daswig

So you're NOT saying that there should be arbitrary standards set for who is "the press" and who isn't? And you're saying that the "white House Press Corps" controls who has access to presidential press conferences? Can you cite the constitutional authority for this?

The New York Times is an incredibly biased rag that reports it's editorial policy as "news". One way you can add "journalistic credibility" to the NYT is to use it for your puppy to shit on. It's THAT bad. Your quoting it as a reliable source is the equivalent to a Freeper quoting CNS or Ann Coulter as a reliable news source.

So you're saying that we should ignore the biased "news articles", and instead
go with the even MORE biased propaganda, oops, I mean "editorials"?




So where is his conviction for prostitution? Your whole argument is homophobic. You say that it's wrong for what you describe as a "gay male prostitute" to be allowed into the White House, despite the fact that he's never been convicted of prostitution. You don't ewven throw in the weasel-word "alleged". Since he has NOT been convicted of prostitution, the only possible reason for your animosity must be that he's a gay male.

Please provide a cite for his conviction for prostitution, which is generally defined as selling sex for money. I'd have far more credibility claiming that Senator Robert Byrd is a Klansman. He's admitted as much, although now he claims to have repudiated it. Has whatever his name is admitted to being a prostitute?

Ever heard of "slander" or "libel"? You ASSUME he's a prostitute. Some people ASSUME that all Italians are in the Mafia. That doesn't make it true.

Please quote the language where he says he will engage in sexual acts for money. Selling companionship is not illegal. Selling sex is. You're accusing him of a very specific crime with a very specific definition, and you cannot back it up.

I'd suggest that people with a flagrantly anti-Bush bias are less likely to get a day pass easily than somebody who writes positive articles about Bush. I never saw Ann Coulter with a day pass during the Clinton years, did you?

I do know the law. It's not criminal. Hell, it's not even CLOSE to criminal. I'm wondering what your opinion of journalists during FDR's and JFK's administrations are. After all, they didn't ask the "hard questions", like "when did you know Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked, and why didn't you at least order an alert?" or "why are you in that wheelchair?" or "how many painkillers are you taking?" or "how many women besides Marilyn Monroe did you nail while in the White House?"

So you're saying that publicizing press releases isn't actually journalism? Please cite the code section that states that. Jerry Springer isn't "respected", neither is "Whorealdo" Rivera. Does that mean that they are not journalists? How large of a circulation does a media outlet have to possess in order to be "valid", and where is the code section that spells this out?

A grand jury can investigate absolutely ANYTHING they want. They can, if they so choose (generally at the request of a prosecutor) investigate if peanuts (you know, those little nuts that come in cans or packets distributed on airplanes) are a Schedule 3 Narcotic. That doesn't mean that they are, or that any illegal activity occurred. I understand that you don't know anything about the law, but I thought this kind of thing was covered in a BASIC high-school level government class. You seem to think that media leakage is something that Bush 43 invented. It's not. Read up on the Pentagon Papers if you don't believe me.

Why not? He'd never been convicted of a crime, had he? You're basically trying to say that people should be judged on innuendo and assumption. That's NOT how our system is supposed to work. Whatshisname had a history of providing positive media coverage to the president. Most Liberal reporters direct quite a bit of venom at Bush, Dowd most CERTAINLY included. Ask yourself this from a Secret Service perspective: Which person do you subject to more scrutiny? The one who vocally and rabidly hates your principal, or the one who really likes your principal? Dowd is a purveyor of "political hackery" on a massive scale. The fact that you're trying to pass her off as some kind of plastic saint of journalism is deliciously telling.

Actually, if you read the law, you'll find that the President has almost no control on the media. The only thing he controls is ACCESS to his person. You seem to think that reporters have some God-given RIGHT to have access to the President. You're wrong. The President has NO obligation to tell the media ANYTHING. Bush would be within his rights if he only allowed people who wrote for the CSM access to him. In fact, if the President literally sequestered himself in the White house and spoke to nobody but his staff and the Congress one a year at the SOTU, he'd be within his rights.

A free press means one without governmental controls. The government has no obligation to provide information to reporters any further than what is required by FOIA. And I'd suggest that if the media has become so dependent on information handouts as you suggest, that THEY are not acting as a free press. What ever happened to investigative journalism? If you expect people to spoonfeed you, you have no grounds to be upset when they spoonfeed you.

Clinton did EXACTLY the same thing as you accuse Bush of doing in trying to use the media to his advantage. How many times did he "wag the dog" to try and deflect media attention from the whole "Blue Dress" issue? Clinton was never punished for lying to the media or the American people (that's his RIGHT), he was impeached for lying under oath in court (which is a crime). There's a HUGE difference. After THK's infamous "shove it" bit with the reporter, how often was he allowed in her presence again?