Freedom of the Press

[crb]

I think Freedom of the Press is one of the fundamental freedoms of our democracy. I think the press has severely dropped the ball on vetting Obama, apparently being more concerned with the price of Palin's shoes. But I hope that if Obama wins they get over themselves and play hardball.

The fact is, without a free press, you can never have freedom, because if the press is just a propaganda mouthpiece for the government (again.. the coverage this election season has been shitty). Then the public will be abused. This is very orwellian.

Early in the primary Obama was criticized for not being open with the press. The press was kept at arms length until he beat Hillary. Palin is much the same way now, I'll admit, but if you remember the way Palin has been handled these last weeks with the limited press interaction is exactly the way the Obama campaign was until Spring.

But now consider this:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/obama-plane-pitches-reporters-mccain-endorsing-papers/

If McCain did that he'd hardly have a press corps left, but Obama doesn't see a problem with that. Add that to his lack of transparency about his donations. Add to his silence on that LA Times tape (if the tape is no big deal, why not show it?). There is a pattern.

You can accuse McCain of many things, but refusing to meet with hostile journalists is not one of them. Nor is refusing to disclose donors (Admittedly, he has to by law) or taking down the AVS security system for credit card transactions on his website.

For those who have hated George Bush for his secrecy, do you really see Obama as being any different? Judge him by his actions, not his rhetoric.

[Jorddyn]

You can accuse McCain of many things, but refusing to meet with hostile journalists is not one of them.


Obama is not the only candidate to play hardball with the press. McCain's campaign has reportedly barred Time columnist Joe Klein and New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, who have been critical of the Republican candidate, from the Republican candidate's plane.

Did you read what you linked?

[crb]

columnist != reporter

And after daily diatribes by dowd on Palin I wouldn't blame them.

[Keller]

So now the press isn't free because they were bumped from Obama's chartered plane and forced to fly commercial in order to make room for bigger-name journalists?

Give me a break.

[Jorddyn]

columnist != reporter

1. You said journalist in your original post, so I think you meant journalist != columnist.
2. You've got to be kidding me.

[Clove]

2. You've got to be kidding me.I think it's easier to assume that crb is always kidding us when he posts.

[Daniel]

2. You've got to be kidding me.


No. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure he's not.

[crb]

So... do you think Sean hannity is the same as say Brit Hume. or Chris Matthews is the same as Brian Williams?

I didn't think so.

Someone who writes opinion pieces for a news organization is not the same as someone who reports things for a news organization.

And being kicked off the plane is a big deal, the press travels on the plane for access, you obviously don't have access if you're on your own.

Does this behavior not concern you in the least? I can understand saying "Ya, it concerns me, but I'm gonna vote for him anyways." But atleast admit it concerns you. Or you all just sheeple?

[crb]

ps , good article on media bias

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=6099188&page=1

[Daniel]

They weren't being told they can't report. They were simply told to find alternative transportation.

[Keller]

And being kicked off the plane is a big deal, the press travels on the plane for access, you obviously don't have access if you're on your own.

It would be a big deal if there were open seats.

There aren't.

It's not.

I'll repeat, give me a break.

[CrystalTears]

So now the press isn't free because they were bumped from Obama's chartered plane and forced to fly commercial in order to make room for bigger-name journalists?

Give me a break.
Agreed

[Keller]

Does this behavior not concern you in the least? I can understand saying "Ya, it concerns me, but I'm gonna vote for him anyways." But atleast admit it concerns you. Or you all just sheeple?

Of course it's suspect who he chose to remove. That's a no brainer.

I'd prefer it was one critical and one fluff-piece journalist. But it's not.

But the campaign is not making the press less free. There is limited space; they made the choice to remove critical journalists instead of non-critical journalists.

It's playing favorites, but it's not making the press less free.

[crb]

Well atleast you admit that.

Now... lets take that same pattern of behavior... the extrapolate it to a sitting president. Do you not see a danger in a president who would only allow reporters near himself that are in the tank, as it were.

Regardless of which side you agree with, having the press covering both sides is one of the best safe guards against us slipping into an orwellian state. Having the coverage become one sided, through both bias and efforts by the administation (or candidate) is in fact, dangerous.

I know... we'll always have fox news and talk radio right? Of course... then you get the "Fairness" doctrine.

