U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:37:17 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:




The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV affiliates
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.



No exactly. They are not "affiliates". They are PROPERTY.

We have a Sinclair station here. It is an "NBC" "affiliate".
It is OWNED by Sinclair. Sinclair says what it broadcasts,
not NBC.

So what the hell is your point?

Let me re-phrase my statement above:

The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV PROPERTY
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


And it most emphatically was NOT a Bush propaganda film.

It was a Kerry hit piece to influence the presidential election.

The Sinclair executives have only been ALLOWED to license the use of
the airwaves--they don't own them.

The FCC should go after those *******s and take away their license.



If we want to talk about affiliates and programs,
I suggest CBS and their outright FRAUDLENT attack program
against Bush.

Doug McDonald

On 19 Feb 2005 11:23:08 -0800, "PTravel" wrote:

How did "Jeff Gannon" get a White House press pass from the Secret
Service (and under a false name) if not with the the collusion and
assistance of the administration?

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?

And, as a final point, perhaps you're familiar with Harry Truman who
said, "The buck stops here." Even you can't deny that the
administration paid columnists to support administration policies. Who
do you think is responsible for running the administration?

Oh, wait -- you're right again. It's Karl Rove.

But go ahead and keep your head in sand while the country goes to hell
in Red State handbasket.

Great post, PTRAVEL..

Just think, I used to dislike you because of your messages regarding
children on planes :-)

"john" wrote in message
...
On 19 Feb 2005 11:23:08 -0800, "PTravel" wrote:

How did "Jeff Gannon" get a White House press pass from the Secret
Service (and under a false name) if not with the the collusion and
assistance of the administration?

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?

And, as a final point, perhaps you're familiar with Harry Truman who
said, "The buck stops here." Even you can't deny that the
administration paid columnists to support administration policies. Who
do you think is responsible for running the administration?

Oh, wait -- you're right again. It's Karl Rove.

But go ahead and keep your head in sand while the country goes to hell
in Red State handbasket.

Great post, PTRAVEL..

Just think, I used to dislike you because of your messages regarding
children on planes :-)

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

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? Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
investigations into the content of some reports?

Now, that's interesting.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

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


Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
investigations into the content of some reports?

Nope. See above "Jeff Gannon." As for using government funds to pay
columnists to write material supporting administration policies, yes, I'm
suggesting that Congress should hold investigations into this attempt to
subvert the free press. As I said in another post, the last time I heard of
a supposedly-elected government doing something like this, the culpable
party was Eichman.


Now, that's interesting.

No, what's interesting is how you twist my post into something that I didn't
say. It's called strawman argumentation and is sophistry, pure and simple.
It's also a technique used most often by those who have no substantive
response to the actual questions raised. When I was teaching university,
this kind of approach would have gotten my students an F. And I note that
that is the approach you have taken here.

Now THAT's interesting.


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

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? And if so, maybe the requirements aren't as stringent as you
think. Lots of minor circulation industry and special-interest news
services and publications have representatives in the White House. 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.

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? Are TV reporters who adopt stage names forbidden to report
from the White House? I think you'll find that's not the case.

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?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

In m "PTRAVEL"
wrote:


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
om...


Now, that's interesting.

No, what's interesting is how you twist my post into something that I
didn't say.

Really? I believe that's -exactly what you said, and exactly what you
meant.

It's called strawman argumentation and is sophistry, pure
and simple. It's also a technique used most often by those who have no
substantive response to the actual questions raised.

Sort of like what you're doing right now?

When I was teaching university, this kind of approach would have gotten
my students an F.

You taught? No wonder today's kids are so screwed up.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

john wrote:


Let me re-phrase my statement above:

The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV PROPERTY
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


They didn;t have to "force" them. There is noting to "force".
There is nothing to "push back". Sinclair OWNS the stations ...
they, Sinclair, tell them what to broadcast. The top management
of Sinclair tells the stations what to do.

Doug McDonald

"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

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


"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
om...


Now, that's interesting.

No, what's interesting is how you twist my post into something that I
didn't say.

Really? I believe that's -exactly what you said, and exactly what you
meant.


Nope, I neither said it nor meant it, and it's perfectly clear what I did
say and mean. If you truly believe what you wrote then, will all due
respect, you need to work on your reading comprehension -- this isn't an
insult, just an observation because, obviously, I never even hinted at what
you ascribed to me.

Take a look at my response to your other post to me, in which I talk about
the importance of a free press. Think about it, and then come back and tell
me if you really thing that staging questions with phony journalists and
bribing columnists to write favorable opinions of questionable policies is a
good idea.


It's called strawman argumentation and is sophistry, pure
and simple. It's also a technique used most often by those who have no
substantive response to the actual questions raised.

Sort of like what you're doing right now?

No. I guess you don't understand what is meant by a strawman argument.
I've said that there should be an investigation into the bribing of
columnists and placing of fake reporters at press conferences. That's my
position, and it's based on absolute facts -- even you candeny that these
things happened, can you? In my mind, this kind of tampering with the press
is a scandal far beyond anything engaged in since Nixon attempted to cover
up a criminal investigation of an unparalleled attack on Constitutional
process by members of his own party.

Now, that's my opinion, and the facts which support it. You didn't respond
to any of that. Instead, you made up an argument out of whole cloth which
you ascribed to me. Here it is:

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?

I didn't say it and I don't believe it. None the less, you proceed to
attack it, rather than discuss the actual issues which I've raised. That's
what makes it a strawman argument, and that's why it is sophistry, pure and
simple, and intellectually dishonest.


When I was teaching university, this kind of approach would have gotten
my students an F.

You taught? No wonder today's kids are so screwed up.

Ah, yes, the typical reaction of the intellectually dishonest -- can't
respond on a substantive level, so just call names.

Well, Bert Hyman, would you like to compare credentials? I'll go with any
measure you like -- number of graduate degrees, number of merit
scholarships, professional accomplishments, even IQ.

By the way, if you'd like to engage in an interesting exercise sometime,
take a look at the correlation between the number of college graduates per
capita and how each state voted.

See, Bert, by your standards (whatever they are) you may be appalled that I
taught university. By my standards, about which I've been quite clear, I am
appalled that you vote. That sufferage is universal in this country is a
weakness of representative democracy that was exploited to the hilt by the
Republicans in the last two elections.



--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN