Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Liberal Media - brazen and bold caught again
Faxxer
Member Posts: 3,247
This story is beyond sickening...
If Fox news had done this I know every lib would be trying to find a way to shut down the media completely. But this will go unabashed, if only slightly embarrassed.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24441.html#commentsform
snip...
Washington Post publisher Katharine Weymouth said today she was canceling plans for an exclusive "salon" at her home where for as much as $250,000, the Post offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record access to "those powerful few" — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and even the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."
With the Post newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Weymouth said in an email to the staff that "a flier went out that was prepared by the Marketing department and was never vetted by me or by the newsroom. Had it been, the flier would have been immediately killed, because it completely misrepresented what we were trying to do."
Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did not in any way compromise our integrity. Sponsorship of events, like advertising in the newspaper, must be at arm's length and cannot imply control over the content or access to our journalists. At this juncture, we will not be holding the planned July dinner and we will not hold salon dinners involving the newsroom. “
She made it clear however, that The Post, which lost $19.5 million in the first quarter, sees bringing together Washington figures as a future revenue source. “We do believe that there is a viable way to expand our expertise into live conferences and events that simply enhances what we do - cover Washington for Washingtonians and those interested in Washington,” she said. “ And we will begin to do live events in ways that enhance our reputation and in no way call into question our integrity.”
Executive editor Marcus Brauchli was as adamant as Weymouth in denouncing the plan promoted in the flier. “You cannot buy access to a Washington Post journalist,” Brauchli told POLITICO. Brauchli was named on the flier as one of the salon’s "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."
end snip....
they're backtracking now, but they got caught too.
Comments
There is no unbiased news anymore, everyone wants to put their own spin on it. Better off doing your own research on key issues and drawing your own conclusions than to listen to some moron with make up on to read off a teleprompter. This crap goes on all the time, someone just actually got caught.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." ~ Ronald Reagan
Yep, selling access to the White House and members of Congress. But hey, there's no room in the news for stories like this. We've got Michael Jackson to occupy our air-time.
I think the Post did it to try and shore up their sagging sales. Newspapers are being hit especially hard in the internet era and they have to get creative to make money. Obama is considered one of the country's top celebrities. Why shouldn't the Post try to get a slice of that pie?
Print paper is all but Dead..more and more people are getting their news from blogs now more than ever,this story just confirms that.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
How is this news? This is to be expected, do you think your 'conservative' politicians are any different? In a neoliberal state capitalist system how can you be surprised?
This only reflects market principles in neoliberalism where those with power (i.e. money) make contributions (i.e. investments) into politicians as they have the means necessary to influence them (they also have the means to influence media and control the flow of information to the public).
How easy do you think it is for you to get ahold of your representatives and perhaps talk to them for 90 minutes? How easy do you think it is for a corporation like Walmart, or Exxon, or Microsoft to get 90 minutes of time from that same representative? That only makes sense as they offer money, you on the other hand offer nothing.
Edit:
I wanted to clarify, I suppose I gave the impression that this is justified or okay, on the contrary it is bad but it needs to be clear that this is standard opperating procedure for politicians. Regardless of party affiliation and regardless of whatever rhetoric they use to play you.
Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth -- more than ruin -- more even than death.... Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible, thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man. -- Bertrand Russell
So let me get this straight.
You think that the Washington Post newspaper is a "liberal" newspaper?
If you had said the New York Times I'd agree. But everyone who knows anything about newspapers realizes the Washington post is quite CONSERVATIVE.
Faxxer, I'm not sure you realized this, but you just showed that a conservative newspaper was trying to give access to Obama by lobbyists paying 250k. You really didn't know this?
This is beyond the shadow of a doubt, the FUNNIEST post you've ever posted here, and I thank you for this excellent laugh.
"TO MICHAEL!"
So let me get this straight.
You think that the Washington Post newspaper is a "liberal" newspaper?
If you had said the New York Times I'd agree. But everyone who knows anything about newspapers realizes the Washington post is quite CONSERVATIVE.
Faxxer, I'm not sure you realized this, but you just showed that a conservative newspaper was trying to give access to Obama by lobbyists paying 250k. You really didn't know this?
This is beyond the shadow of a doubt, the FUNNIEST post you've ever posted here, and I thank you for this excellent laugh.
ROFL, Faxxer PWNED Faxxer!
So let me get this straight.
You think that the Washington Post newspaper is a "liberal" newspaper?
If you had said the New York Times I'd agree. But everyone who knows anything about newspapers realizes the Washington post is quite CONSERVATIVE.
