What if you were giving an award but weren't allowed to attend?

[jimpeel]

It seems that the press is giving Obama an award but he has excluded all press from the event. That figures.

SOURCE

Obama White House bars press from press award ceremony

We are not making this up:

Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.

This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.

From the president's official schedule:

"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."

Maybe they'll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.

-- Andrew Malcolm

 

[Cerise]

Hang on just one minute. He’s getting an award from the press, but the press isn't allowed to come to the ceremony?

Teleprompter must have the weekend off.

 

[jimpeel]

Hang on just one minute. He’s getting an award from the press, but the press isn't allowed to come to the ceremony?

Teleprompter must have the weekend off.

Affirmative

10-4

Over and out

 

[spike]

Hey look, Jim posted a blog.

 

[Inkara1]

So I guess that makes the point completely invalid then. The fact it's posted representing a large, major metropolitan newspaper doesn't matter, I guess.

 

[2minkey]

nah, but the fact that the original post is just one more sensationalist reference to imaginary obama oppression certainly does make it fairly worthless.

 

[spike]

So I guess that makes the point completely invalid then. The fact it's posted representing a large, major metropolitan newspaper doesn't matter, I guess.

No, blogs don't represent the opinions of the newspaper.

 

[Inkara1]

If it's an latimes.com blog, then the Los Angeles Times is responsible for what goes up on it. It's simply not the same as if the writer of that entry bought his own domain and posted his own opinion on his own blog. If a writer on an latimes.com blog posts something libelous, the Los Angeles Times could be named in a lawsuit.

Please familiarize yourself with media law before you try to debate the subject with someone who actually had to study it as part of his university degree.

 

[Gonz]

nah, but the fact that the original post is just one more sensationalist reference to imaginary obama oppression certainly does make it fairly worthless.

Keep laughing white boy

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies as part of a sweeping plan to overhaul financial regulation, government officials said.

NY Times

 

[spike]

If it's an latimes.com blog, then the Los Angeles Times is responsible for what goes up on it. It's simply not the same as if the writer of that entry bought his own domain and posted his own opinion on his own blog. If a writer on an latimes.com blog posts something libelous, the Los Angeles Times could be named in a lawsuit.

I think you missed the point that blogs or opinion pieces on the LA Times website do not represent the opinion of the newspaper. It's simply the opinion of the author.

Nobody was talking about libel.

 

[Inkara1]

I think you missed the point that blogs or opinion pieces on the LA Times website do not represent the opinion of the newspaper. It's simply the opinion of the author.

Nobody was talking about libel.

Content on newspaper Web sites is approved by an editor. That is because if it's inaccurate, or libelous, there can be problems for the paper that owns the site down the road. As such, there's a level of fact-checking required. The piece might "represent the opinion of the author," but it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect. As such, the LA Times is ultimately responsible for what is posted on the latimes.com blog.

Even though you, as the official OTC Obama yes-man, are obviously not going to agree with the author's position, are you really going to argue that it's not true that the event is "closed press"?

 

[spike]

The piece might "represent the opinion of the author,"

Exactly, even if that opinion is completely opposite of the official opinion of the newspaper.

are you really going to argue that it's not true that the event is "closed press"?

I didn't argue that now did I? I would suggest though that an opinion blog is not the way to start off that discussion as they are often misleading.

For example in this case:

Actually, not as outrageous as it seems: I am advised by the White House that exclusive access was granted to the NPPA, a 67-year-old federation of more than 200 black community newspapers, on terms similar to the access granted regularly to lots of media organizations for exclusive interviews. The organization or its members are expected to make a record of the event.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/19/outrageous-friday-irony/

So now we have two blogs from major media publications that portray it quite differently. How about that Inkara. Amazing.

I would also suggest that your attempted trolling and insults are not helping your case.

 

[Inkara1]

Exactly, even if that opinion is completely opposite of the official opinion of the newspaper.

Funny how you ignored the rest of the sentence when it didn't fit your position. The paper is still responsible for the content on the blog, just like it's responsible for what shows up on the printed page.

I didn't argue that now did I?

I asked if you would. I did not say you did.

I would suggest though that an opinion blog is not the way to start off that discussion as they are often misleading.

For example in this case:



http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/19/outrageous-friday-irony/

So now we have two blogs from major media publications that portray it quite differently. How about that Inkara. Amazing.

