? I may be being ignorant here by not understanding your point.

 

Substituting the word "rope" for "noose" should clarify the statement for you.

 

No, i get what he is saying, about journalists and hanging, but im asking why.

 

Many conservatives consider many journalists traitors. The old school penalty for treason was hanging from a tree.

These feelings come from the fact that journalists are ovewhelmingly liberal and typically vote for democrate candidates. For quite a long time conservatives have believed that the press has abandoned their responsibility to report the news and instead to opine on it or even manipulate it (the term is media bias).

This has recently come to a head here in the states with the NY times and the LA times. They recently published a series of articles that have revealed top secret government programs that have been tracking the money of suspected terrorists and another program that used computers to data mine international telephone calls. Many people consider their releasing this information treasonous and putting the welfare of our troops and citizens in danger.

 

Yes, we need more Soviet like media that behaves and do as they are told. People are too stupid to handle reality and need to be told what to think. Isnt that right Snook?

 

The liberal media is a myth. The press was harder on Clinton for lying about a blowjob than they were on Bush for lying to the country in order to start a war in Iraq. The only liberal reporting I've seen in the last 6 years has been on comedy central. There certainly hasn't been any on MSNBC, CNN, Fox News, or any network channel that I've seen. There has been some balanced, factual coverage on CSPAN, but CSPAN shows it's footage with little to no commentary.

 

No, the media is an important watchdog here in the states. However, they need to remember two things. One they are American, and reporting things that are gong to be harmful to Americans is something they need to think long and hard about. The goal of reporting is not to get a Pulitizer.

Two, they must remember that the purpose of reporting is to report, not to opine.

Both really are not that difficult, but somehow they have lost there way.

As to liberal media, being a myth, all you have to do is look at their voting patterns and watch the way they report and what they don't report. You may not see anything wrong or biased, but plenty of other people do.

As to the media being hard on Clinton, they had no choice. Sex and scandal sells and the people were upset (rightfully so) that their president looked them in the eye and lied on national t.v. I know that didn't bother some people, but it bothered a tremendous amount of us. It didn't matter if he had lied about the color of socks, to lie to us like that to save his own skin was a death knell. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure 90% of us caught in the same situation would lie, but most people can't accept that from a leader.

 

Yeah, right people really cared about Clinton's sex lies, but they somehow cannot be bothered about Bush's war lies. Give me a break.

As about the reporter pool moving out of the White House: I doubt that it matters. It is not like they got any great scoops from their White House press events, anyhow. Real journalism is done in other places (one would be tempted to say " on the streets", but this being politics we are talking about, is more probably expensive restaurants or fancy social events).

 

Hey, Snook, you are aware that voting records are private, right? No one knows how the press votes. Also, reporters don't pick the stories. High ranking (and usually conservative) executives choose the stories that get shown.

 

The adjectives 'liberal' or 'conservative' are not objective qualities equally observable to all readers of an article. As such, when a person sees a supposed bias, it is really their own subjective interpretation they are describing.

It is impossible to not be recognized as biased by a reader, as even the selection of facts is something requiring a subjective choice done by the author.

So instead of claiming the medias are liberally biased as an objective fact, instead claim, "I see a liberal slant in the medias."

And furthermore, the point should be made that describing the medias as a singular object is ridiculous and moronic in its own right.

 

@Drew

Well the article says "a recent survey" so that would imply that somebody polled members of the media and they answered.

As to your point about who picks the story. I don't believe that for a second. Editors pick the stories and people become editors by rising up the ranks as reporters. They are cut from the same cloth.

@LNT

I disagree. A well written piece of reporting should report the facts and only the facts. The intrepretation of the facts belong to the columnists, editorial page, and the readers, not the reporter.

 

But which facts TGS? It takes a human being to make that decision...

I think you are missing the point.

 

Thanks Tal for proving my point (although you probably didn't mean to ). When a liberal watches Fox news they are horrified by the biased reporting. When a conservative watches one of the big three networks, CNN, MSNBC, or reads a major newspaper they are horrified by the biased reporting.

The difference being, conservatives see the bias in Fox and accept it (even embrace it to a certain extent) where liberals who will rant and moan ad nauseum about Fox news put the blinders on and don't see anything wrong with their biases. Seeing people complain about Fox always makes me chuckle.