democrats= Tokyo rose

[Berg]

I agree to disagree... Stories are.  Laws can be repealed.  Stories live on forever.

540346[/snapback]

 

In today's hot pocket society? You're dreaming. People move on in an instant. Plus with the advent of the internet, disinformation is eventually and usually unceremoniously debunked. Case in point, WMDs in Iraq. What's the prevailing opinion now vice March 03?

 

And the original hypothesis did not purport false stories, just greater access if favorable stories were written - deservedly or not. The veracity issue was your partisan introduction.

 

If you truly believe this, thank God you are not a legislator.....or are you?????

[Berg]

Obviously I am not talking about laws like DWI or harming or not harming people. I am talking about appropriations bills and pork and government funding for unnecessary issues from bills.

540351[/snapback]

 

I know. However, you should point this out to EII, since he seems to think the laws you are talking about can be repealed at any time without any type of economic, environmental, or social repurcussions at all. Everything in his world can apparently be "reset" at any time.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Good post. I actually think what the Bush administration tried to create was not so much an adversarial relationship with the press, but a market where access was used as capital. Print things favorable to the administration and you are rewarded with greater access, print things negative about the administration and access disappears. Case in point: Helen Thomas.

 

Not a very good case in point, though. At least through Ari Fleischer, Helen Thomas had a great deal of access to the administration. My source for this being: Ari. There was - and still is, as far as I know - a great deal of personal respect and even friendship between Thomas and Fleischer, but that respect in no way extended into the professional arena (though to hear Fleischer say it, he has an immense amount of professional respect for Helen Thomas as well...but I question whether or not that works both ways. Thomas hates the Bush administration, with the white-hot intensity of a thousand suns, as I've heard it). Helen Thomas did not lose any access to the administration via any sort of specifically personal animosity; judging from some of the yahoos Fleischer allowed press passes, NO ONE lost access due to any personal animosity.

 

Rather, her loss of access was more of an institutional-level decision: the administration told the press from the start "We do not believe you're the Fourth Estate; the American people never democratically chose you to represent their interests, you appointed yourselves to the position, therefore we do not believe you represent the interests of the American people. And we will therefore not treat you as requiring full and unfettered access to the government process, as you are not answerable to the American people as we are." And the administration has stuck to that, for better or worse...and as a result, no one in the press corps has any true, direct access to the administration (I know someone's going to argue FoxSnooze does...I've never seen it. At best, the access I've seen from Fox has been indirect simply because as a conservative news outlet they tend to move in the same conservative circles that support and have close ties to the administration.)

 

And in support of this theory, I also submit the observation that Bush (both the man and the administration) have specifically stated their lack of interest in not just the coverage of specific individuals but the press as a whole of the overall government process. I would not expect that if the administration were simply horse-trading info for access as usual...

 

A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.

 

I think this actually worked by design for much of the first term. But now they have so many outsiders in the press corps that the Administration  has very few believable outlets to convey their message.

 

I think Bush got a lot of mileage out of this reward system. But Clinton was simply

so cocky that he thought he could convince anyone in the press pool of anything, that access to him or his ideas was far less prized. In his second term, as much as Clinton spoke, the press began to believe he was irrelevant because power shifted in congress, and finding out the story from Clinton was a non-scoop.

540202[/snapback]

 

I wouldn't be surprised if every administration used that kind of reward system. The politics of DC, to a large extent, involves trading information and rumor as a currency. In many ways, it's more important than dollars. But there is a fundamentally bigger issue at work now: namely, that the administration unilaterally changed the rules of the game, to the very notable detriment of the press, and are now being crucified as a matter of routine in a situation of their own construction. An I don't think they care, since they believe they're being crucified by a group who doesn't have the interests of the country at heart anyway.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I know.  However, you should point this out to EII, since he seems to think the laws you are talking about can be repealed at any time without any type of economic, environmental, or social repurcussions at all.  Everything in his world can apparently be "reset" at any time.

540356[/snapback]

 

That is not what I am saying. I think you are reading too much into it.

 

Haven't I been cordial? If not, I apologize.

[Adam]

Actually, with regards to the Bush administration's relations with the press, that's not entirely true.  The administration took the line early - and pretty much explicitly - that contrary to the press's belief, they do NOT represent the interests of the American public, and would not be treated as such.  That is probably the major reason the administration has such a lousy relation with the media - because they chose to. 

 

540174[/snapback]

If thats Bush's stance- that the press does not represent the American public- then he is 100% corect. The press flat out stinks

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

If thats Bush's stance- that the press does not represent the American public- then he is 100% corect. The press flat out stinks

540439[/snapback]

 

I agree - both with you, and with the administration's attitude in theory.

 

In practice, of couse, the administration takes their theory and implements it such ham-handed and clumsy fashion that they piss me off. As usual.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree - both with you, and with the administration's attitude in theory.

 

In practice, of couse, the administration takes their theory and implements it such ham-handed and clumsy fashion that they piss me off.  As usual.

540441[/snapback]

I'm sure you would have really appreciated and applauded the Clinton administration giving access to any reporters who would write good stories about the Lewinsky scandal, or the Somalia incident or bombing of Iraq and not give access to anyone who would criticize it. Yeah, that sounds like a solid foundation for an administration.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I'm sure you would have really appreciated  and applauded the Clinton administration giving access to any reporters who would write good stories about the Lewinsky scandal, or the Somalia incident or bombing of Iraq and not give access to anyone who would criticize it. Yeah, that sounds like a solid foundation for an administration.