Faxxer, I'm not sure you realized this, but you just showed that a conservative newspaper was trying to give access to Obama by lobbyists paying 250k. You really didn't know this?
This is beyond the shadow of a doubt, the FUNNIEST post you've ever posted here, and I thank you for this excellent laugh.
the washington post is closer to center, but still left of center...edit clarification of thought
funny tho you admin NYT is liberal ...you won't when it serves your purpose.
and using nyt as the measuring stick is why your view is skewed too
you only say wash post is conservative because they actually put in conservative editorials, while other papers just snub them...that's ALL you got.
Faxxer, no offense but this is YOUR thread. Your title says "The Liberal Media" and says they were caught "again".
This story is about how the Washington Post, a conservative paper was in the tank with lobbyists trying to get them alternative avenues to Obama because he kicked out the lobbyists from having ANY contact with his administration. You saw the words "press", "Obama", "lobbyists" and figured this article was a lock, didn't you? At the start of this post, the Post is "liberal" and now you say they are "center"?
Faxxer, the post is conservative and everyone who's ever read it, followed it and read general wisdom on papers knows it. Sorry, but you cannot spin this properly.
I'm sure you learned one lesson from this at least after facerolling yourself; make sure to READ articles instead of just cutting and pasting. This has nothing to do with the liberal press, and everything to do with the conservative press. This isn't the first time you've done that, just linking stuff for giggles without ever researching it. This has got to be quite embarrassing for you as well as the Washington Post as you put it so well.
Your spin attempt is truly worthy of Fox News, which you brought up in the OP but this is YOUR thread. Your best bet would be to stop responding to this thread, so no one else can see your obvious error here.
And I agree with you on one thing. This IS sickening.. but knee-slapping hilarity!
"TO MICHAEL!"
Faxxer, no offense but this is YOUR thread. Your title says "The Liberal Media" and says they were caught "again".
This story is about how the Washington Post, a conservative paper was in the tank with lobbyists trying to get them alternative avenues to Obama because he kicked out the lobbyists from having ANY contact with his administration. You saw the words "press", "Obama", "lobbyists" and figured this article was a lock, didn't you? At the start of this post, the Post is "liberal" and now you say they are "center"?
Faxxer, the post is conservative and everyone who's ever read it, followed it and read general wisdom on papers knows it. Sorry, but you cannot spin this properly.
I'm sure you learned one lesson from this at least after facerolling yourself; make sure to READ articles instead of just cutting and pasting. This has nothing to do with the liberal press, and everything to do with the conservative press. This isn't the first time you've done that, just linking stuff for giggles without ever researching it. This has got to be quite embarrassing for you as well as the Washington Post as you put it so well.
Your spin attempt is truly worthy of Fox News, which you brought up in the OP but this is YOUR thread. Your best bet would be to stop responding to this thread, so no one else can see your obvious error here.
And I agree with you on one thing. This IS sickening.. but knee-slapping hilarity!
your post has so many assumptions it's more of the joke I assure you..
1. Obama didn't kick out shit, the lobbyists are alive and well...only now they're called "cabinent members" and they sell to the highest bidder. (note: they don't like to pay taxes)
2. you again label the wash post as conservative ..."like fox" ...are you shitting me? This is the paper that endorsed Obama remember? and didn't endorse G.H.W. Bush... you libs like to shout "neocon" at any paper that ly 14doesn't lockstep with your liberal mindset....it's so sad too... the diehard libs actually mock the wash post for daring to publish ANYTHING that is considered right of the nyt. if anything they are democrats trying to be fair, but they're not CONSERVATIVE BY ANY STRETCH.
.
That is precisely the problem. The best investigative journalists work for print media. The press is the Fourth Branch of government in the United States. The only private industry mentioned in the Constitution.
I was reading earlier something online about Palin, and it contained numerous grammatical errors; it was really pathetic.
I stick to my print publications: Wall Street Journal, NY TIMES, Harvard Business Rev., The Wilson Quarterly, among others.
There is no liberal media, no "drive by media" or anything of the sort.
Those categories are very 19th century, IMO.
Today, there is media, an overwhelming amount of it. You can watch CNBC, Fox, CNN, or BBC and Al Jazeera on satelite and cable TV. You can get print from any newspaper, read blogs, vlogs, ipod casts, listen to radio, etc., etc.
If you want the truth, it's very, very simple.
