- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The "blaming America for the attacks" thing was irresponsible and sickening spin on the part of the media. A lot of which was perpetrated by Fox News. That's one of the things I was referencing when I brought up Hannity after the first primary debate.
And he didn't support the truthers. His contention was that the incident needs to be looked at, investigated, and reported truthfully and in total to the People.
Censorship through omission
j-mac
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you explain which part of the 1st amendment the government violates by not giving FOX an interview?
This is the second time I ask. Here is the text of the first amendment :
LII: Constitution
What law has Congress created abridging the freedom of speech? What law did Congress make abridging the freedom of the press when the White House denied an interview?(This should be good!)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Can you explain which part of the 1st amendment the government violates by not giving FOX an interview?
This is the second time I ask. Here is the text of the first amendment :
LII: Constitution
What law has Congress created abridging the freedom of speech? What law did Congress make abridging the freedom of the press when the White House denied an interview?(This should be good!)
oh geez......nice talking points once again. what white house occupant doesn't try to shape the media? jeff gannon sound familiar?
I don't think they are necessarily violating it. However, I don't think it's disputable that they aren't showing good faith in upholding the first amendment.
I don't think they are necessarily violating it. However, I don't think it's disputable that they aren't showing good faith in upholding the first amendment.
And fox news is showing good faith?
They aren't violating it. They denied an interview. Do you think it's a violation of your first amendment whenever somebody refuses to speak to you?
I'm Just a little annoyed by the hyperbolic. I mean these are the same people who didn't have a problem with 'Free-Speech zones' coming here screaming about the outrageous violation of FOX News a clearly right wing news entity being denied an interview.
How many interviews did Bush officials deny to MSNBC because it was clearly biased against their administration? Bush wouldn't give an interview to people who called him a racist, moron, torture proponent etc. So why would Obama give one to people who treat him with disrespect?
The government regardless of the party in office has always at it's own discretion exercised it's right to free speech(which includes the right to deny interviews) since the days of Washington.
Btw...love your new avatar
oh geez......nice talking points once again. what white house occupant doesn't try to shape the media? jeff gannon sound familiar?
Maybe you should be upset at the other networks.They aren't violating it. They denied an interview. Do you think it's a violation of your first amendment whenever somebody refuses to speak to you?
I'm Just a little annoyed by the hyperbolic. I mean these are the same people who didn't have a problem with 'Free-Speech zones' coming here screaming about the outrageous violation of FOX News a clearly right wing news entity being denied an interview.
How many interviews did Bush officials deny to MSNBC because it was clearly biased against their administration? Bush wouldn't give an interview to people who called him a racist, moron, torture proponent etc. So why would Obama give one to people who treat him with disrespect?
The government regardless of the party in office has always at it's own discretion exercised it's right to free speech(which includes the right to deny interviews) since the days of Washington.
Btw...love your new avatar
FOX News doesn't have a hand in governing my life. The White House does. I expect a little more from them.
And you're also presupposing I have an issue with FOX News. I don't.
IFox News IMHO practices yellow journalism. That is all fine and good and well within their rights. I also think the WH is well with in their rights to not give them the time of day.
Helen Thomas thinks the White House is being stupid.
Thomas to White House: End Fox fight - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Totally disingenuous. FOX News isn't "anyone", they are a news outlet and a major one at that. The White House isn't me. It is the executive branch of a government that is installed by the people. It has an obligation to answer to those people by being accessible.
I don't know of anyone on this board who DIDN'T have a problem with the whole "free speech zone" issue. I know I did...I had a major problem with it and nearly everyone I interacted with here had a problem.
I don't recall a huge stink about Bush denying interviews to MSNBC.
Free speech rights are extended to The People to protect them from the State. There is no reverse extension of those rights to The State. The State doesn't have freedom of speech which would include freedom of censorship by ommission.
Thanks. It's pretty festive, I think. :2wave:
Helen Thomas thinks the White House is being stupid.
Thomas to White House: End Fox fight - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
How about CNN?IFox News IMHO practices yellow journalism. That is all fine and good and well within their rights. I also think the WH is well with in their rights to not give them the time of day.
You are entitled to that opinion. The wide viewer base FOX enjoys says there are plenty of others who don't hold your opinion.
Either way you cut it, the White House should not be in the business of legitimizing or devaluing press outlets with this petty war they've started. Especially when anyone with half a brain recognizes that their gripe is with FOX's commentators who aren't "journalists" to start with.
Uh, so do I. Did you take what I said as an insinuation that I didn't? :2wave:
*scratches head* the WH started the war? Oh come on when ballon boy isn't on it is the obama bashing network.
Link to article, Rev?
Not disingenuous at all. The White House denying an interview is the same as somebody not wanting to talk to you.
Any talk of it having to give an interview to any particular organization because doing otherwise would violate that organization's first amendment is ridiculous and shows a little naivite on your part regarding government-media relations.
Bull**** and you know this Jallman. We had 20-30 pages of people arguing that it needed to be done for the safety of the Presidents/Prime Minister during that America's gathering they had in Quebec a few years ago because of the radical left. I even remember TOT going on for ages about how it wasn't a violation because they could still exercise their freedom of speech just in a different place. I'll go look in the archives for it.
That kind of solidifies my point. It wasn't a problem then. It is one now.
I think I should have phrased that differently. Considering the government is run by the people I wouldn't see why it wouldn't have a right to free speech as much as the people do at least in regards to whom it gives interviews to and who it doesn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?