"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
In m "PTRAVEL"
wrote:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
om...
In oups.com "PTravel"
wrote:

Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
investigation? Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
money for partisan propaganda? Who are the Republican committee
chairs setting up Senate hearings?

Are you suggesting that the administration is entitled to determine who
is a "real" reporter, or what's a "real" news service, or if what they
write is "propaganda" and to exclude or allow reporters based on that
determination?

Yes, to this extent. To cover White House press conferences requires a
press credential. I don't know all the requirements to obtain one, but
you can't simply walk in and say, 'I'm a reporter."

Are you sure?

Yes, I'm sure.

And if so, maybe the requirements aren't as stringent as you
think.

They're stringent enough to require that an applicant provide their real
name.

Lots of minor circulation industry and special-interest news
services and publications have representatives in the White House.

"Jeff Gannon" isn't a journalist for a "minor circulation" or "special
interest news" publication.

I
Besides, it's been widely reported that all this guy ever received was a
"day pass"; he was never actually credentialed as a "real" reporter.

He was credentialed enough to get access to a Bush press conference and take
up time that could have gone to a real journalist by wasting everyone's time
asking a ridiculous non-question.


Even more to the point, the Secret Service and the FBI each clear White
House press credentials -- propagandizing issues aside, there was, at
least, an enormous security lapse that permitted this right-wing,
non-journalist blogger to obtain White House press credentials under a
false name.

What security lapse? Why would you believe that they didn't know this guys
"real" name?

On the contrary, I'm convinced they knew his name and his purpose for being
there. As I've said, I believe there was collusion between "Gannon" and the
administration.


Are TV reporters who adopt stage names forbidden to report
from the White House?

Still using strawman arguements? Please tell me why you think it was
appropriae for this clown to be there, particularly under the circumstances
through which he obtained a press credential, i.e. using a false name.

think you'll find that's not the case.

That's because your supposed counter-example is completely irrelevant.
Please stay on topic, which is not "stage names," but (1) the
administration conspiring to plant fake journalists at White House press
conferences who interfere with real journalists, and (2) the adminsitration
using tax money to pay bribes to colunmnists so that they will write
favorable proganda pushing questionable administration policies.


At minimum, as I said, it strongly implies collusion on the
part of the administration.

In the sense that "the administration" is what runs the White House, I
suppose you're right. What of it?

What of it? I assume you've heard this little chestnut:

" Congress shall make no law . . . .abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press. . ."

Why do you think a free press is so important that it is guaranteed in the
First Amendment to the Constitution? I expect journalists to have access
to the President, so that they can ask him the questions the we, his
constituency, would like to have answered. I don't expect our government to
stifle criticism and dissent by "papering the house" with phony reporter
and, bribed columnists.


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN