Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/18/05 7:49 am:

Hello again, Elliot:

I just want to be sure I understand your answer. You say that Bush can do all of the things I outlined in my question because Dan Rather is a jerk.

Ok, I got it.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/18/05 8:22 am:
No, I'm saying that he HAS to do all these things in order to fight a mainstream media that is almost completely allied against him and has stated its intent to work against him. I'm saying that Bush has no choice but to fight fire with fire. I have no idea whether Dan Rather is a jerk or not. But I do know that he's a liar, and he used the power of an entire network to attack Bush. I know that NBC and ABC, as well as most print publications have also decided to work against Bush, and are working together to push negative information. There is clear colusion here, and Bush is fighting back. You can't blame the guy for defending himself and his agenda with whatever resources are at hand.

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/18/05 8:45 am:

I can't blame him???

Indeed I can, and do, and you should too, as any American who values democracy would.

The freedom of the press is VITAL. The fact that it is biased is GOOD! Why do you think the FIRST mention of freedom in the Constitution is the freedom of the press? Because FOX news is what they had in mind, not CBS? Why is bias toward your political position ok?

The danger here is real. Blows me away that you don’t see it. Bush has no Constitutional protection for what he's doing. NONE! It amazes me that you can equate the UNCONSTITUIONAL ILLEGAL behavior of this guy to the CONSTITUTIONAL actions of the press.

And did I say that freedom of the press is not only CONSTITUTIONAL, but vital to freedom. Look up that word. A government that manipulates the press is an enemy of freedom. Isn’t that one of things we abhor about all those OTHER nations’ that control of their press? Isn’t that one of the pillars of freedom that I went to war for? Any my father, and his father before him, so the president can manipulate the press? I don’t think so.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by excon on 02/18/05 9:09 am:

And, I have more to say on the matter.

You, and everybody else who supports your positions, apparently have not read Animal Farm by George Orwell. What it essentially says is that we fool ourselves by our good guy looks – especially when we read our own press. It allows us (them) to pretend that what we’re doing is NOT the same thing that all the governments that we hate do on a regular basis, (______) fill in the blank: torture, manipulate the press, and make pre-emptive war on his neighbors.

Well, I'm here to tell you that it isn't ok! And, I'm not going to LET my country go down that path. Does that sound revolutionary? I think it does.

And, because I wrote that, I’m fearful of somebody knocking on my door. You probably think somebody from the government SHOULD monitor what its people write on the internet, and investigate ‘em when they don’t like it.

Nope, that’s not the country I signed on for – that I spilled my blood for. Nope.

excon

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 02/18/05 10:13 am:
>>>The freedom of the press is VITAL. <<<

Abuse by the press is not.

>>>The fact that it is biased is GOOD! <<<

So you are in favor of media bias?!?!?

>>>Because FOX news is what they had in mind, not CBS?<<<

I think that media bias is not what they had in mind. I think collusion with the intent to defame a president is not what they had in mind. Bias isn't the problem. ACTING ON THAT BIAS IN A MANNER THAT DISTORTS THE NEWS IS. If Fox were making stuff up, or if they were actively ignoring a presidential speech given at prime time, or if they were working with other media outlets to distort the facts, then yes, I would have a problem with them, even if their POV agreed with mine.

>>>The danger here is real. Blows me away that you don’t see it. <<<

I do see it. The dangers of yellow journalism are very real. When media CREATES the story instead of reporting it, then there is a clear compromise of the free flow of infomation. What I can't understand is why you are missing that.

>>>And did I say that freedom of the press is not only CONSTITUTIONAL, but vital to freedom. <<<

It absolutely is... and when the media starts making stuff up and distorting the facts fo political purposes, then it effects our freedom by eliminating our freedom to make educated choices.

>>>A government that manipulates the press is an enemy of freedom. <<<

So is a press that manipulates the government.

>>>You, and everybody else who supports your positions, apparently have not read Animal Farm by George Orwell. <<<

Sure did. It is one of the finest condemnations of communism ever written. I'm not sure what book you read, but the essential point of the book is seen in one single line: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. There's no discussion of 'press' per se in Animal farm.

