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

[theDoctorisIn]

In other words, you think you can determine someone's inner thoughts by their "pattern of behavior", as interpreted by your own mind?

I have the distinct impression you are attempting to split hairs with me. Actions speak louder than words. I do as a hunter does. You track the footprints, and the habits and tendencies of your prey.

.

I'm trying to point out that your subjective opinions as to other people's intent do not necessarily reflect reality.

Reality is a lot more complicated than your black-and-white ideas of "evil intent".

This is all beside the point, anyway. We were talking about Hillary Clinton's press corps.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That seems pretty subjective to me

Far from it. You think there is no way to determine evil intent, so in my mind, that position is subjective as well. If there was no way to determine evil intent, our court system would cease to exist, laws would be meaningless without being able to address the nature of evil intent.

 

[TemplarKormac]

This is all beside the point, anyway. We were talking about Hillary Clinton's press corps.

Shall we? (leads the way)

 

[tinydancer]

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.

Duranty was right there in Moscow. He was the NYT's Moscow correspondent.

"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."

--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933

"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."

--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6

"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18

"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."

--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13"

Pulitzer-Winning Lies The Weekly Standard

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's interesting that nothing in your post offers any substantive evidence that the above was the reason he was barred.

 

[jknowgood]

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.

Actually he loves it, Gruber described him perfectly.

 

[HenryBHough]

Hillary has it figured.

She knows that if she can't control the media she definitely can't control America.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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 at her New Hampshire campaign 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 pool of press reporters.

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

This is a very interesting perspective.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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 at her New Hampshire campaign 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 pool of press reporters.

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

This is a very interesting perspective.

You will have to elaborate further...