[Parkbandit]

It's a big coincidence that the only 3 people that had to be asked to find their own transportation were the only 3 people from newspapers that endorsed John McCain.

[Keller]

Well atleast you admit that.

Now... lets take that same pattern of behavior... the extrapolate it to a sitting president. Do you not see a danger in a president who would only allow reporters near himself that are in the tank, as it were.

Regardless of which side you agree with, having the press covering both sides is one of the best safe guards against us slipping into an orwellian state. Having the coverage become one sided, through both bias and efforts by the administation (or candidate) is in fact, dangerous.

I know... we'll always have fox news and talk radio right? Of course... then you get the "Fairness" doctrine.

Oooooo!

Can I play the make up extreme hypotethical situation game, too?

[Keller]

It's a big coincidence that the only 3 people that had to be asked to find their own transportation were the only 3 people from newspapers that endorsed John McCain.

Would you stop reposting shit I already said?

[Jorddyn]

So... do you think Sean hannity is the same as say Brit Hume. or Chris Matthews is the same as Brian Williams?

Those kicked off, on both sides, are writers sent by their news organizations to cover the campaign.


Does this behavior not concern you in the least?

Were he refusing to talk to papers who did not support him, maybe. Were he refusing to talk to papers who consistantly distorted facts and published half truths, probably not. But because he has a full plane and is choosing to keep those who support him? Not a bit.


It's a big coincidence that the only 3 people that had to be asked to find their own transportation were the only 3 people from newspapers that endorsed John McCain.

... is anyone debating that?

[Jorddyn]

Now... lets take that same pattern of behavior... the extrapolate it to a sitting president. Do you not see a danger in a president who would only allow reporters near himself that are in the tank, as it were.

You can't see the difference between covering the progress of a campaign and covering the actions of the sitting leader of a country?

[Gan]

Its his fucking plane. He can do what he wants.

[Kembal]

Well atleast you admit that.

Now... lets take that same pattern of behavior... the extrapolate it to a sitting president. Do you not see a danger in a president who would only allow reporters near himself that are in the tank, as it were.


Notably, Dick Cheney comes to mind.

[Stanley Burrell]

So... do you think Sean hannity is the same as say Brit Hume. or Chris Matthews is the same as Brian Williams?

I didn't think so.

I do. Because you post.


Or you all just sheeple?

To clarify, a sheeple:

http://data1.blog.de/media/145/474145_fde07b143b_m.jpeg

You're welcome.

/ParkBandit

[CrystalTears]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/lolpolitics/obamamedia.jpg

[Tsa`ah]

...

I ....

... Words cannot describe the level of bullshit conspiracy, coupled with partisan hypocrisy and sheer ignorance of your ...

.... I just can't do it. Not only is it too fucking easy right now, but the wall of text would crash the forum.

[Parkbandit]

I ....

... Words cannot describe the level of bullshit conspiracy, coupled with partisan hypocrisy and sheer ignorance of your ...


Actually one phrase can describe that perfectly. We call it "Pulling a Tsa'ah"

[crb]

So how has the press "dropped the ball on vetting Obama"? Obama's been running for president for two years. Palin's been on the spotlight for what? Two months? Which it makes it hilarious when Palin says "Who is the real Barack Obama?" when several weeks previously, the vast majority of people in the world had never heard of her.


Numerous people, and no, not just Fox News, have said that the media has failed in their vetting of Obama, for instance that 5 page article I linked to on bias above mentions it, thats from ABC by the way.



I agree. But I don't see how your news story equates to this. Arguing bias in the media doesn't equate to people not being able to speak their mind. It's their minds choosing to spout leftist opinions.


I think you need to reread (or read for the first time) 1984. Controlling the information the public receives is how you control public opinion. Which is why every corrupt government out there has state run media. A media that willingly acts as a filter or cushion for the government is a danger.




Who exactly is suppressing other, independent sources? If the press wasn't free (and who's keeping it free? The executive controlled by the OTHER side?), then why are diametrically opposed sources like Rush Limbaugh allowed on the air? Because a slight Democratic majority keeps them silent under threat? Surprising, even from you, Crb.


See "fairness" doctrine. Google if it you don't know what it is.



