Crossing the unpresidential line: Media excoriates Clinton for banning a reporter from NH campaign

[Liffy]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Why should I care about how Hilary Clinton treats reporters?

You should. Why don't you care? You don't want someone like that running our country do you? Or do you not care anything about transparency?

Why should I care? What do you mean by "someone like that"? What do you mean by "transparency"?

Define your terms.

 

[Liffy]

Why should I care about how Hilary Clinton treats reporters?

You should. Why don't you care? You don't want someone like that running our country do you? Or do you not care anything about transparency?

Why should I care? What do you mean by "someone like that"? What do you mean by "transparency"?

Define your terms.

Just stop.

 

[francoHFW]

I think we have to repeat this...

The Daily Mail is a horrendous rag with next to no journalistic integrity.

These guys supported NAZI before WW2, literally
View attachment 42602

It generally involves itself in a Kardashian with about half a dozen stories on them a day. Clinton team was right, they don't sell in US and they annoy the real journalists... Better to have a blogger out of his bedroom than them. Saying that it could be just a mix up. Who cares?

Supporting Hitler before WWII? The Daily Mail? Only?

That's bullshit that they were the only ones. What?

And if we want to tear into every media outlet over the years supporting bad guys well hell's bells let's chat about the New York Times supporting Stalin and lying about the starvation of 8 million Ukrainians?

BS. And the paper is the NYT in comparison with the scurrilous online version.

The New York Times hid the Holodomor from their readers. This is a fact.

Stalin was starving the Ukrainians to death. This is a fact. And Walter Duranty with his Pulitzer Prize winning lies covered up for Stalin's forced famine.

This is a fact. I don't think the Daily Mail has ever committed such a heinous crime.

Absolutely ridiculous. The USSR hid it duh, fooled many journalists etc etc. We had no diplomatic relations until 1934- that's when communism separated from socialism in definition, when the truth was discovered about Stalinism.

 

[g5000]

The slimy bitch hand pricks her audience, why not the reporters?

How do you know it wasn't the Secret Service who banned him as a security risk?

 

[J.E.D]

Yep. Hillary is now picking and choosing whom can cover her campaign. She banned Daily Mail and designated print pool reporter David Martosko from covering her campaign because he dared criticize her campaign's lack of transparency. And for that, every media giant in the US descended on her campaign like a pack of angry wolves. The 14 organizations that made up Clinton’s traveling pool sent out a statement today:

“We would like to see all campaign events open to the public and the full press corps, but when that is not possible we have agreed to pool coverage. We haven't yet had a clear explanation about why the pool reporter for today's events was denied access. But any attempt by the campaign to dictate who is in the pool is unacceptable. The pool is open to any print organization willing to take part."

Now, a print pool works something like this: rather than send fifty reporters from fifty news outlets to a given event, press organizations typically set up “pools” of reporters who take turns attending events and filing pool reports of what happened. Essentially it is a chosen rotation of reporters as decided on by the press.

Such blatant disregard for freedom of the press is...not surprising coming from Hillary Clinton. Just imagine what will happen if she wins the White House. Freedom of the press is a core premise set forth by the 1st Amendment. It is not up to Hillary and her minions to dictate whom and what covers her campaign.

The Clinton campaign denied access to the designated print pool reporter in New Hampshire this morning.

David Martosko of DailyMail.com was told by Hillary for New Hampshire staffer Meredith Thatcher that he was not approved for Monday's pooled events.

When Martosko asked Thatcher to phone her boss, Harrell Kirstein, he was again told that he had not been approved by the campaign.

Martosko pressed further and asked Thatcher if he was being prohibited from getting on either of the pool vans, to which she replied; 'I'm afraid that's right.'

When he asked why, she responded; 'All I know is what Harrell has told me. I got an email saying the print pooler would be changed for today. Sorry.'

Hillary Clinton campaign denies access to Daily Mail s political editor Daily Mail Online

Anyone who would vote for this woman would also vote for Adolph Hitler.

You. Are. An. Idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What do you mean by "someone like that"?

By "someone like that" I mean Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don't know who else I would be referring to.

What do you mean by "transparency"?

What I mean by "transparency" is not banning people you disagree with from press coverage. By "transparency" I mean being open and forthright, not secretive and deceptive.

Why should I care?

By "why" I am suggesting that such behavior should bother you.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you mean by "someone like that"?

By "someone like that" I mean Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don't know who else I would be referring to.

What do you mean by "transparency"?

What I mean by "transparency" is not banning people you disagree with from press coverage. By "transparency" I mean being open and forthright, not secretive and deceptive.

Why should I care?

By "why" I am suggesting that such behavior should bother you.

