Or it WAS a good move politically as it incites the fox news watchers to become more visible, which can only benefit the Democrats.
Am I? We shall see in December. But you calling all republicans "r****ded" needs some retaliation. Heh heh heh.
Since no one else has, I'll go ahead: What does this even mean? Not even really paying attention to thread, but this statement is so beyond anything relevant that is deserves to be questioned. Surely you could have pulled something else out of your hat to make...uh, whatever point you were trying to make. "Did starving children 500 years ago have Bono?"
From what I have seen, Fox News look like amateurs, just not really high quality journalism. And the facts of this case are still not 100 % confirmed, it is unclear whether Fox News was actually treated unfairly, so I am joining a somewhat hypothetical discussion. BUT I find it hilarious how the leftist gang (Fisher, BJ, glynch, etc.) would defend an exclusion of a national news media outlet based on an allegation that "they lie". That's ridiculous. That's exactly the reasoning any dictator would use (like Chavez, or be it a right-wing dictator). Whether a government disagrees with a news outlet so much that the government feels that "they lie" does not matter. Refman (as often) expressed this in reasonable fashion. The government still has to respect the freedom of the press and has to give different comparable (e.g., national news media outlet compared to national news media outlet, which is why SamFisher's "witty" "hate to break this to you" remark about the high school newspaper was once again ridiculously stupid) news media outlets the same access to information.
I disagree entirely. Because when a group walks through the door, witnesses an event, and then goes online/on-air and describes something that is completely opposite of what actually occurred, that group can no longer be considered a "national news media outlet". Because "news" implies reporting events which occurred. Fox doesn't do that. They report what they want you to THINK occurred. Their "reporting" is no more fact-based than a dime-store novel, and I don't think it's the job of the White House to give them material to spread their fiction.
i agree that fox is successful in part b/c of their ability to get people riled up (one way or another). they do an excellent job of riling up/mobilizing their base, but they will never win over new viewers - its kind of like the modern republican party. but a business doesnt want their customers getting riled up over what they are showing on their tv - it can only be bad for business. if enough people complain about them showing fox than eventually they will put something else on. on a related note, i have alot of military in my family - we will go do easter, thanksgiving and christmas brunch at lackland in s.a. (i live in austin) - for years they showed fox news exclusively on the big tv in the dining area - the last few times i have been in it was on cnn. when that is happening on a military base than you know something is up.
im a lifelong independent and ive always voted in a similar manner - but after the way republicans have acted for the last 10 years or so i will never vote for another one as long as i live. it would be embarrassing.
ditto After voting for almost 30 years, last year's election made me get off the fence and register with the democratic party.
actually, i did register w/ the democratic party in 2008 too - but only so i could vote against hillary in the primary. that was the first time i officially registered w/ a party. i did not vote for obama in the general election though.
bob barr - libertarian. my vote was made more as a protest against the 2 party monopoly than for barr. i could not in good conscience vote for obama and as for mccain/palin...well...umm...yeah.
Hmmmm...so your reference is FOX news not r****ded....just mentally handicap.....or completely delusional or maybe there just trying to hard to connect to american youth..... http://www.gop.com/ (look at the bottom of their page) who in there right mind pimps out the flag with hydrolics & jewerly (obviously b/c im young i must like jewerly & hydrolics, right , nice way to connect to the youth reps. -rocketblaze
This isn't exactly new though. There is a long and storied history of so-called "yellow journalism" in this country. The First Amendment protects all media outlets, even those that lie. Anything less carries strong First Amendment implications. The USSC heard a similar matter in Near v. Minnesota in 1931. Minnesota had passed a law allowing the state to stop publication of a periodical if it was deemed to be “obscene, lewd, and lascivious” or “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory.” The Court held that such "prior restraint" violated the First Amendment. Applying those principals to this situation, it violates the First Amendment for the government to say "we know what you will do with this information so we are going to shut you out." I do not agree with the things Fox does, but the Constitution gives them the right to do it.
It's not news It's one thing to criticize the president,but to spread lies about death panels and that Obama is a communist just proves that the white house is dead on here. Any logical thinking person who is not partisan can see that Fox news is equivalent to the national enquirer. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YDR47EKTrCQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
You are really going to liken barring Fox News (a major media outlet) to there not being enough room for a reporter from the Lincoln High Gazette? Wow. Come to me with another instance where a national media source has been denied access where all others have attended and I will tell you that the government was just as wrong there.
As I posted on the previous page, FOX didn't ask and get denied. FOX wasn't added to the list because they didn't ask. When they did, they got added.
As I found out later in the thread, neither was Fox. As I stated in my first post in this thread, I thought there was more to the story that we did not know. Turns out...I was right. I guess we all could continue some vague philosophical debate about the First Amendment and all...I will call it a day though.
I'm responding to the argument that having millions of viewers qualifies you as somebody who must be treated as a normal member of the white house press pool. Do you think Access Hollywood should be allowed to the white house press pool if they asked? Why or why not? No - I'm responding to your histrionics and OMINOUS WARNINGS about the "dangerous path" we are going down with respect to selective access - when in fact it has happened for probably hundreds of years. You seem to like to issue ominous warnings, like when you duly chastized me for laughing at the suggestion the UST getting downgraded "soon" a few months back...OH NOES!!!!!1!!!! Bush admin launched a war on NBC, I'm too lazy to post but look it up. But anyway it's happened a number of times, Hearst newspapers were regularly snubbed back in the day.
