Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I still think your complaint is the stupidest ever. Of course President Obama seeks to win them over. They write about him, his administration and his policies. Do you think that when Reagan invited journalists to the White House that he hoped to NOT win them over? Because politicians sit down with journalists NOT to explain their perspectives, to explain why they voted the way they did, or why they said what they said?
Obviously that's a stupid statement. Any politician that sits down with a journalist, be it for an formal interview or for a casual conversation, ANY POLITICIAN wants to make the argument for the policies he supports, and the point of sitting down with a journalist is so that the journalist will print that argument.
And your PS is simply unfounded. Journalists most certainly do write editorials. You might actually look at the root of the word "journalism".
And your characterization of the outcomes of these conversations is beyond silly. These reporters aren't brainwashed during these conversations. If they write a column explaining the President's position, that's what they are doing, explaining the President's position. I know, you'd prefer if they never bothered to find out the President's position, that they'd just stick to flailing away at him like he's a political pinata. But you might stop to think, that bears no relationship to objectivity. Objectivity is seeing the President, his administration and his policies from all sides. Not just Aeroguy's "I HATE OBAMA" side.
Why did you completely ignore the First Amendment component of journalistic virtue, which is to first and foremost hold the government accountable? An opinion that is crafted by the President and repeated in these "opinion columns" is diametrically opposed to the objective of good reporting on government.
Your post is merely carrying water for the President, just like those who opine based on the highly influenced conversations they have with the President. Trust me when I say we are not surprised.
“He sees columnists as portals,” another journalist who has attended meetings said. “It works — I feel it work with me. It’s almost impossible to spend hours face-to-face with the president, unfiltered, then write a column or go on television without taking his point of view into account.”
In other words, brainwashed by the power of the Presidency.
Why did you completely ignore the First Amendment component of journalistic virtue, which is to first and foremost hold the government accountable? An opinion that is crafted by the President and repeated in these "opinion columns" is diametrically opposed to the objective of good reporting on government.
Your post is merely carrying water for the President, just like those who opine based on the highly influenced conversations they have with the President. Trust me when I say we are not surprised.
What are you saying, the President isn't allowed to talk to columnists? When has that EVER been a standard? The constitution allows freedom of association and if a columnist wants to meet with the President there is nothing improper about it. At least Obama wasn't paying off columnists the way Bush did.
What I think your objection is, is that you only want Obama to receive bad press.
"It’s also worth noting that the tradition of off-the-record meetings has long been a fixture of the presidency, extending at least as far back as the 1830’s....
Like the Clinton White House and the Bush White House after it, the Obama White House sees such off-the-record meetings as a chance for the president to speak his mind without having to worry about accidentally stepping on a land mine. And by giving the president that freedom, journalists come away with a better understanding of the president’s motivations and worldview".
"It’s also worth noting that the tradition of off-the-record meetings has long been a fixture of the presidency, extending at least as far back as the 1830’s....
Like the Clinton White House and the Bush White House after it, the Obama White House sees such off-the-record meetings as a chance for the president to speak his mind without having to worry about accidentally stepping on a land mine. And by giving the president that freedom, journalists come away with a better understanding of the president’s motivations and worldview".
No, her point was horrible. She obviously didn't read the article. And you didn't either. Otherwise you would have noticed that the point of the President's meetings with these journalists is to influence their writings to be that of his point of view.
Horrors! A politician attempting to bring reporters to his point of view. Why...that has NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
I would recommend that you edit this post to reflect a bit of intellectual honesty on your part. Or, we can just write you off as an intellectually dishonest partisan hack with no interest in the truth.
LOL. You honestly can't see yourself as the first class hypocrite you truly are, can you? Hint: Go back and re-read your OP. Then we can have a talk about intellectual honesty.
"It’s also worth noting that the tradition of off-the-record meetings has long been a fixture of the presidency, extending at least as far back as the 1830’s....
Like the Clinton White House and the Bush White House after it, the Obama White House sees such off-the-record meetings as a chance for the president to speak his mind without having to worry about accidentally stepping on a land mine. And by giving the president that freedom, journalists come away with a better understanding of the president’s motivations and worldview".
Sure, the thread title could have easily been "Bush' New Best Friends"......"Carter's New Best Friends..." ...."Clinton's New Best Friends"...etc. But where does that fit into objective "journalism" in the context that journalism is first and foremost responsible for holding government accountable?
It doesn't matter who the President is. What matters is that this is irresponsible on the part of "journalists" who expect to be taken seriously with their allegedly objective points of view.
Why did you completely ignore the First Amendment component of journalistic virtue, which is to first and foremost hold the government accountable? An opinion that is crafted by the President and repeated in these "opinion columns" is diametrically opposed to the objective of good reporting on government.
Your post is merely carrying water for the President, just like those who opine based on the highly influenced conversations they have with the President. Trust me when I say we are not surprised.
First and foremost?????
The first and foremost tenet of journalistic integrity is to maintain one's objectivity. To honestly and objectively report the news. To check and double-check the facts.
The idea of holding the government accountable is not about bashing the government. Your supposition that it is is a failure of objectivity on your part.
The President's argument for a policy is just as valid as the loyal opposition's argument against the policy. It's the media's responsibility to report both. And when a reporter, journalist, or opinion columnist writes a good piece, then both points of view are represented. If the opinion columnist expresses a preference for one side of the debate over the other, that's called having an opinion. And I have no problem with opinion columnists having opinions.
But I have a problem with people like yourself, who blanket themselves in partisanship and hatred, and then devalue the opinions of others simply because they don't agree. If your argument is better, then state your argument. But don't put your hands over your ears so that you don't have to hear my argument. And don't urge others to do the same. Be a PART of the conversation. And if your arguments are good, they'll persuade people. But if your argument is that only the people who agree with you have a good argument, then you'll get short shrift from me. I'll readily argue with people, and I respect a good argument. Because I know that issues aren't simple, that the policies and laws made and imposed by our government have different impacts on different people. I want to hear everyone's argument, I want to understand everyone's perspective. I want to hear from people whose experiences and positions are completely different than my own. Because I value that.
I don't value trying to silence other people, or trying to dismiss their perspectives. And that's what this thread is about. If a journalist sits down with the President, has a conversation with him, and reports on the President's perspective, you have already decided that the President's argument is invalid, and you are arguing that these reporters are somehow compromised because they've reported on the President's invalid argument. That strikes me as ridiculous. The President's argument isn't invalid. And the political opposition's argument isn't invalid. Both should be evaluated, both should be challenged, and any policy decisions should consider an issue in its entirety, from all sides. Which can't be done if you've decided that any arguments that don't agree with your own are invalid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
