happydreams
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-21-06 02:59 PM
Original message |
Fighting back against government intrusion into the privacy of the media. |
|
With all the horror stories coming out about the Press being phone tapped, monitored etc. its time to take the fight to them.
I saw Kindasleezy today on Meet the Press and her responses to Russert's questions were just too damn quick and specious. In one question she completely ignored the litany of lies this administration feed the US public and jumped on one sentence at the end of list that said some gibberish about Iraq becoming a democracy. Even before Russert got a question out she was ready with facts and figures that were rattled off rapid fire. Is this what the phone taps are being used for as well as monitoring the "leaking" of uncomfortable truths about our little fascist dictator?
I say kick the government officials asses off the shows and interviews using the argument that the host cannot interview people under the auspices of spontaneity and fair play when those questions, in all likelihood, are being given to the government interviewee before they are interviewed. In the interest of fair play and equal protection the NGO's and other private sector interviewees should also be given a "rehearsal" of the questions.
In addition the NGO's and private individuals counterpointing should demand the same privilege of rehearsing questions and/or ask the official seated next to him/her whether these questions were rehearsed or known previous to the show, interview etc. This question should become standard operating procedure:
"What questions/topics were you aware of and when?"
At least the Press should notify its readership, audience, etc. that these questions may have, and probably were, known by the interviewee beforehand.
Fight the bastards!!!
|
acmejack
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-21-06 03:31 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I am still pissed off about Timmy's tone with Condi |
|
As contrasted with his belligerent attitude taken with Leader Pelosi. He was soft spoken and polite to Condi, as opposed to in your face, sharp spoken and adversarial with Ms. Pelosi. Pure BS!
|
Mojorabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-21-06 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
2. I have no idea how to combat this |
|
Who do I call? How to go about it? I am hoping the press takes the lead. I have written a million emails and letters, made a gazillion phone calls in the past five years. It is like talking to a wall. I don't know what else to do.
|
happydreams
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-21-06 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. My thinking is that, hopefully, |
|
the Media will get pissed at being spied on and want to fight back. By depriving Officialdom of the opportunity to air their views, while allowing Officialdom's opposition (NGO's, citizens, etc.)to air theirs, they will be taking a stand, albeit indirectly, against the violation of their civil rights as well as throwing a wrench in the governments propoganda campaign.
After all the information the government is "stealing" is the property of the media. I believe the Bushies are using their ill gotten gains to get a leg up in their propoganda war by rehearsing the questions, topics, etc. of upcoming events.
A letter to the media org might read:
"Are you going to take this government intrusion into your org laying down? Americans are not happy with the Bush adminstrations handling of affairs and violating their and your privacy and would almost certainly be in favor of the media standing up to these propogandists by demanding that interviewees from officialdom sign a statement that they where not aware of what would be discussed on an upcoming event, interview etc. If the interviewee refuses to sign the request then they will not be granted an interview. The oppositions interview will be the only one heard.
The media can make its unbiased events a selling point: IN addition it would be a good policy to inform the audience (viewers, readership) why someone was denied an interview. ie: "They refused to meet our minimal conditions. We want the you audience to recieve a fair and balanced account and we cannot guarantee this if government officials have access to our communications, (questions, etc.) while those making counterpoints do not.
|
savemefromdumbya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun May-21-06 04:25 PM
Response to Original message |
3. If they are phone tapping journalists then they mustknow who leaked Plame? |
|
or is this just a recent thing?
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:39 AM
Response to Original message |