Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

U.S. State Department bars NPR reporter from Pompeo's upcoming trip after testy interview

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you don't care about the free press?

he hasn't banned the entire press corps....stop the histrionics.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stevenl said:

True, he is only banning those who are asking the tough questions. 

Exactly. That's what dictators do in dictatorships. I guess she wasn't Foxy enough. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are scores of people...ranging from CEOs to politicians who will not speak to certain reporters

who breach a certain understanding....no one say anything about them.

But since this is a way to attack trump, lets all go!

Please....who's NPR...I didn't even know who they were or why I should care.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Big difference between ceo's of private companies and your elected representatives, who have to show the electorate their actions are right and justified. Barring representatives of the press impedes this democratic process.

I think we'll survive without NPR....they're not the only rude reporters around.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Saint Nick said:

Oooooh, the Dems, the libs...they are such snowflakes, they are triggered so easily and...what was that?

:coffee1:

It's a nonpartisan reality, everybody's a snowflake now! Congratulations, great work everybody, keep up the progress. 😆👍

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can they even have the right to do that? There need to be regulations put in place obviously. You don't get to pick and choose your reporters so that only the ones who ask easy questions are around you.

 

This is how the government operates. If you questions a war or a politician, you are an apologist (even when the war turns out to be based on a hoax). Expose them and they ruin your life as in wikileaks. It is obviously intimidation tactics, tow the line or pay the price. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Jingthing said:

What was what? 

 

Anyway the moment there aren't a significant number of Americans that see a red flag when any administration of any party speaks explicitly and acts obnoxiously like this secretary of state that the press is the enemy of the people then we can say goodbye to American democracy and hello to American dictatorship. 

IMO the media is the "enemy of the people". They didn't use to be, but that was when they did actual reporting of facts instead of writing opinions that are presented as factual.

If reporters are getting verbally attacked they can only, IMO, blame themselves.

Unfortunately, IMO media today is biased and present propaganda to an ill informed public.

I saw that incident when the reporter ( I use the term reporter reluctantly ) tried to have a "gottcha" moment. Shameful.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, stevenl said:

Big difference between ceo's of private companies and your elected representatives, who have to show the electorate their actions are right and justified. Barring representatives of the press impedes this democratic process.

What they don't have to do is put up with rude people. So long as there are reporters, the public is being informed.

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO the media is the "enemy of the people". They didn't use to be, but that was when they did actual reporting of facts instead of writing opinions that are presented as factual.

If reporters are getting verbally attacked they can only, IMO, blame themselves.

Unfortunately, IMO media today is biased and present propaganda to an ill informed public.

I saw that incident when the reporter ( I use the term reporter reluctantly ) tried to have a "gottcha" moment. Shameful.

I completely agree with you, but...

 

Let's use the Iraq war as an example. If there was a reporter asking tough questions about the "facts" that supported the war, the president and his team should not have the ability to put an end to those questions. In fact, I would say that is what actually happened! There weren't many tough questions being asked before the Iraq war. 

 

So I agree the press is horrible, and I would say they generally work for big business who in turn runs the politicians through contributions. But you can't then make it worse by letting the presidential team filter out who they want. That makes an already unbearably bad situation worse... when there is finally a tough question, and someone actually does their job, they have a way to avoid it. 

Edited by sucit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sucit said:

I completely agree with you, but...

 

Let's use the Iraq war as an example. If there was a reporter asking tough questions about the "facts" that supported the war, the president and his team should not have the ability to put an end to those questions. In fact, I would say that is what actually happened! There weren't many tough questions being asked before the Iraq war. 

 

So I agree the press is horrible, and I would say they generally work for big business who in turn runs the politicians through contributions. But you can't then make it worse by letting the presidential team filter out who they want. That makes an already unbearably bad situation worse... when there is finally a tough question, and someone actually does their job, they have a way to avoid it. 

I consider almost everything to come out of any politician's mouth to be less than true, so I don't care if they have a managed press conference. I don't even bother looking at them on tv unless I can't be bothered changing the channel. If they aren't actually lying they are probably diverting attention from something else.

The only time I bother with politicians is for the entertainment factor, hence I'd be in favour of Warren to debate Trump ( and no, I don't believe much Trump says either, but he is entertaining ).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...