>>>Well, I'm here to tell you that it isn't ok! And, I'm not going to LET my country go down that path. Does that sound revolutionary? I think it does.<<<

Good. That's a good attitude to have... as long as you are really prepared for the consequences of being a revolutionary, which could include jail or other punishments. But revolutionary attitudes are what built this country. If you disagree with the system, then change the system.

>>>And, because I wrote that, I’m fearful of somebody knocking on my door. <<<

Like I said, if you are unwilling to face the consequences, you shouldn't be doing it.

>>>You probably think somebody from the government SHOULD monitor what its people write on the internet, and investigate ‘em when they don’t like it. <<<

Nope. Just when criminal action warrants it.

>>>Nope, that’s not the country I signed on for – that I spilled my blood for. Nope. <<<

You signed something? When? Where? I didn't get to sign anything? When did I miss that?

You didn't sign up for this country. You were BORN here... unless you are an imigrant and you haven't mentioned it.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/18/05 11:37 am:
I'll add my comments about the so called 'ringer ' .

The blogsphere is a new phenonomin . At what point do they become legit news sources ? Who decides who is entitled to credentials? As far as I'm concerned the bloggers have done a better job at being watchdogs than the MSM . This case just proves the point ;it was bloggers who realized this guy may not be what he seems. He mingled amongst the MSM for months and did any of the major news networks even notice ?

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/18/05 3:15 pm:
On the 'ringer', here's a taste of the followup to the question on the Christianity board...

" 'This is an irritant that we deal with, people who try to hijack the briefing for ideological reasons,' said Ron Hutcheson of Knight Ridder, president of the White House Correspondents' Association. 'A few people are in there just to get across their points of view. But it's the kind of thing we put up with, because nobody can quite figure out how to deal with it.' . . ."

For the rest of the article, see my followup here

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 02/18/05 4:39 pm:
It:: So you're saying that Bush is not responsible for what goes on in his administration??

By that reasoning, I don't want to hear complaits about Clinton, ANY MORE!! :):):)

Clarification/Follow-up by tomder55 on 02/19/05 3:00 am:
Why was he any more of a ringer than Helen Thomas ? How many talking heads on TV have credentials other than good looks and the ability to read a teleprompter ?Reporters are not a special class of people (other than sometimes in their own mind). Freedom of the Press is a right for all citizens. The press is a machine the equivalent of a computer printer. It represents the right to publish ideas and information. The media elites have become a self-established branch of government something that must be undone.

From White House spokesman Scott McClellan :

"In this day and age, when you have a changing media, it's not an easy issue to decide or try to pick and choose who is a journalist. It gets into the issue of advocacy journalism," ...."Where do you draw the line? There are a number of people who cross that line in the briefing room.... "There are a number of people in that room that express their points of view, and there are people in that room that represent traditional media, they represent talk radio, they're columnists, and they represent online news organizations."

Bottom line here ....Michael Moore got press credentials to get into both the Dem. and Republican Conventions.
.........................................
This special report by Tomder 55 (real name withheld)

Wolf Blitzer's real name is Irving Myron Federman, Jr.He was hired by Eason Jordon the man behind the leftwing news outlet CNN .Federman, Jr was known by his frequent lobbing of soft ball questions to President Clinton.Critics have raised questions about their questionable journalistic methods and their lack of ethics .They frequently cut and pasted pieces of White House press releases selectively and out of context into their stories and used DNC talking points throughout their broadcast.

Questions about Myron Federman, Jr and Jordon were raised when Jordon admitted that Federman, Jr gained special access to Saddam Hussein's press room .There evidently was a quid pro quo that CNN would not reveal Saddam's atrocities ,that they had become aware of ,in return for this special access.

Jordon resigned from CNN when bloggers uncovered distortions and lies he was suggesting to be the truth at a left-wing elite world-government advocates meeting in Davos.

This is tomder55 from Tomder Inc. news .

Clarification/Follow-up by Itsdb on 02/19/05 8:35 am:
Choux,

Reading a bit too much into that aren't you? It would seem to me the White House Correspondents' Association has more to do with who gets in than the president.

Clarification/Follow-up by Choux on 02/20/05 2:43 pm:
It::: HE HAD A **NATIONAL SECURITY CLEARANCE**.

Get real, It.

Mary Sue