Happy Face
-
Posts
39427 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Everything posted by Happy Face
-
I mocked this emotionally retarded power whore yesterday for that exact sentence. Colbert mocked the media to their faces at the correspondents dinner back in 2006 because this is exactly what most of them regard as their role... They like to believe it's not so, but making the claim that you will be an adversarial journalist as you ANONYMOUSLY cry about the SECRET meeting you just had with the president is an irony beyond the pale.
-
No. I'm saying given the evidence of history (banging the drum for Iraq and WMDs, hiding evidence of warrantless eavesdroipping for a year until Bush was re-elected, colluding with the Clinton campaign to spread lies about Sanders and get questions ahead of debates, re-branding torture to "enhanced interrogation" without having to look up any more) we should be vigilant about secret meetings between the president elect and the corporate media that did all of those things. It's incredible to me that given the history of mainstream media collusion with leaders that anyone would not have any cynicism about a secret meeting with every major broadcaster where they all agreed to the secrecy and broke it not for any noble reason like any of the above, but because he was nasty to them.
-
Wikileaks and The Intercept. Neither of which court or get granted any access whatsoever but have the stated aim of holding those in power (whatever side they are on) to account. It's not "going to war". it's serving the governed, not the governers.
-
No, David Remnick in the New Yorker spoke to attendees as well http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trump-personally-blasts-the-press Others may have justified their agreeing to go off the record as it was only a meeting about access. But "access journalism" in itself is a derogatory term and they should be ashamed of engaging in it to such a degree. Obviously there can be a balance struck between access and adversarial journalism. ludicrous to imagine that any of these TV stars are looking to follow the example of Michael Hastings and hammer the people that give them access though.
-
They won't ignore his failings. They'll spout unverified, anonymous government claims as truth without presenting any evidence whatsoever. As they have done for years.
-
The story that quotes sources says "The television people thought that they were being summoned to ask questions" You've disregarded that and said that's what the NYT were going for, giving them a justification to demand on the record responses thatt the broadcasters didn't have. If you don't believe the publicly reported reason they say they were going, then we can only guess at what other reason they could have agreed to go.
-
Aye, they were expecting canapes with the bloke whose arse they are going to gladly lick for 4 years. That's why they're so shocked that he didn't come in wanting to wipe the slate keen and start working with them on filtering what the public should be allowed to know.
-
He grasps the concept of off the record. Actual journalists use it to protect a source that is revealing something of public interest. As we already knew that a few dozen broadcasters were meeting the president and were photographed during the visit, that wasn't the purpose for being off the record. Is there anything else that justifies accepting a 100% off the record demand from el presidente? Why have the NYT received such praise for refusing to accept that condition ahead of their interview with Trump which they transcripted word for word... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/23/us/politics/trump-new-york-times-interview-transcript.html
-
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/22/media-stars-agree-to-off-the-record-meeting-with-trump-break-agreement-whine-about-mistreatment/ Reiterates many of the points I made about the broadcasters meeting Trump and why it's pitiful.
-
The corporate affair at sjp we had to buy tickets for got canned due to lack of interest. I've not bothered with the team day out on black eye Friday for a couple of years. Don't think I will as long as it's on black eye Friday either.
-
Disclaimer I stand in solidarity with cock munchers and metal lovers who are rightly offended by the bigotry of Chez using their predilections as a slur in the thread title I lifted from his post. I might not share your hobbies, but respect your right to take part in them. As long as you aren't metal loving AND cock munching at once, that could cause irrevocable banjo string damage. -
We've seen it happen before, to idiots, movie stars and daddy's made men in the past. Reagan and Bush were no more serious minded than Trump. They may have had stronger handlers than Trump though. There's a small chance that if Trump were to appoint outsiders in all the key roles then the establishment might turn, but it doesn't look at all like that will happen. As someone posted in the election thread, all his appointments have decades long records in Washington.
-
Reporting on Trump will be as sycophantic as it has been to Bush and Obama. Drawing a line under what has gone before is just a way of making the transition to becoming Trump USG propaganda wings. Why would any journalist looking at Trump want to disregard that he brags about sexual assault and remains unapologetic? For the same reason they did for Berlusconi. He spent the best part of 15 year in power.
-
Exactly the same as Obama who promised officials who engaged in torture would not be above the law and that he would protect whistleblowers. Trump supporters will only be as disappointed as Obama's, who as far as I can tell think he's been the best President of their lifetime.
-
Anyone got that 2006 Colbert White House Correspondents dinner clip for them. This isn't an unreasonable expectation from Trump. This has been the tacitly agreed approach with consecutive presidents.
-
The only TV anchor I remember getting this animated about IRAQ was Olberman and he got ousted. Now these delicate flowers are going to change the standard of their coverage not because they should hold leaders to account as journalists, but because he was nasty to them personally. Getting over it in a couple of days, and I assume returning to 'benefit f the doubt', is the icing on the cake. Regardless of their feelings towards him, they will only strongly criticise him anonymously, for fear of losing their access/job.
-
Wolf Blitzer went to talk to Donald Trump and thought they were going to agree the logisitics of access, rather than that being decided by others who then put them in a room to discuss actual politics? i don't see it. Given the drum beat for war that the major broadcasters coordinated with the Bush regime, the mountains of evidence of collusion between the Clinton campaign and her media puppets (which we were told should not surprise us and was hardly wotrth leaking) why does anyone think they're at all interested in antagonising the president?
-
Noteworthy that the written press seem to have some basic journalistic standards we seem happy to forgive of the major broadcasters who went along for their telling off.
-
He should provide a link to the booking page when he does his adverts.
-
Aye, was it Mussolini that got the trains running on time?
-
Back off? They're already on the leash. The notion of actual journalists doing as they're told and trooping along to the king's mansion for a telling off is preposterous. Would Jeremy Scahill or Jon Pilger? Would Assange (if he could) or Chris Hedges? These TV personalities who traipsed along with their employers are no more than court jesters looking for political access to present alongside adverts for lifestyle products they want to sell to their demographic, whether it be "liberal" MSNBC, "centrist" CNN, "conservative" NBC or "Redneck" Fox.
-
I don't read any of those. i just paste the links from the people in my echo chamber twitter timeline.
-
Why would anybody support any of their enslavers?
-
http://www.toontastic.net/board/topic/15604-fao-papa-lazaru/#entry377019
-
It's a callback. Search it, canny funny thread.