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

press passes


Every journalists knows that if they ask tough questions to the Bush
regime, they will no longer be treated favoiurably when the time comes
to obtain leaked documents or during question periods where the
spokespersons/president get to choose who gets to ask questions.

In article , Alan Street
wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

¥ In article , Alan Street
¥ wrote:
¥
¥ In article , Go Fig
¥ wrote:
¥
¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ 2. The administration paid bribes to journalists so they'd write
¥ ¥ favorable
¥ ¥ opinions of controversial administration policies.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ They are not bribes and are consistent with their long held and
¥ ¥ expressed beliefs.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ If they are not bribes, what are they?
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ A payment.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ These "journalists" who took the money made sure they didn't tell
¥ ¥ their readers that they recived payment for the favorable "press
¥ ¥ release".
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ And the free marketplace will deal with. But they are not reporter's,
¥ ¥ they are opinion journalists.
¥ ¥
¥
¥
¥ OK. But don't you think their opinion is tainted when they've been paid
¥ almost a quarter of a million dollars to write favorably of something?
¥
¥ No, it is consistent with voluminous prior statements over a very long
¥ period of time.
¥

Then why was it necessary to pay him anything? Why was my tax money
given to this columnist? He claims it was for "advertising" (which, by
definition, is not editorial), but he was also dropped by his syndicate
as soon as they found out. Apparently the people who carry his column
agree that his behaviour was unethical, and this unethical act was
initiated by the White House.

No. It is up to him, not the White House to make such declarations to
any other employer, but the White House should of required such
stipulations in the contract.

This President was elected for a variety of reasons. One of them was
his stand on promoting, so-called, 'intact families' and another "No
Child left behind".

The White House hired a known personality in the field and a clinical
expert in the field to get this message out.

You may not like it... but it is hardly unethical the actions the White
House took.


¥
¥ Apparently Armstrong felt this way because he didn't disclose this
¥ monetary relationship to his readers,
¥
¥
¥ and hoped they'd never find out.
¥
¥ I'll need you to provide proof of this.
¥

What will you accept as "proof?" He knew that he was in breach of
contract with Tribune Media Services

This is just wrong, his failure to disclose "the receipt of it" is the
problem, NOT the acceptance of the fee... a huge difference. He was
not precluded from preforming the contract with the White House on its
merits.

jay
Mon Feb 21, 2005




(or if he didn't, then's he's too
stupid to understand a contract that he signed, and no one should
listed to his opinion anyway) for accepting the money, which is why TMS
dropped him immediately.

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/cgi-b...gate.pl?200501
24j


http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/...sh.journalist/


¥ jay
¥ Mon Feb 21, 2005
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥
¥ ¥ Armstrong received a tidy sum from the White House--$240 million.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ How many times do you need to be corrected, it is $250k.
¥ ¥
¥
¥ Actually $240K, but your point is taken.
¥
¥
¥ ¥ jay
¥ ¥ Mon Feb 21, 2005
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ That amount would convince anyone to write whatever.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ jay
¥ ¥ Mon Feb 21, 2005
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ There has been no
¥ ¥ outrage expressed or investigation of the administration by the
¥ ¥ Republican-controlled House and Senate.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ You haven't responded to these facts at all, except to lie by
saying
¥ ¥ that
¥ ¥ Gannon has been investigated and explained. Instead, you simply
call
¥ ¥ names.
¥ ¥ You even have the nerve to complain about other's "debating style."
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ You've proven yourself ignorant and a fraud. There's nothing wrong
¥ with
¥ ¥ being ignorant, as long as you recognize it as your shortcoming.
¥ Rather
¥ ¥ than remedy it, however, you hide your ignorance behind an
aggressive
¥ ¥ and
¥ ¥ offensive arguing style. As I said before, it's absolutely
appalling
¥ ¥ that
¥ ¥ people like you vote.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥ I'm not interested in continuing this conversation -- it certainly isn't a
¥ ¥ discussion, since you have proven that you have absolutley nothing of
¥ ¥ substance to say.
¥ ¥
¥ ¥
¥ ¥

john wrote:

I do want to know.

No you most certainly do not. If you did you would be doing a bit of
research instead of whining and bitching and looking for an argument on
usenet.

john wrote:

Back to the killfile for you.