Makes absolutely no sense. Obama gave dozens and dozens of interviews, actively participated in the debates. How exactly do you think he courted popularity without engaging both voters and the press? The press is very much in love with him, and was giving him positive attention over Hillary even before the primaries began.


You don't remember the hands off Obama approach from last Spring and Winter? Here:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Politics/20080318_18-DIFFERENCES_ART.html




Again, you've been drinking the hyperpartisan Limbaugh kool-aid. Exactly how is Obama supposed to release a tape that an independent organization, and not he, has? Election laws don't require them to list every donation, and in any case, it will become fully public eventually. Unfortunately for you, we work under a system of "innocent until proven guilty," not the other way around.

He doesn't release it, he makes a public statement saying he has nothing to hide and that it should be released. Duh. Instead he is quiet.

And just because he doesn't have to, by law, release donor records, doesn't mean he should. Bush doesn't have to do any of the shit people would like him to do in regards to transparency either, but they still want him to do it. Also I did hear the other day that i fhe wins there is nothing in the law that says his campaign has to be audited, so we may NEVER know where the money came from. It pisses me off beyond belief to think that you could have foreigners using prepaid credit cards paying for our candidates.


And, if you're going to take this route about not releasing information that people aren't required to, how about McCain only briefly releasing his medical information to a tiny team allowed no electronic devices? Why not disclosure everything? That would let people know more about their votes possibly leading to Sarah "I believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Man" Palin in charge.

Okay Obama had a one page statement from his doctor. McCain had how many pages? It was exhaustive. Of all the 4 people running, McCain released the most medical information. So complaining about how he released it is rather argumentative of you.



I tend to trust a professor of constitutional law at a prestigious university more than someone that spat on the constitution for 8 years, and had one of the most closed, secretive administrations in the history of mankind, and massively increased domestic and international spying programs under the guise of national security, issued more National Security Letters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter) (and lied about how many were released) than ever before--the list goes on.

Bush isn't running for a third term. The question is who do you trust to be more open. The candidate who is famously open, who chats for hours and hours with reporters on his bus. Who, when that NYT hit piece about an affair was sprung last Spring sat with reporters and answered every question until the reporters ran out of things to ask? Or do you trust the guy who has been, in fact, the most secretive since GWB?

[Necromancer]

This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press- you are, as usual, a big parody of yourself. Not only is Obama allowed to make room for other, wider audience publications (Jet, for example), not only is he allowed to stick to publications that will benefit his campaign, but he has absolutely no obligation to any member of the press. And yet, despite this fact, his aids are making travel and hotel arrangements for the media reps who couldn't get on the plane.

You want to talk about freedom of speech? How about the Bush Administration being repeatedly got intimidating US scientists who dared to try to publish articles that gave new evidence for human-caused global warming. How about the fact that the same administration actually blocked the publication of several articles. How about an administration that manipulated the the public by releasing false information to the US people about the location of WMDs in Iraq to justify a war he had already determined would happen.

You're not just continuing your successful campaign for Biggest Douche On the Planet with posts like these, you're being morally irresponsible. Though, we've come to expect nothing less from you.

[Parkbandit]

This has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of the press- you are, as usual, a big parody of yourself. Not only is Obama allowed to make room for other, wider audience publications (Jet, for example), not only is he allowed to stick to publications that will benefit his campaign, but he has absolutely no obligation to any member of the press. And yet, despite this fact, his aids are making travel and hotel arrangements for the media reps who couldn't get on the plane.

You want to talk about freedom of speech? How about the Bush Administration being repeatedly got intimidating US scientists who dared to try to publish articles that gave new evidence for human-caused global warming. How about the fact that the same administration actually blocked the publication of several articles. How about an administration that manipulated the the public by releasing false information to the US people about the location of WMDs in Iraq to justify a war he had already determined would happen.

You're not just continuing your successful campaign for Biggest Douche On the Planet with posts like these, you're being morally irresponsible. Though, we've come to expect nothing less from you.

http://www.glarkware.com/productcart/pc/catalog/main-hyperbole.jpg

I've asked Kranar to ban you from using the term "Fact"

[Necromancer]

ROFL, REPUBLICAN FRIENDS UNITE!

Where's the irony t-shirt? The initial post in this thread is the definition of hyperbole (See also: Skewed).