540490[/snapback]

 

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear: I entirely reject your interpretation of the administration's attitude towards the press as ill-founded.

 

Ergo, I also reject your feeble and idiotic attempt at demonstrating the fallacy of my statements using a half-assed and ill-advised reducto ad absurdum argument of your interpretation that I've already said I reject.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear: I entirely reject your interpretation of the administration's attitude towards the press as ill-founded.

 

Ergo, I also reject your feeble and idiotic attempt at demonstrating the fallacy of my statements using a half-assed and ill-advised reducto ad absurdum argument of your interpretation that I've already said I reject. 

540551[/snapback]

That made me laugh, as a nicely put, caustic comeback. Thanks.

 

But, of course, X. Bene did say "A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.", which is what I found ill-founded, and which you did agree with, saying, "I wouldn't be surprised if every administration used that kind of reward system."

 

I simply put the hypothetical backward instead of forward to the Clinton administration allowing access, not against the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the prez, no access, praise the Prez, gain access. And wondered how you would have praised that. So it was neither feeble, idiotic, half-assed or ill-advised. Just a simple question. Of course, they could have just kept guys on the payroll to write good stories about them. Hell, Armstrong Williams probably would have taken the money to write favorable articles about Somalia even though he's a republican for all the journalistic backbone he's shown.

[Adam]

That made me laugh, as a nicely put, caustic comeback. Thanks.

 

But, of course, X. Bene did say "A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.", which is what I found ill-founded, and which you did agree with, saying, "I wouldn't be surprised if every administration used that kind of reward system."

 

I simply put the hypothetical backward instead of forward to the Clinton administration allowing access, not against the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the prez, no access, praise the Prez, gain access. And wondered how you would have praised that. So it was neither feeble, idiotic, half-assed or ill-advised. Just a simple question. Of course, they could have just kept guys on the payroll to write good stories about them. Hell, Armstrong Williams probably would have taken the money to write favorable articles about Somalia even though he's a republican for all the journalistic backbone he's shown.

540707[/snapback]

Just remember- the media is there for ratings, not truth

[Kelly the Dog]

Just remember- the media is there for ratings, not truth

540742[/snapback]

Not true. The media is there to inform the public, to make money, to further personal and corporate agendas, to tell the truth, to expose deceit and fraud, to make famous people that don't deserve to be famous, and to sway public opinion for worse or for better. All in various orders at various times in basically equal proportion.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

That made me laugh, as a nicely put, caustic comeback. Thanks.

 

That was pretty much my goal ...though I was mildly pissed that you'd respond to me with "How would you feel if Clinton traded info for access" when I already said I didn't think that was the case here - at least, not any more than it ever has been. That particular feature of government is a systemic feature rather than partisan.

 

But, of course, X. Bene did say "A market was created where reporters had to weigh their stories against not the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would compromise future access, praise the President, rightfully or wrongfully, it would gain future access.", which is what I found ill-founded, and which you did agree with, saying, "I wouldn't be surprised if every administration used that kind of reward system."

 

I simply put the hypothetical backward instead of forward to the Clinton administration allowing access, not against the straight story but the capital of access. Flame the prez, no access, praise the Prez, gain access. And wondered how you would have praised that. So it was neither feeble, idiotic, half-assed or ill-advised. Just a simple question. Of course, they could have just kept guys on the payroll to write good stories about them. Hell, Armstrong Williams probably would have taken the money to write favorable articles about Somalia even though he's a republican for all the journalistic backbone he's shown.

540707[/snapback]

 

As a specific criticism of this administration, as X.B. used it, I think it is ill-founded, again as it's a systemic and non-partisan feature. When Clinton did it - as I'm sure he did - I felt the same way. Some things - quite a few, actually - go far beyond the man that holds the office.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Not true. The media is there to inform the public, to make money, to further personal and corporate agendas, to tell the truth, to expose deceit and fraud, to make famous people that don't deserve to be famous, and to sway public opinion for worse or for better. All in various orders at various times in basically equal proportion.

540812[/snapback]

 

I would rather strongly dispute that's really what the media is "there for". Now maybe I just don't give Dan Rather, Michael Moore, or MoveOn.org enough credit...but I think with your statement you're giving FoxSnooze, WorldNetDaily, and Ann Coulter a little too much...

[Kelly the Dog]

I would rather strongly dispute that's really what the media is "there for".  Now maybe I just don't give Dan Rather, Michael Moore, or MoveOn.org enough credit...but I think with your statement you're giving FoxSnooze, WorldNetDaily, and Ann Coulter a little too much...

540848[/snapback]

"There for" as in what people who are in it think it's there for, and how they use their position (whether they admit it or not). Not "there for" as in what it's supposed to be there for or ideally there for. Though you're right, to tell the truth probably shouldn't be in there unless directly followed by "as long as it pushes your agenda or career". And granted, not everyone in it follows all of those "there fors" that I listed, or even more than one or two of them.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

"There for" as in what people who are in it think it's there for, and how they use their position (whether they admit it or not). Not "there for" as in what it's supposed to be there for or ideally there for. Though you're right, to tell the truth probably shouldn't be in there unless directly followed by "as long as it pushes your agenda or career". And granted, not everyone in it follows all of those "there fors" that I listed, or even more than one or two of them.

540895[/snapback]

 

Okay...given that stipulation, then I agree.

 

sh--...I don't think that's ever happened before.