A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » USA & Canada
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #261  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 01:48 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 01:55 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 01:59 AM
PTravel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 02:04 AM
PTravel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 02:05 AM
Dave Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 02:26 AM
Padraig Breathnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 03:14 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 04:08 AM
Padraig Breathnach
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 04:21 AM
john
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old February 23rd, 2005, 04:47 AM
miles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:12 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 11:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.