[Necromancer]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/06/scandal/
Science: An Inconvenient Truth

The scandal: The clear and present dangers of global warming haven't just met with a cold shoulder at the White House -- Bush officials have ordered a freeze on the facts. The White House kept a grip on scientists at federal agencies, limiting their contact with the media and issuing reminders to "stay on message" in interviews, according to government e-mails obtained by Salon this year through a Freedom of Information Act request. Employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that administration officials "chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether." The White House also blocked publication of research by NOAA scientists linking global warming with escalating hurricanes, according to a September 2006 article in the journal Nature.

The problem: An overwhelming majority of scientists, scholars -- and heck, even some policymakers -- believe that when it comes to safeguarding the planet's future, we should seek truth, not truthiness.

The outcome: In September, a group of 14 senators raised the problem with the inspectors general of NASA and the U.S. Commerce Department (which oversees NOAA), who have since launched formal investigations into the alleged coercion.



There have also been reports of university faculty who were harassed about their research findings as well. And here's a link to another article:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administrat ion_to_deny_global_warming/print

Just because you haven't heard about it in your "Young, Stupid Republicans" newsletter doesn't mean it's not a fact.

[Parkbandit]

ROFL, REPUBLICAN FRIENDS UNITE!

Where's the irony t-shirt? The initial post in this thread is the definition of hyperbole (See also: Skewed).

The reason for posting the picture of the teeshirt wasn't to do anything but to show how utterly stupid you are... nothing more.

It illustrated that perfectly because you are the dumbest person in the entire universe

[Parkbandit]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/06/scandal/
Science: An Inconvenient Truth


I stopped reading your post right there... as "An inconvenient Truth" has pretty much been debunked by real science and facts.

[875000]

The reason for posting the picture of the teeshirt wasn't to do anything but to show how utterly stupid you are... nothing more.

It illustrated that perfectly because you are the dumbest person in the entire universe

It's not his fault. He has ADHD.

[crb]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/11/06/scandal/
Science: An Inconvenient Truth

The scandal: The clear and present dangers of global warming haven't just met with a cold shoulder at the White House -- Bush officials have ordered a freeze on the facts. The White House kept a grip on scientists at federal agencies, limiting their contact with the media and issuing reminders to "stay on message" in interviews, according to government e-mails obtained by Salon this year through a Freedom of Information Act request. Employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have said that administration officials "chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether." The White House also blocked publication of research by NOAA scientists linking global warming with escalating hurricanes, according to a September 2006 article in the journal Nature.

The problem: An overwhelming majority of scientists, scholars -- and heck, even some policymakers -- believe that when it comes to safeguarding the planet's future, we should seek truth, not truthiness.

The outcome: In September, a group of 14 senators raised the problem with the inspectors general of NASA and the U.S. Commerce Department (which oversees NOAA), who have since launched formal investigations into the alleged coercion.



There have also been reports of university faculty who were harassed about their research findings as well. And here's a link to another article:http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_bushs_administrat ion_to_deny_global_warming/print

Just because you haven't heard about it in your "Young, Stupid Republicans" newsletter doesn't mean it's not a fact.
Hello Pot, Meet Kettle.

You are aware of course that scientists that find evidence against recent rapid anthropogenic are attacked, fired, can't get published, etc.

[Warriorbird]

Clearly the press is a problem. President Bush had to hire a male prostitute and make a fake news agency to get the right questions!

I find it funny that the only reason you think the press needs to step things up is that Obama might be elected.

Where was the serious coverage of McCain's problems? Oh right... it wasn't in the press either.

[crb]

Yeah, just like Sarah Palin claiming that, and being criticized for their repetitive, negative attacks on Obama's connections, when they were discussed at length in the primaries and voters have shown they don't care, especially during our current crisis.


You're not bringing up the whole "The republicans are negative and my shit doesn't stink and I never lie or run attack ads." thing are you?



You're making MY case for me. You're arguing that free speech is being suppressed, but the government currently in power--as was the case in 1984--had the same affiliation as in the government. You think the media is in the bag for the current administration? Retarded. You're arguing that the media is being controlled, despite the government being fairly divided in power and alternative media sources and completely free sources existing at your disposal.