Transparency:

Noun.

1. Whatever Obama does - not that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

What do you mean by "someone like that"?

By "someone like that" I mean Hillary Rodham Clinton. I don't know who else I would be referring to.

Then you should have said "Hillary Clinton", as opposed to making it vague.

What do you mean by "transparency"?

What I mean by "transparency" is not banning people you disagree with from press coverage. By "transparency" I mean being open and forthright, not secretive and deceptive.

"Transparency" is a buzzword that doesn't really mean anything.

No politician on the face of the earth is "open and forthright" - and if any appear to be, that's all the more reason to not trust them.

Why should I care?

By "why" I am suggesting that such behavior should bother you.

I realize what you are suggesting. I'm asking why.

Why should such behavior bother me?

 

[bripat9643]

I think we have to repeat this...

The Daily Mail is a horrendous rag with next to no journalistic integrity.

These guys supported NAZI before WW2, literally
View attachment 42602

It generally involves itself in a Kardashian with about half a dozen stories on them a day. Clinton team was right, they don't sell in US and they annoy the real journalists... Better to have a blogger out of his bedroom than them. Saying that it could be just a mix up. Who cares?

Supporting Hitler before WWII? The Daily Mail? Only?

That's bullshit that they were the only ones. What?

And if we want to tear into every media outlet over the years supporting bad guys well hell's bells let's chat about the New York Times supporting Stalin and lying about the starvation of 8 million Ukrainians?

BS. And the paper is the NYT in comparison with the scurrilous online version.

The New York Times hid the Holodomor from their readers. This is a fact.

Stalin was starving the Ukrainians to death. This is a fact. And Walter Duranty with his Pulitzer Prize winning lies covered up for Stalin's forced famine.

This is a fact. I don't think the Daily Mail has ever committed such a heinous crime.

Absolutely ridiculous. The USSR hid it duh, fooled many journalists etc etc. We had no diplomatic relations until 1934- that's when communism separated from socialism in definition, when the truth was discovered about Stalinism.

Why should diplomatic relations be required for Walter Duranty and the New York Times to tell the truth?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Then you should have said "Hillary Clinton", as opposed to making it vague.

Why go after my grammar? That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say,it's quite counterproductive. I know you well enough to know that you know full well whom I was referring to. You're smarter than that, Doc. No offense.

No politician on the face of the earth is "open and forthright" - and if any appear to be, that's all the more reason to not trust them.

So, you are saying that real transparency is not worth fighting for then? Noted.

Why should such behavior bother me?

Let me put this another way, then.

Does it bother you when someone lies to you, to your face? Don't you think that lying and deception are negative qualities in a person?

If you care about those things, you should care about what people such as Hillary do when running to lead our country.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then you should have said "Hillary Clinton", as opposed to making it vague.

Why go after my grammar? That has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say,it's quite counterproductive. I know you well enough to know that you know full well whom I was referring to. You're smarter than that, Doc. No offense.

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me? It doesn't make you look any smarter - particularly because nothing I said had to do with "grammar".

My point was to keep the conversation in reality, rather than idealism. From the rest of this post, I can see that it didn't work.

No politician on the face of the earth is "open and forthright" - and if any appear to be, that's all the more reason to not trust them.

So, you are saying that real transparency is not worth fighting for then? Noted.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Why should such behavior bother me?

Does it bother you when someone lies to you, to your face?

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts. We're talking about reality.

 

[Liffy]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

 

[Liffy]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

You still never responded to my pm

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

You still never responded to my pm

We don't discuss those on the open forums.

 

[Liffy]

I have a lawn to mow, I'll be back later.

Don't come back!

Shut the fuck up.

Heyyyyy

You still never responded to my pm

We don't discuss those on the open forums.

We're not... Now ducking reply!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

This is why I don't deal in generalities.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

If you don't mean "offense", then why bother insulting me?

Because I remember you saying similar things in long past discussions, Doc. I remember you labeling me as "obtuse" or other similar terms. Perks of an eidetic memory. This was a tu quoque moment.

"Real" transparency doesn't exist, and if it did, the world would cease to function.

Well, there's a slippery slope argument if I ever saw one.

Does it bother you when a bird shits on your head?

Damn it, Doc, answer the question! :O

Stop trying to change the subject to vague concepts.

It's not vague my good man, those are realities

We're talking about reality.

So, you're saying that there isn't real transparency, it isn't worth fighting for, and fighting for it is a fantasy. Is that what I'm getting?

My question about birdshit is as relevant to Hillary's treatment of her press corps as yours was.

Everyone lies. Sometimes lying is the best option in a given circumstance.

Say what?