You do a sampling of all of them, CNN, FoX, Huffington Post, Daily Cos, Nazi Revolution Party Blog, Washington POst, NY Times, BBC, Al Jazeera, etc.
Then you see, what do they have in common about a story?
The things that are in a story about a particular topic in ALL of these sources are true. Everything else is opinion.
It's really not that hard to separate opinion from fact.
Fact is what happened. ALL the "liberal media" and "conservative media" will report the exact same thing. There was a Hurricane at 3 pm, a bomb went off in Bagdad at 2 am, MJ died at 50, Mark Sanford was in Argentina, etc., etc.
All facts. WHY this happened, or what it MEANS, is all opinion. But hte FACTS are the same in all media.
I'm sorry for you. I really am. Your thread didn't have the desired punch you thought it would when you posted it because even though the article is correct, your intended target was friendly fired.
Obama's Executive order and rules regarding lobbyists and ethics:
- Forbids government appointees from accepting any gifts from lobbyists
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related to their previous lobbying activity for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related their previous employers interests for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working in any government agency that they have lobbied within the previous 2 years
- Restricts communications with federal employees in their departments after leaving the Obama Administration
- Forbids lobbying after leaving the Obama Administration, except for contact with certain career employees
Your "Washington Post" tried to do a end run around this and got caught by the Politico.
Your post fails here.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I'm sorry for you. I really am. Your thread didn't have the desired punch you thought it would when you posted it because even though the article is correct, your intended target was friendly fired.
Obama's Executive order and rules regarding lobbyists and ethics:
- Forbids government appointees from accepting any gifts from lobbyists
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related to their previous lobbying activity for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related their previous employers interests for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working in any government agency that they have lobbied within the previous 2 years
- Restricts communications with federal employees in their departments after leaving the Obama Administration
- Forbids lobbying after leaving the Obama Administration, except for contact with certain career employees
Your "Washington Post" tried to do a end run around this and got caught by the Politico.
Your post fails here.
You actually quote a presidential executive order to defend yourself? LMAO
and you said my post fails.
Change you can really trust in i guess
I'm sorry for you. I really am. Your thread didn't have the desired punch you thought it would when you posted it because even though the article is correct, your intended target was friendly fired.
Obama's Executive order and rules regarding lobbyists and ethics:
- Forbids government appointees from accepting any gifts from lobbyists
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related to their previous lobbying activity for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working on any matter related their previous employers interests for 2 years
- Forbids government appointees from working in any government agency that they have lobbied within the previous 2 years
- Restricts communications with federal employees in their departments after leaving the Obama Administration
- Forbids lobbying after leaving the Obama Administration, except for contact with certain career employees
Your "Washington Post" tried to do a end run around this and got caught by the Politico.
Your post fails here.
You actually quote a presidential executive order to defend yourself? LMAO
and you said my post fails.
Change you can really trust in i guess
The order that Obama put in FORBIDS what the Washington Post was trying to do.
I don't have to defend this thread. That's your job. You made it.
"TO MICHAEL!"
ROFL, Faxxer PWNED Faxxer!
Ouch, successful PWNED was successful.
Don't be terrorized! You're more likely to die of a car accident, drowning, fire, or murder! More people die every year from prescription drugs than terrorism LOL!
I don't know why everyone is laughing at Faxxer's statement that the Washington Post is a liberal newspaper. It is! The Washington Times is DC's right of center newspaper. I think some people are so far left that they don't consider liberal periodicals to be liberal.
No news is un-biased.
We just assume people have the common sense to understand that.
Sadly that appears to be a problem in the United States?
Your gona have bias'ed media, There is no avoiding it, just take a critical view and stop bitching about something that has always been that way, and will always be that way.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
So let me get this straight.
You think that the Washington Post newspaper is a "liberal" newspaper?
If you had said the New York Times I'd agree. But everyone who knows anything about newspapers realizes the Washington post is quite CONSERVATIVE.
Faxxer, I'm not sure you realized this, but you just showed that a conservative newspaper was trying to give access to Obama by lobbyists paying 250k. You really didn't know this?
This is beyond the shadow of a doubt, the FUNNIEST post you've ever posted here, and I thank you for this excellent laugh.
the washington post is closer to center, but still left of center...edit clarification of thought
funny tho you admin NYT is liberal ...you won't when it serves your purpose.
and using nyt as the measuring stick is why your view is skewed too
you only say wash post is conservative because they actually put in conservative editorials, while other papers just snub them...that's ALL you got.
As someone who has worked in the newspaper industry, I'm rather confident in saying that you couldn't be more wrong.