No, I am not making your case. The current administration is secretive, but because the media is not on it's side we know this, and there are protests and opposition, and changes have been made, and things have happened. If the administration were secretive and the media were on their side, we wouldn't know any better. And that is the point. State control of the media is not about governments keeping secrets or lying to their citizens, all governments do that. State control of media is about the citizens knowing when it happens.





No.. I followed Obama's campaign quite closely and never heard of him specifically avoiding the media. Your article said "local media," not the national media, but isn't even available online to explain what they were talking about.


You obviously have not, there were loads of complaints early on that Obama refused to talk to reporters in nonscripted settings. At his rallies they were kept off to the side and were not allowed questions. He was handled EXACTLY like Palin has been. Exactly. Even now it has been a long time since his last open question press conference, 6 weeks?




I'm sorry, which of them is elderly and has a history of cancer? Along with an unextremely underqualified vice president waiting to take over? Obama's doctor released an opinion on his history over 20 years to the public. McCain invited a few journalists to wade through boxes of documents for a short period of time with no ability to take pictures/record information.


Who is the longtime smoker and former drug user? You are being extremely argumentative when you don't have a problem with OBama's one page, or Biden's brief thing as well, but you have a problem with, as you admit, boxes of documents. There are privacy issues involved still, high ranking people tend to be treated anonymously or under assumed names, so what if he didn't want them copied and faxed and maybe leaked online. He gave access, more acces than anyone else, and everyone knows his health problems anyways. He is prone to skin cancer (which is easy to manage once caught, like colon cancer. You just get regular checks and cut off growths before they turn cancerous).

And also, repeatedly calling Palin unexperienced is dumb. Look, you may not like her, you may think she tried to ban Harry Potter in 1992, but she has as much experience in government as Obama, and she isn't running on the top of the ticket. Hate her because she is prolife, but calling her inexperienced is just another pot kettle moment.... that'd be a pretty nice SNL skit. Palin and Obama to go a halloween party, one dressed as a pot, the other a kettle.



Bush is effectively running for a third term, given McCain's adoption of all his policies. He might disagree on some things, such as torture, but he supports Guantanamo, http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/mccain_attacks_1.html the Supreme Court for granting its prisoners the right of habeus corpus, and supports the same kind of ultra-secretive "the government knows what's best for you, and can't tell you what it is, because of national security." Seriously. You're telling ME about 1984? Under Bush's "leadership," we've moved much, much closer to an Orwellian state.

McCain is not Bush, he isn't sorry. And McCain has repeatedly said the first thing he would do when elected is closed Gitmo. And he has always been open with people, it isn't his style to be secretive. I judge campaigns by actions, not rhetoric, and not the talking points of their opponents. McCain has always been open, I think he'll run an open administration.

[Stretch]

Notably, Dick Cheney comes to mind.

Is this man even still alive?

[Warriorbird]

He's more machine now than man, twisted and evil.
-Return of the Jedi

He's still alive though.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8c/Cheney_020607.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/8/8c/Cheney_020607.jpg

So that's how you destroy the terrorists.

Knew it.

[Warriorbird]

http://www.treehugger.com/china-segway-olympics-security.jpg

Automatic recoil compensation ruins terrorists' day.

[Stanley Burrell]

I think that defends against ICBM in Sid Meyer's Civilization.

Edited to add: No one say SDI defense. Not even me.

[Necromancer]

I stopped reading your post right there... as "An inconvenient Truth" has pretty much been debunked by real science and facts.

Wow, way to keep an open mind. It was intended to be a clever play on words, you moron. If you had actually read the whopping 2 paragraphs, you'd have seen that a Senate investigation was held over the issue.

And, since all you've really had to add to this conversation has been a a few pictures and questioning my facts (the evidence for which you refused to read), you stand, once again, as one of PC's premier board trolls. You do nothing but run around making snide comments in lieu of analysis.

You need to be like the rest of us and include the snide comments in ADDITION to analysis. But then you'd be forced to admit that you by and large have no analysis to begin with. So I see why this isn't a very attractive option for you.

V may be a raging idiot, but at least he bothers trying to make an actual point.

[Back]

Hi,

So now the press isn't free because they were bumped from Obama's chartered plane. Enjoy the life.

Why thank you very much. I will indeed.

[Warriorbird]

Political bot is named Chuck.

[Clove]

Political bot is named Chuck.I thought it was named "Back"