If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
What is really hilarious is that you think the word "Liberal" actually means something. Now what's the Australian party in power that is adored by GWB? The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. |
#262
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 14:59:44 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
In article , john wrote: When I asked GO FIG if Congress shoul investigate Gannon, he was strangely silent. Do you notice the use of the word "consistent" in GO FIG' s response? GO FIG's reasoning must be Congress must investigate Thomas if Congress wants to investigate Gannon. Isn't that great reasoning Helen Thomas has a permanent seat, making "statements" on a daily basis in her capacity as a pundit from the White House Press Room.... and has done so for years now. Gannon, on a few occasions, has been granted a day pass. The U.S. since its inception has had a Free Press, it is not the job of the Congress to regulate, quantify or judge the Press. That is why there is no investigation for either of these pundits. There are serious questions being raised about the relationship of Gannon and the White House. Are there similar questions being raised about Helen Thomas? Don't you think there SHOULD be an investigation by Congress of Gannon? If not, why not? jay Tue Feb 22, 2005 |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
"Go Fig" wrote in message ... In article , PTravel wrote: "Go Fig" wrote in message ... In article , PTravel wrote: That he hasn't tried to obtain one? I assume if he had and was refused he'd have made it public knowledge. Perhaps, but you don't really know, but yet stated it as a fact. You're right, I don't really know. However, I'm not aware of any radio talk show personalities who have attended White House press conferences, much less obtained press passes. This is true not only of the right but of the left as well, I'd be equally shocked if Al Franken or Janene Garofolo showed up to ask Bush questions at a press conference. As I recall, Franken had a press credential for the Republican Convention though, of course, it was entirely up to the Republican Party as to whether one should be issued or not. What if he got one, wouldn't it be reported like all the successful airplane landings that occurred today ? Believe me, it would be national news if talk show hosts of either political persuasion suddenly started getting press credentials and showing up at the White House. That he's not a journalist? Even he has said so -- he's the first to admit that he's an entertainer, not a reporter. What I find particularly disturbing is that YOU don't understand the difference between a journalist and Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh doesn't report news. Pundits don't report news. Gannon, whatever he is, is not a journalist and doesn't report news. And neither does Helen Thomas, she is a NOT a reporter. According to you. Not according to Hearst Newspapers If you continue to make clearly false statements, there is no point in continuing. What false statement? "According to you. Not according to Hearst Newspapers" You're absolutely right. According to Hearst she is a journalist, not a reporter. And the relevance is . . . oh yes, none. Helen Thomas is unique in the annals of _reportage_, so much so that she has been accorded the unique honor of a permanent seat at White House press briefings. This is a reflection not only of her peers, i.e. the reporters who attend, but of every single president since FDR, both Republican and Democrat. So, perhaps now you'll tell me how you can compare Helen Thomas' situation to the of Jeff Gannon. Please point me to the Hearst site that indicates she is a reporter for them ? I've already conceded this point. She's not a reporter for Hearst, she's a journalist. Thompson is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. She was a correspondent for UPI for 57 years. She was the White House Bureau Chief for UPI. Is this some mantra ? What does it have to do with this ? You keep throwing up Thomas' name as justification for the stunt pulled by Jeff Gannon. I'm still waiting to hear how you can possible equate the two. Bill O'Reilly was a reporter for CBS... but he is not today. Bill O'Reilly hasn't been awarded a permanent seat in recognition of his reportorial accomplishments over 6 decades and, in any event, he, unlike Jeff Gannon, didn't give a false name and pretend to be a reporter for a fake news organization. A few minutes on google will verify this. She is NOT a reporter, and it clearly indicates that at the end of her columns: Helen Thomas is a columnist for Hearst Newspapers. E-mail: . Copyright 2004 Hearst Newspapers. Yes, now she's a columnist and not a reporter. She has been for 5 (long) years!! So what? Given your pronounced education, how can your argument be anything but a fraud Pure sophistry. I'll ask you again: What is the relevance of Helen Thomas being afforded a permanent seat at White House press conferences as recognition of a lifetime of achievement AS A REPORTER to Jeff Gannon's stunt? She's also rather unique in the journalism profession and, indeed, is frequently called "the Dean of White House reporters." Again, you're not comparing Helen Thomas to Jeff Gannon, are you? We are not comparing Curriculum Vita, we are comparing current behavior. On the contrary, we most certainly are comparing curriculm vitae. There are valid, laudable reasons why Helen Thomas has been accorded the honor of a permanent seat. What are the reasons for Jeff Gannon's presence? He wasn't awarded a permanent seat by his peers. He obtained a day pass under a false name with false credentials. We know how Helen Thomas got in. How did Jeff Gannon get in? I don't have much of a problem if real journalists, even if columnists, are issued press credentials, and that would apply equally to someone like Cal Thomas, too. You don't put Cal Thomas in the same league as Jeff Gannon, do you? No, he has a long distinguished career as a opinion columnist, who happens to have a weekly Fox News show. Then we're agreed -- neither of us would object to Cal Thomas has access to White House press conferences. What has Jeff Gannon done to receive similar treatment, besides