CNN, MSNBC, FOXNEWS

“Well, I didn't realize the news police had set standards for what constitutes "news".

chili, you are the who directed us to NPR for "information".”

“Climate News Network
by Christopher C. Horner

This is pretty pathetic. CNN commissions a poll to assist with a week’s worth of Senate hearings and one in the House all designed to breathe life into the Senate’s counter to Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy rationing legislation. The express point of that scheme is to raise energy prices, which outcome our president has boasted as being to cause electricity (actually, all) energy prices to “necessarily skyrocket”, “bankrupt[ing]” many firms.

CNN-entrance

The poll, splashed with a pretty clear headline, ran to one question. Er, wait. They’re only pushing one question and its answer. No drilling down provided, though it may have been pursued. The poll actually appears to be at least 16 questions long, though when linking to the pdf for the “full results”, you get one question and answer.

How much editorializing/cheerleading does CNN do about this apparently selective snapshot? Well, the question-and-answer in their entirety total 68 words, which led to CNN providing, ah, context and texture to the public’s voice– to sell the question-and-answer to the public if not to add any meaning or context to the question itself for those responding to the poll — nearly six times as many (390 words plus headline).”

“How the Media Has Failed America on Healthcare Reform–Part I
by Morgen Richmond

Most casual followers of politics did not pick up on the debate over healthcare reform until some time this past summer. They mostly ignored the umpteen news conferences held by the President since the spring, but they couldn’t miss the broader media coverage of town hall outrage. But for a small number of media experts on health policy, and an only slightly larger number of interested followers, the healthcare debate actually began much earlier. In fact, even prior to this year, when the initial policy formulation and political posturing took place during the Democratic primary campaign.

78880004EM003_Democratic_Pr

All three leading Democratic candidates for President – Obama, Clinton, and yes, John Edwards – proposed virtually identical plans for healthcare reform. The only real substantive difference being that the Clinton and Edwards plans included an individual mandate for insurance, whereas Obama’s plan did not. (Obama has since come around to supporting this mandate.) But importantly, all the Democratic plans included the creation of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. What is now called, the “public option”.

Although he was destined to be a marginal candidate, Edwards played an important role in the healthcare debate. He was the first candidate to announce the details of his plan, and really put down a marker for liberal ambition on this issue leading into the election. Especially with the inclusion of the public option. And ultimately the other candidates largely followed his blueprint, even if they failed to credit him for his leadership on this issue.”

“�Your still dodging my point, so let me be blunt; do you want freedom of the press or not?�
stratd00d
8:25:43 AM
10/29/09


Absolutely. What exactly is it that Fox wants to report that they are being forced not to?”

“What exactly is it that Fox wants to report that they are being forced not to?

chili, Obama's administration told the press corps that Fox could not interview a member of his team. That's a violation of about THREE constitutional rights.”

“Are you kidding me? Stonewalling the press has been the hallmark of the White House, and this Admin has been WAY more transparent and available to the press than the last two termer...”

“chili, Obama's administration told the press corps that Fox could not interview a member of his team. That's a violation of about THREE constitutional rights.�
HighPlainsDrifter
8:43:27 AM
10/29/09

Which three and what is the precedent?”

“I didn't realize there was a Constitutional Right to interview someone.”

“Zactly, Chili. Seems like someone has been watching too much Faux...”

“chili, weren't you a lawyer at one point? You can't think of a single constitutional violation of the government limiting press access, and preventing the press corps from doing their job?”

“No one has to give an interview to anyone. It may be in their best interest to do so from a PR standpoint, but no one has to say anything. The press is free to report, 'No comment."”

“That is a good point roseymonster. The problem is that in the context of everything that actually happened, Obama and his team initiated an attack on Fox News telling other news organizations they are not a news organization, and not to follow them, or to acknowledge them. That's a constitutional problem in that the government cannot tell the press what to and what not to report on.

In this incident, they tried to bar the press corps from including Fox News.
last edited: 10/29/09 9:10:33 AM”

“HPD, I can't think of a single precedent that allows the press unfettered access to someone.

If it is a Constitutional Violation, why hasn't Fox and their team of lawyers clubbed the administration over the head in Federal Court?”

“The White House can SAY whatever the hell it wants. Had they PUT Faux news commentators in JAIL, pulled their FCC license and kicked them off the air, that would be a violation of constitutional rights.

Sorry. As it stands now, no violations occurred.”

“chili, tell me, as a lawyer, do laws only take affect if they have been previously broken at least once? If not, please stop requiring a precedence.”

“Well roseymonster, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see your point, really I do, but my belief is that the government cannot open up to the press pool, the members of which is NOT determined BY the government, and say that THEY can only have the people they want to ask questions, ask questions.

I think our disagreement is that you are looking at Fox News like a separate entity, and ABC as separate, and NBC, etc... when in this case I believe that they were acting as one. In other words, the government was telling the press how to report.
last edited: 10/29/09 9:24:50 AM”

“Is that the best you can do when you get boxed in HPD?

You still haven't given me the three Constitutional issues.
last edited: 10/29/09 9:24:40 AM”

“ask you a question about your question? I guess so. So, no answer from you then? I will assume the answer is "no" then.”

“The thing that I find sad is that we don't expect our politicians to answer legitimate, hard-hitting questions whether we are aligned with them politically or not. You see this same thing every election cycle.

