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

[Inkara1]

This one is true. You started the insults, I didn't. You were being childish.

PRetty much everything you say in the RW forum is insulting. I'd wonder if you even know how to not be insulting. Sort of like trying to tell me you know more about the legal side of my job than I do. That could be construed as insulting. Even so, I think what I posted was pretty tame, and if your skin is so thin that you feel insulted by it, then that's not my problem.

I don't recall commenting on any of those items. You are merely trying to make this personal to divert from the fact that you are wrong in this thread.

Well, there's the slight problem that I'm not wrong.

They are still biased opinion pieces and are often misleading and distort facts. As in the OP.

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



So you're saying two different major publications posted opinion blogs with suspect facts. That makes you wrong twice just on this one incident.


"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"

Thanks for proving yourself wrong twice over.

"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"


Holy crap more suspect facts? I thought you said that could never happen?



You're wrong now. You even helped prove it yourself. So why wait to man up?

You may want to look up the definition of the word "suspect" since you seem to be tripping up on that. That, or you need to quit with the revisionist history. So do you not know what "suspect" means, or do you not realize that at the time those two blogs posted those entries, the facts were not suspect, given that they came from an official press release direct from the Obama administration? After all, why would the Obama administration have a reason to lie about whether an event is closed to the press or now?

All this, and yet I'm sure you're going to continue to lie by claiming that I'm wrong here.

 

[spike]

PRetty much everything you say in the RW forum is insulting. I'd wonder if you even know how to not be insulting.

Damn and you couldn't come up with anythng specific. Just one time where I've insulted you first maybe? No?

Fact is you're trying a diversion from the fact that you acted childish for no reason.

the facts were not suspect, given that they came from an official press release direct from the Obama administration?

Sorry to break it to you but closed press very often doesn't mean that no press are there. There is even such a thing as a closed press interview. You'd think people in the media like these bloggers would have known that. You'd think the LA Times and Time would know that.

So for anyone in the media to make the leap that the people that were presenting the award weren't allowed to attend was an unwarranted assumption and something they should verify. This is otherwise know as printing "suspect facts" which is something that you claimed couldn't happen in a major publications opinion blogs.

This makes you wrong.

 

[jimpeel]

It seems that Obama is being highly selective of which news outlets he lets ask him questions.

SOURCE

No Questions: Obama Skips Major Papers at News Conference
President takes questions from 13 reporters, including a French news agency, but skips America's top newspapers, including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and USA Today.

AP

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama is bringing change to the East Room news conference.

During a 55-minute session with reporters at the White House on Tuesday night, Obama fielded questions from 13 reporters. It was the second prime-time formal news conference of his presidency, and coincidentally the first also lasted almost exactly an hour and involved 13 questioners.

What has created a bit of buzz both times was who was on the list -- and who wasn't. News organizations who got questions Tuesday included The Associated Press and all five major television outlets, plus Politico, the Spanish-language network Univision, the military's Stars and Stripes newspaper, Agence France-Presse, Ebony magazine, ABC Radio and The Washington Times, the only major newspaper on the list.

"The president covered a range of topics, including his commitment to addressing the economic crisis, by calling on a wide range of outlets -- including some that rarely, if ever, are given the opportunity to pose a question at a presidential news conference," said Josh Earnest, a White House deputy press secretary.

At Obama's last news conference in February, the president's list received some attention for including a reporter from the Huffington Post Web site.

 

[paul_valaru]

It seems that Obama is being highly selective of which news outlets he lets ask him questions.

SOURCE

again, knocking obama for things you defended bush on.

Bush also selectively chose who he would take questions from, even to the point of having plants in the press room.

Not saying either of them is right mind you.

 

[Inkara1]

Sorry to break it to you but closed press very often doesn't mean that no press are there. There is even such a thing as a closed press interview. You'd think people in the media like these bloggers would have known that. You'd think the LA Times and Time would know that.

So for anyone in the media to make the leap that the people that were presenting the award weren't allowed to attend was an unwarranted assumption and something they should verify. This is otherwise know as printing "suspect facts" which is something that you claimed couldn't happen in a major publications opinion blogs.

This makes you wrong.

The editors there had no reason to suspect the facts were wrong. You only claim they're suspect because something changed later. I pointed out that what is known can change for all sorts of stories, which would make earlier stories wrong. There's a difference between suspect facts and wrong facts.

I also never claimed that printing "suspect facts" couldn't happen in a major publication's blog. I guess it's only OK to make shit up and act like it's true if you do it. I only claimed that blogs owned by major publications are the responsibility of those major publications and are subject to a certain level of fact-checking, just like what would show up in the print edition. That puts them a cut above some random guy's blog that does not have an editorial staff.

 

[spike]

The editors there had no reason to suspect the facts were wrong. You only claim they're suspect because something changed later.

The facts used in the article and Jim's title of the thread were always made up and very suspect. They were never given any info that the people presenting the award were not allowed to attend. It was simply "closed press" which basically means invite only.

"it wouldn't be allowed to be posted if the facts used in the article to back up the author's opinion are suspect"

That statement is wrong. The facts used were suspect and it was allowed to be printed. Typical of biased blogs and opinion pieces.

 

[2minkey]

OMG a blog!!!!!

 

[Cerise]

It was simply "closed press" which basically means invite only.

Why were the far-left publications, self-described as "the black press of America," which were presenting the "Newsmaker of the Year" award the only ones invited?

Surely the flashbulbs were popping. A week later and there has been no "post-presentation" release of their coverage of The One accepting the honor?

It would appear that someone wants something kept from public consumption.

 

[MrBishop]

Why were the far-left publications, self-described as "the black press of America," which were presenting the "Newsmaker of the Year" award the only ones invited?

Surely the flashbulbs were popping. A week later and there has been no "post-presentation" release of their coverage of The One accepting the honor?

It would appear that someone wants something kept from public consumption.

Looks like the writer of the linked article had to do a retraction, eh

(UPDATE: The White House notes that while other press were barred from the publishers' event, the association's publishers themselves were admitted and the event treated as an exclusive interview and it expects the association to keep a record of what transpired during it.)
-- Andrew Malcolm

 

[Cerise]

Will ".... a record of what transpired" be offered to the public? I'd like to see who was laughing it up with who.

 

[MrBishop]

If the association feels like sharing that information, then so be it. If they don't find it newsworthy

Don't make the assumption that everything even remotely newsworthy makes it onto the airwaves...it's never been the case, and it's unlikely to change now.

 

[MrBishop]

To paraphrase the line from the movie "The naked city"

"There are a million stories in the naked city" - and only 1 hour in the nightly newscast.

 

[spike]

There has just got to be some drama to be found in this award.