lie about his name and his affiliation with a news organization? LAST TIME: Helen Thomas is NOT a reporter. She isn't now. She certainly was for nearly 6 decades. Is this the standard you would use for the seats? In Helen Thomas' case, I think it's perfectly appropriate. Perhaps, even in Cal Thomas' case, or Bill Buckley or William Safire. What has Jeff Gannon done? Remember, too, we're not talking about permanent seats given by the press corps. We're talking about a day pass supposedly vetted by the Secret Service and the FBI. Apples and oranges. How bout Robert Blake, he was a beloved hollywood icon... does that preclude him from being a murderer in his new career ? I can't even begin to guess at what point you're making with this non sequitur. She is, however, a journalist. and United Press International (for whom she was White House Bureau Chief as well as a correspondent for 57 years). She was the first woman officer of the National Press Club and the first woman officer of the White House Correspondents Association. So what! When a Black Panther is born, it has spots. Hunh? People's capacity change, clearly her's has... for almost 5 years now. Yes, so? Last time: Helen Thomas: Awarded permanent seat by virtue of life-long achievement as a reporter. Given access by her peers on the press corps. Actually named "Helen Thomas." Makes her current living as a journalist for Hearst Newspapers. Jeff Gannon: Obtained a day pass under a false name. Claimed an affiliation with a non-existent news service. No recognition by his peers. Makes his living running a gay male porn website. Supposedly vetted by the Secret Service and FBI, who failed to discover his lies. And you think these two situations are in any way analogous? Her position NOW is that of a pundit, your failure to acknowledge this is very telling. On the contrary, I do acknowledge it. When confronted... like CNN.... "Like CNN"? I'll take that as a complement. However, there's punditry and punditry. So let me get this straight, you want the gov. to go into the mind of the pundit and approve the motive or manner ? No. I want the government to find out why the operator of a gay male porn website who lied about his name and lied about his affiliation with a news service was given a day pass to a White House press conference, where he interfered with the REAL press by making offensive, partisan speeches. As I said, I have no problem with her or Cal Thomas having press credentials. That is not consistent with the established criteria for a WH press seat. And you think giving "Jeff Gannon" a press pass is? Rush Limbaugh or Bill Mahr would be another story. Jeff Gannon isn't a political pundit at all, and not in any way comparable to either Thomas, or to Limbaugh or Mahr. You're not seriously comparing Helen Thomas to Jeff Gannon, are you? It is her own 'statements' in the White House Press Room that make that comparison. Really? Who told her to obtain press credentials under a false name Did you know that Benjamin Franklin wrote under a "false name" ? Who cares? Benjamin Franklin didn't use a false name to obtain a press pass to a White House press conference under false pretenses. Can you at least try to stay on topic? by pretending affiliation to a non-existent news service? http://www.talonnews.com/ Please identify all media outlets that syndicate "Talon News" which, btw, relies on "volunteer reporters." Who writes her questions? If you want news, read newspapers, listen to newsradio, or watch programs called "News" on most television networks (Fox has a lot of trouble separating opinion/editorials from news -- this, by the way, isn't simply my opinion, but is proven fact based on in-house memos that have been made public. You seem to be the one confused between news and opinion. Fox airs a nightly News cast at 7pm EST... that is their News Hour... And, per the corporate memos which have been made public, the news that is reported, as well as the slant given to it, is dictated by Murdoch. See, for example, http://www.russbaker.com/CJR%20-%20Murdoch's%20Mean%20Machine,%20by%20Russ%20B aker.htm (an article from the Columbia Journalism Review). And clearly from their Opinion section. So what? BTW: is russbaker.com a News source ? No, it's not. However, it had reprinted the Columbia Journalism Review article. Fox can air whatever opinion pieces it wants. It is cynically irresponsible, however, to present opinion as "news." Your gonna need something more than your "word" on it... in this thread alone, you have made false statements repeatedly. Really? You haven't identified one. Above, but "Bribes" and breaking the law, also. What do you call payments to journalists for writing favorable columns if not bribes? And I haven't said anyone has broken the law. I have called for an investigation to find out whether anyone has. Please be specific about your comments on Fox's "Fox Report with Shepard Smith"! I haven't made any comments about Fox' "Fox Report with Shepard Smith." I have no idea what you're talking about. Then you shouldn't comment on the validity of Fox News, News, if that makes no sense to you. Another senseless non sequitur. the rest of their shows are described as:Commentary/debate. In fact, when O'Reilly makes his 'commentary', that is what the 'crawler' says underneath him... something the Networks use to do... but haven't for decades. If Fox confined it's opinion programming to that which it labels "Commentary/Debate" I wouldn't have any objection. Please state your specific objection ! My specific objection is slanting news reports as a matter of corporate policy. Specific example? Read the article I cited. You asked for one for Helen, I served it up !!!! On the other hand, CNN spent some 10 years in Bagdad concealing the butcher's atrocities, BY AGREEMENT, so they could maintain a bureau their. And even CNN admits that this was a mistake. "And even" Good Grief ! However, CNN's motivation was to maintain access to news, what were they reporting, the weather ? Alas... silence.... Again, you miss the point (I think deliberately). CNN made a deal with the devil in the interest of access. Their motivation wasn't to promote Sadaam Hussein's policies. rather than to subvert public opinion -- quite different from Fox. Nice