{ Mod Edit }
As someone who has worked in the newspaper industry, I'm rather confident in saying that you couldn't be more wrong.
{ Mod Edit }
The fact that you admit that you worked in the newspaper industry tells me right there that you're coming from a biased point of view, skewing your position. It's like this guy I know who worked for a newpaper in Louisville, Ky telling me once that while most of the general public views the average media outlet as being liberal, most people in the newspaper business don't think it's liberal enough.
Well hello! Try putting 2 and 2 together. If you and most of your collegues in the business are more liberal than the general population, of course your going to think that newspapers could stand to be even more left than they are.
There's a well known quote by New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael. Some say it's just an urban legend. It may be, I don't know for sure. But after Richard Nixon won the 1972 presidential election in a landslide, she was believed to have expressed shock and said, "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon." Well that's probably because she had insulated herself in such a liberal bubble that she thought the entire country was just like her. She never got out in the real world and discovered that there are in fact conservatives and moderates out there as well.
As someone who has worked in the newspaper industry, I'm rather confident in saying that you couldn't be more wrong.
{ Mod Edit }
The fact that you admit that you worked in the newspaper industry tells me right there that you're coming from a biased point of view, skewing your position. It's like this guy I know who worked for a newpaper in Louisville, Ky telling me once that while most of the general public views the average media outlet as being liberal, most people in the newspaper business don't think it's liberal enough.
Well hello! Try putting 2 and 2 together. If you and most of your collegues in the business are more liberal than the general population, of course your going to think that newspapers could stand to be even more left than they are.
There's a well known quote by New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael. Some say it's just an urban legend. It may be, I don't know for sure. But after Richard Nixon won the 1972 presidential election in a landslide, she was believed to have expressed shock and said, "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon." Well that's probably because she had insulated herself in such a liberal bubble that she thought the entire country was just like her. She never got out in the real world and discovered that there are in fact conservatives and moderates out there as well.
Why do you conservatives insist that every single person who works in the newspaper business is some flaming liberal? It's completely false. But go ahead -- convince yourself that the media is 100 percent librul and out to getcha.
As someone who has worked in the newspaper industry, I'm rather confident in saying that you couldn't be more wrong.
{ Mod Edit }
The fact that you admit that you worked in the newspaper industry tells me right there that you're coming from a biased point of view, skewing your position. It's like this guy I know who worked for a newpaper in Louisville, Ky telling me once that while most of the general public views the average media outlet as being liberal, most people in the newspaper business don't think it's liberal enough.
Well hello! Try putting 2 and 2 together. If you and most of your collegues in the business are more liberal than the general population, of course your going to think that newspapers could stand to be even more left than they are.
There's a well known quote by New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael. Some say it's just an urban legend. It may be, I don't know for sure. But after Richard Nixon won the 1972 presidential election in a landslide, she was believed to have expressed shock and said, "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon." Well that's probably because she had insulated herself in such a liberal bubble that she thought the entire country was just like her. She never got out in the real world and discovered that there are in fact conservatives and moderates out there as well.
Why do you conservatives insist that every single person who works in the newspaper business is some flaming liberal? It's completely false. But go ahead -- convince yourself that the media is 100 percent librul and out to getcha.
I never said it is 100% liberal. I'd say more like about 80%.
Slappy, i've worked in the media business too.
TV for an ABC affiliate...
and let me tell YOU... I know what i'm talking about.
EVERY PRODUCER was following the liberal agenda blindly and with purpose at the same damn time.
don't you pull that " I know about media" line.... I been there too bud.
Faxxer, I'm actually Rupert Murdoch. I own television stations.
The liberal media isn't really liberal. I just made that up so I could sell a bill of goods to people who fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Faxxer, I'm actually Rupert Murdoch. I own television stations.
The liberal media isn't really liberal. I just made that up so I could sell a bill of goods to people who fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
It would be funny if it wasn't so true.
Pop i've watched you make post after post of complete blind and absolute faith in the liberal agenda. You're either completely aware of this agenda or you are completely perfectly stringed like the puppet they want you to be.
Well, you will be happy to know, that the liberal paper, The New York Times, agrees with you that the Washington Post disgraced itself as you stated in your thread here, lol.
A Publisher Stumbles Publicly at The Post
Excerpt:
Hmm. Maybe you're a closet liberal after all and don't realize it. You agree with the NYT against the Washington Post. Conservative paper- 0, Liberal paper- 1.
"TO MICHAEL!"