Why must people state publicly they are killfiling someone? If you wish
to ignore someone then DO IT!

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:

What I admire is the way the Democrats supported the war in Iraq, yet
Bush's re-election was interpreted by him as the electorate approving

The democrats couldn't decide if they were for or against the war in
Iraq. Voted for it before voting against it? Now look at Kerry. He
recently publicly stated he supports Bush and now voted to fund the war.
Strange how he switches his views back to how they were prior to his
running for president. You admire that?

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:17:23 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...
In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

"miles" wrote in message
news:CAlSd.18828$Tt.18722@fed1read05...
PTRAVEL wrote:

Just a reminder: 49% of us recognize the truth. Unfortunately, 51%
didn't.

Now theres a blatent liberal excuse for their own parties problems.
Keep
it up and keep losing.

Sorry, Miles. You have zero credibility. This thread introduced two
facts:

1. Jeff Gannon was given a press credential that allowed access to the
White House. There has been no outrage expressed or investigation by the
administration or anyone else in government.

Why does Helen Thomas not only have a seat, but a permanent seat, at
that ? She is not a reporter.

And the relevance of that non-sequitur to the question I raised is what?

It is not a non-sequiter, it establishes the standard... although Helen
has the much coveted 'permanent' seat from which she spews her
"commentary" daily from, rather than a day pass.



Consistent with this, the Congress has not called for an investigation
as to why, Helen Thomas, an Opinion Journalist, has a permanent seat in
the White House Press Room.



Do you think Congress should investigate why Thomas has a permanent
press pass?

Would you also think that Congress should investigate why a male
prostitute who is not a reporter and using an assumed name can get a
daily press pass?

Maybe Congress can find out:

Who OKed Gannon for a press pass?

Who did a background check on Gannon?

There are numerous small newspapers in this country that could never

get a daily pass for one of their reporters to the White House
briefings.




2. The administration paid bribes to journalists so they'd write
favorable
opinions of controversial administration policies.

They are not bribes and are consistent with their long held and
expressed beliefs.

With a statement like that it appears you work for the White House
Propaganda Department.

Okay, don't call them bribes, call them "payments." How does that change
anything?

You have to ask with all those degrees you arrogantly claim ?

jay
Mon Feb 21, 2005






jay
Mon Feb 21, 2005





There has been no
outrage expressed or investigation of the administration by the
Republican-controlled House and Senate.

You haven't responded to these facts at all, except to lie by saying that
Gannon has been investigated and explained. Instead, you simply call
names.
You even have the nerve to complain about other's "debating style."

You've proven yourself ignorant and a fraud. There's nothing wrong with
being ignorant, as long as you recognize it as your shortcoming. Rather
than remedy it, however, you hide your ignorance behind an aggressive and
offensive arguing style. As I said before, it's absolutely appalling
that
people like you vote.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation -- it certainly isn't
a
discussion, since you have proven that you have absolutley nothing of
substance to say.

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:43:06 -0700, miles wrote:


No, but 'nobody' and now you certainly do. That page full of rants was
just his editorial rather than a reply to anything specific. Nice
attention to what one is replying too.


I suspect you just didn't like what he wrote.

Would that make it any more relevant? I suspect you just like what he
wrote.

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:43:06 -0700, miles wrote:


No, but 'nobody' and now you certainly do. That page full of rants was
just his editorial rather than a reply to anything specific. Nice
attention to what one is replying too.


I suspect you just didn't like what he wrote.

Would that make it any more relevant? I suspect you just like what he
wrote.

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:

Oh of course, because the money comes from two completely different
buckets.

Not really. The liberals give freely with other peoples money for any
and all causes they see fit.

PTRAVEL wrote:

Sorry, Miles. You have zero credibility. This thread introduced two facts:

1. Jeff Gannon was given a press credential that allowed access to the
White House.

There is no Jeff Gannon.

There has been no outrage expressed or investigation by the
administration or anyone else in government.

Including from the Democrats. Just Bush haters such as yourself are
whining about it. The problem was taken care of.

I'm not interested in continuing this conversation -- it certainly isn't a
discussion, since you have proven that you have absolutley nothing of
substance to say.

Great. Not another peep out of you then! You have proven all you wish
to do is argue and I'm the one calling names? Too funny.