unsubstantiated rhetoric. Re-read the Columbia Journalism Review article. My point remains the same, though. "Bert Hyman" thinks that Limbaugh is a journalist. You don't think that, do you? He could be loosely described as a journalist, but what he is not, is a reporter. Limbaugh could loosely be described as a journalist? In what universe? In the world of selling books, which he does at a impressive rate. Now I know you're being deliberately obtuse. Writing a book doesn't make anyone a journalist, and you know it. jay Tue Feb 22, 2005 Has Limbaugh ever described himself as a journalist or, for that matter, as anything other than an entertainer? There's not much about Limbaugh that I like or respect, but he's never been dishonest about what he does for a living. jay Tue Feb 22, 2005 This was reported by most of the news media, though, of course, not Fox). You do not get news from Rush Limbauh, Hannity, O'Reilly and the rest of that crew anymore than I would get news from John Stewart or Bill Mahr. Opinion is just opinon. Do you understand that? |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
"Go Fig" wrote in message ... In article , PTravel wrote: "Go Fig" wrote in message ... In article , john wrote: When I asked GO FIG if Congress shoul investigate Gannon, he was strangely silent. Do you notice the use of the word "consistent" in GO FIG' s response? GO FIG's reasoning must be Congress must investigate Thomas if Congress wants to investigate Gannon. Isn't that great reasoning Helen Thomas has a permanent seat, making "statements" on a daily basis in her capacity as a pundit from the White House Press Room.... and has done so for years now. Gannon, on a few occasions, has been granted a day pass. The U.S. since its inception has had a Free Press, it is not the job of the Congress to regulate, quantify or judge the Press. That is why there is no investigation for either of these pundits. The First Amendment which, among other things assures a free press, precludes the government for electioneering among other things. You would have standing under that charge, put your reputation on it.... Why? You want me to quit my job and invest all my savings to take on a corrupt administration alone? Sorry, I'm penalized enough by what Bush has done to this country. Helen Thomas works for Hearst Newspapers, not the government. Who does Gannon work for? He was terminated from http://www.talonnews.com/, the firm he had his DC column with at the time of the incident. Yeah. "Talon News." Right. "Volunteer reporters." No syndication customers. We know how Thomas got her permanent seat. But is she not the only columnist with a permanent seat ? As far as I know, she is. So what? What in the world has that got to do with Jeff Gannon, who lied about his name, lied about his credentials, and was, nonetheless, given a day pass? How did Gannon get his pass? again, he asked I would presume. In other words, you don't know. You do know, don't you, that the Secret Service and the FBI vet all press day passes? Aren't you in the least bit curious how someone could provide a false name to BOTH of these security agencies and be allowed to come within mere feet of the president of the United States? Do you really not care? jay Tue Feb 22, 2005 jay Tue Feb 22, 2005 |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
miles wrote:
The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith wrote:
miles wrote: The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. It seems to mean those things to some (note I say some) Republican Party voters. -- PB The return address has been MUNGED |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:26:47 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote: Dave Smith wrote: miles wrote: The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. It seems to mean those things to some (note I say some) Republican Party voters. Would you happen to know one? |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
john wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:26:47 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: Dave Smith wrote: miles wrote: The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. It seems to mean those things to some (note I say some) Republican Party voters. Would you happen to know one? Yes. -- PB The return address has been MUNGED |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 03:08:53 +0000, Padraig Breathnach
wrote: john wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 01:26:47 +0000, Padraig Breathnach wrote: Dave Smith wrote: miles wrote: The word Liberal does mean something. You fail to realize that in the USA for decades Democrats referred to themselves as Liberal. They defined the word as it exists in the USA. In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. It seems to mean those things to some (note I say some) Republican Party voters. Would you happen to know one? Yes. I doubt it. Liberal and a Republican voter are a contradiction in terms. |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
Dave Smith wrote:
In most parts of the world the word "liberal" is an adjective, not a label, and certainly does not bear a negative connotation. It generally suggests education, knowledge, compassion and forward thinking. In the USA it is both an adjective and a label pertaining to ones political tendencies. Same as Conservative or Moderate. It is only negative because of a souring of public views towards liberalism as it has been applied in the USA. At one time people were proud to be called a liberal. Not any more. The very people who defined liberalism in the USA now shun the word because of its negative connotation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror | spamfree | Air travel | 333 | February 26th, 2005 01:12 AM |
Cruise ship contracts spout controversy !!! | steinbrenner | Cruises | 0 | October 8th, 2004 10:43 PM |
Myanmar Times - Tourism in the age of globalisation | utunlin | Asia | 0 | August 4th, 2004 05:05 AM |
National Geog. says Scottish Highlands beat Colorado Rockies, Key West and Yosemite for sustainable tourism | Owain | Europe | 1 | April 22nd, 2004 10:02 AM |
Zanzibar - Terror, tourism and odd beliefs (from The Economist) | Hans-Georg Michna | Africa | 1 | February 20th, 2004 10:49 PM |