I feel like such a dummy

[Horse with no Name]

But it just dawned on me that * set up the media lockout as one of his "first official" acts on reelection.
Remember when he told media that they couldn't ask multifaceted questions, etc and laid out ground rules for the media?
My guess is that the media was also told at the same time something along the lines that they wouldn't be "allowed" at press conferences, etc. if they reported unflattering press against the weedwhacker.
He knew this day was coming and he effectively blocked it out.
My guess is that ONLY when there is enough evidence to overturn the election without a doubt...will this thing break in MSM.
They are just afraid of losing their settings at the Presidential table. Cowards.

[dmac]

1. I don't doubt that there is a lock out but

I do not believe all reporters would buckle under the circumstances you outline. There has to be more to this than that. There are a few really good journalist that would absolutely jump all over those kind that kind of dictate.

[Not_Giving_Up]

2. Well, given the rate of suicidal good journalists these days...

nuff said

[Brundle_Fly]

3. Shrubie cant shut up the reporters...

but the corporate money behind media sure can.

[Demit]

4. it didn't have to be laid out to them in so many words...

they've been getting pressure from the WH all along, so now they self-censor. Remember Ari Fleischer "People have to watch what they say, watch what they do"? Scott McClellan saying to a reporter "Your comment has been noted in the building"? Remember the flak a FOREIGN journalist got for not being nice to * in Ireland? Remember Helen Thomas?

You toe the line or you lose access. Nothing new.

[KansDem]

6. Access to what? I've always been perplexed by this statement...

I know this has been the mantra for reporters since BushCo stole the White House in 2000, but I've always wondered at the gravity of such a statement.

Access to what? The "White House" briefings? Isn't this where BushCo disseminates its propaganda? Its lies?

I've always wondered: "Why not just say, 'F*ck you, BushCo...We'll write our own news based on what we perceive, not what you 'tell us'...?

I just don't think 'access' to Bush lies is all that valuable...

[Demit]

8. Well, the heads of corporate media do--think access is valuable, I mean.

And that filters down to the editors and the reporters. It's not just WH briefings. It's sources talking on background, and prized direct quotes from WH muckity mucks, and tantalizing leaks that lead to stories. The press is competitive with one another, and still vies for breaking stories first. If their reporters are persona non grata, if they're shut out, the papers have nothing original to write. Not that I'm sympathetic to their current plight, those roundheels, but that's the traditional fine line they walk.

[bunny planet]

11. Exactly, he doesn't give them access to anything but secrecy, lies, and

misinformation.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Catherine Vincent]

7. Ha, and so are you.:)

[Vidar]

9. It's not the reporters who are cowards. It's the owners who are on the

take. Televised media is worthless at this point for that reason. Some newspapers (eg. the Crawford Iconoclast) are still independent and courageous. Our best hope, however, is probably foreign media, no so easily intimidated by the Shrub.

[4democracy]

10. The major media outlets are all owned by a handful of companies

Time/Warner,Viacom, and others like them

[Vidar]

12. Exactly my point.