Why do Republicans meet in private with Roger Ailes?

You really want me to explain why the Washington Post and Fox News are different?

I suggest you go to Media Matters, watch Jon Stewart/Colbert for about a week, or read some of Al Franken's stuff pre-Senator.

It's pretty obvious why there is a difference in kind between the two organizations.

If you don't believe it, then I don't really know what to say.

 

This is tangential to the discussion. You're forcefeeding a distinction between the actions of Obama and past presidents with what Romney is doing when one doesnt exist. You're also assuming the Washington Post is the only outlet Obama met with (it's very likely he's met with people from CNN, NY Times, MSNBC is almost a guarantee, to name a few). Fact is that both Romney and Obama have held private meetings with media outlets, for largely the same reasons.

 

I can only imagine how incredibly pathetic the life of yours is considering the time you spend trolling, and being a jackass on the internet. You must be so happy though. Keep up the good work! Maybe one day it will count for something.

 

Why do Republicans meet in private with Roger Ailes?

Because he has the common courtesy for a reacharound while he's plowing them in the pooper!

 

it's a non-issue Sammy and you know it.

There's nothing insidious about private off the record meetings between politicians and media outlets. All politicians do it. All PR arms of organizations needing public support do it. There's no 'secrecy' involved. According to the Politico piece, Fox claims to meet as many Democrats as Republicans. I doubt it. But so what? Do the meetings have to be public, and would we be forced to watch them? Yuck. EDIT: double yuck after RMT's observation. Triple yuck. Ewwwww.

So who gets to decide which newspapers are worthy of private meetings, and which media outlets are not.

Fox may be distasteful, but that's not the point. I do watch Stewart on occasion. He's even less of a news program that Fox. At least that's what he says. I'll have to find some old Al Frankin stuff on youtube. Not sure what it adds to this discussion, but SNL was pretty good in its day.

 

LOL, you're missing something pretty big, brah - Obama didn't meet with the Post's publishers in order to dictate his coverage, He didn't have private audiences to plan his campaign coverage with the Ochs-Sulzbergers, Ted Turner, or Cablevision either, to my knowledge. And if he had, they'd have laughed in his face. That's generally not the way those places operate.

You basically haven't been able to come up with a single analogue yet, despite your claim that it happens all the time. It's actually kind of impossible because there really isn't a suitable analogue to Fox News on the other side.

You've had all day, so I'm forced to conclude you don't have anything.

It might be a "non-issue' only because nobody really takes fox seriously anymore (or actually ever did) other than as the official daytime TV talking points communicator of the right wing establishment - a profitable endeavor...of course it's a non-issue that Mitt pays fealty to his teammatess...we've become immune to that by now. The answer to the question posed in the original post is obvious.

However, the fact that you're trying to liken it to Teddy K and Ben Bradlee (who is a blowhard) throwing back Johnnie Walker black a s in some beltway drinking sessions in the late 70's is laughably naive...

...Bradlee and Woodward and Bernstein might be typical beltway establishment windbags with an inflated sense of self esteem, but the only folks comparing them to Ailes & Co. are generally liars or morons or uninformed or some combination thereof.

Revenge is a dish best served r****ded. You win. Was it everything you'd hoped for?