Sorry, I want a leader who's not afraid to stand in there and take the heat.”

“Here is your answer HPD.

No law was broken.”

“and say that THEY can only have the people they want to ask questions, ask questions.

Seriously? Have you ever watched a press conference? The administrations always have pet reporters and those that are in the doghouse. Do you remember that SNL skit with Reagan where he endlessly was calling on, "Truuuudddyyy"? They snub reporters all the time. It's the game.”

“The law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, WAS in fact broken in my opinion. The only reason it wasn't pressed is because the press fought back at the scene instead of waiting for the physical act of Obama's administration's command to the press to be fully acted upon.”

“Sorry, I want a leader who's not afraid to stand in there and take the heat.�
Nonconformist
7:24:31 AM
10/29/09

That's funny, since you admitted to voting for Bush TWICE.”

“I could be wrong, but I don't remember him running from/banning any specific news organizations.”

“You have to remember rosey is from la la land, nc.”

“first off, roseymonster, 2 wrongs do not make a right

secondly, Fox News was called out by name. We all assume (correctly) that it's done, but in this case there was NO denying it.

thirdly, like I said, the press corps was acting as one in this case, it wasn't individual companies acting independently and receiving preferential treatment. It was the administration tell the WHOLE press corps how to behave by singling out Fox News.”

“When will they learn?

How much blood do they need to wash from their hands before they can try to destroy the country again? Hundreds of thousand dead based on a lie and they're attacking a guy based on his color? What would Frank Zappa say? VBG

Sincerely,

TrollBlam”

“
Jumbo Shrimp
Hip-hop Music
Fox News
Republican Backpackers

”

“Poor little t*lt.”

“How do we know it wasn't an Arm and Sword of the Covenant right winger doing target practice?”

“Last Thursday, the Treasury Department attempted to conduct a briefing for the media with Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's executive pay czar, without including Fox News. The other major networks protested, and the administration promptly relented.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bal-ed.fox28oct28,0,3960066.story

What is it about "the administration promptly relented" that you paranoid sock-tuckers don't understand?”

“Idiot”

“What is it about "the administration promptly relented" that you paranoid sock-tuckers don't understand?”
MarkO
10:15:06 AM
10/29/09

This sock-tucker not only understands, but pointed that out previously. They relented AFTER trying to usurp the CONSTITUTIONAL rights of the FREE press. It was only because they relented that further action was not taken. They relented AFTER the Obama administration tried to tell the press corps how to organize itself and do it's job.”

“The other major networks protested......

All's well that ends well.


THIS IS A MOUNTAIN


THIS IS A MOLEHILL”

“Defending freedom of the press from the President is making a mountain of a molehill?

Ah yes, you don't really believe in the major importance of protecting the constitution ...”

“Right, Chili. I mean, after all, Dobbs is a member of the eveeellll "LIBERAL" media...

Don't be so hard on yourself, stupie...”

“Surely you mean the freedom of 'Entertainers'. I mean they're the main part of Fox right? Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck.”

“
I realize what the situation is, now.

In his hairless condition, Nonc covets Donald Trump's hairdo.

”

“rosey is so smart. *snicker*”

“Since when have MOONBATS like the TT libbies cared about FREEDOM?”

“The Obama administration acted foolishly. The major networks - the folks Fox likes to term derisively as the "mainstream media" - were correct to stand up for Fox. In a democracy, government "doesn't get to pick and choose who covers the government," to quote Ms. Palmer quoting a fomer Sun editor.

I agree with that statement.

Don't tell me what I do or don't believe in HighlyPainfullDouchebag.

So, you are a sock-tucker, eh?”

“Yeah HPD, if there's anyone who's gonna tell peeple what they do or don't believe around here it's gonna be MarkO.”

“That's not my bag, Chrome Dome.”

“Ah yes, you don't really believe in the major importance of protecting the constitution ...�
HighPlainsDrifter
10:32:51 AM
10/29/09


I am still waiting to find out exactly which Constitutional Rights were violated.”

“LOL...Non I gotta agree with Lusho. He doesn't want to be the one but he trusts someone he has never met or known to do it for him....”

“I am still waiting to find out exactly which Constitutional Rights were violated.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that no precedence is needed for a right to be violated.”

“Ahh, classic Sarge...”

“HPD, clearly every law must be "broken for the first time".

Now, having cleared up that first grade road block, do you have any valid arguement that a Constitutional violation occured OTHER than your opinion.

Hint: A legal PRECEDENCE would be hugely beneficial to your position, if, in fact, one existed, which, of course, it doesn't.

The reason one doen't exist, is because, NO CONSTITUTIONAL violation occured.”

“The law is clear, chili. If you want to defend the President and his people for limiting the free press, I won't stand in your way. I'm not going to have a tit for tat with somebody who doesn't recognize the U.S. Constitution as law without some kind of precedence of a court giving a ruling.

That kind of thinking is what has led to the moronic belief that the founders intended for there to be separation of church and state. They not only did not believe that as evidenced by their writings, but they did not put that in the constitution, nor did they demonstrate that was their belief by their actions. That phrase came from an out of context reference to a letter to a church in actually DEFENDING the freedoms of the church, and subsequently used as a precedence in many cases throughout our land.

I don't subscribe to your line of thinking. I think it's faulty to the core.
last edited: 10/29/09 11:14:32 AM”