It's a good thing you provided a link to the blog, so I could go read it myself instead of reading your Bill O'Reilly-like spin. When that blog was posted, the author took the same position as the latimes.com author. Then, after the "UPDATE" there is more information posted that became available later. Even so, is a "newsmaker of the year" presentation really a good time to limit coverage to black community newspapers only?

I would also suggest that your attempted trolling and insults are not helping your case.

YOU are accusing someone else of trolling and being insulting? Why the hypocrisy, spike?

 

[spike]

Funny how you ignored the rest of the sentence when it didn't fit your position. The paper is still responsible for the content on the blog, just like it's responsible for what shows up on the printed page.

I ignored the rest because i never argued against the rest. I simply pointed out that the opinion in a blog does not represent the newspapers opinion. Which it doesn't.

It's a good thing you provided a link to the blog, so I could go read it myself instead of reading your Bill O'Reilly-like spin.

I didn't spin it. I pointed out that the information portrays the issue differently.

Then, after the "UPDATE" there is more information posted that became available later.

Yes, it turns out the initial faux outrage was a bunch of nonsense.

Even so, is a "newsmaker of the year" presentation really a good time to limit coverage to black community newspapers only?

Historically the White House will often give exclusives. It's a non issue.

YOU are accusing someone else of trolling and being insulting? Why the hypocrisy, spike?

There is no hypocrisy. You were trolling and insulting, I was not. You're doing it the other thread too. Maybe you're just a little cranky today.

 

[Cerise]

Even so, is a "newsmaker of the year" presentation really a good time to limit coverage to black community newspapers only?

Update:

The National Newspaper Association, despite its innocuous name, is actually an association of far-left publications that includes “Final Call” — the paper published by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam: NNPA - Article - member papers.

And that explains why Obama doesn’t want the mainstream press at this award ceremony.

 

[spike]

More opinion pieces. Great.

littlegreenfootballs.com

 

[Inkara1]

There is no hypocrisy. You were trolling and insulting, I was not. You're doing it the other thread too. Maybe you're just a little cranky today.

There's PLENTY of hypocrisy. You're constantly trolling and insulting. I'm talking about your entire body of work here, although you've certainly taken a very patronizing tone in this thread too. Further, you're always accusing people of blindly following Bush when you've been a yes-man for Obama for months now, acting as though he can do no wrong. Those two facts would actually make you arguably the biggest hypocrite among OTC members.

So why the hypocrisy?

 

[Inkara1]

More opinion pieces. Great.

Because obviously the facts used in said opinion pieces as backup become invalid once used in an opinion piece.

It doesn't seem like it would be that hard to read the "opinion piece" and get your own differing opinion from it, instead of requiring a clean slate to be able to form your own opinion without reading someone else's opinion. I know I'm fully capable of reading an opinion piece, deciding the author is full of crap, and coming up with my own opinion based on what the author wrote within said opinion piece.

 

[spike]

There's PLENTY of hypocrisy. You're constantly trolling and insulting.

Actually no, I hardly ever resort to insults unless someone else starts it. You on the other hand have no excuse here.

Further, you're always accusing people of blindly following Bush when you've been a yes-man for Obama for months now, acting as though he can do no wrong. Those two facts would actually make you arguably the biggest hypocrite among OTC members.

I'm not blindly following anyone or acting like he can do no wrong. I'm simply pointing out the dubious nature of the article. (which it turns out was pretty misleading huh?)

This makes you arguably the biggest liar among OTC members and shows a desperation to make this personal because your argument in this thread didn't turn out so well. It's a diversion that I'm not falling for. Just man up and admit you were wrong.

 

[spike]

Because obviously the facts used in said opinion pieces as backup become invalid once used in an opinion piece.

it's pretty difficult to try and use an opinion piece from Little Gree Footballs as proof of something.

I know I'm fully capable of reading an opinion piece, deciding the author is full of crap

That's what I just did.

Hey look what happens when someone posts a piece the cons don't agree with.

We try to avoid opinion sites & use standard media for information...things that can be verified by more than one source.

As for your sources, perhaps you could find some with less vitriol? So far, they're all I hate Bush sites.

If the site is suspect, then all that site posts is suspect. Call it guilt by association.

I'm not sure why they don't pass this info along to Peel and Cerise. Any ideas?