"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
news:Xns96029B961F509VeebleFetzer@news.mpls.visi.com...
> In news:1108840988.588320.189600@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com "PTravel"
> wrote:
>
>> Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
>> facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
>> investigation? Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
>> money for partisan propaganda? Who are the Republican committee chairs
>> setting up Senate hearings?
>
> Are you suggesting that the administration is entitled to determine who is
> a "real" reporter, or what's a "real" news service, or if what they write
> is "propaganda" and to exclude or allow reporters based on that
> determination?
Yes, to this extent. To cover White House press conferences requires a
press credential. I don't know all the requirements to obtain one, but you
can't simply walk in and say, 'I'm a reporter." Even more to the point, the
Secret Service and the FBI each clear White House press credentials --
propagandizing issues aside, there was, at least, an enormous security lapse
that permitted this right-wing, non-journalist blogger to obtain White House
press credentials under a false name. At minimum, as I said, it strongly
implies collusion on the part of the administration.
> Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
> investigations into the content of some reports?
Nope. See above re: "Jeff Gannon." As for using government funds to pay
columnists to write material supporting administration policies, yes, I'm
suggesting that Congress should hold investigations into this attempt to
subvert the free press. As I said in another post, the last time I heard of
a supposedly-elected government doing something like this, the culpable
party was Eichman.
>
> Now, that's interesting.
No, what's interesting is how you twist my post into something that I didn't
say. It's called strawman argumentation and is sophistry, pure and simple.
It's also a technique used most often by those who have no substantive
response to the actual questions raised. When I was teaching university,
this kind of approach would have gotten my students an F. And I note that
that is the approach you have taken here.
Now THAT's interesting.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@visi.com
|