Ahh, NewsBusters. You make Fox News look like the ACLU Newsletter.

Jeff Gannon. That's all that needs to be said.

Remember when News Busters wasn't a joke?

Nah, me either...

And yet he's still getting hard questions from the press (as well he should).shiat, he's getting hard questions from HuffPo, while that moron from WaPo asked him what he thought about the goddamn A-Rod thing.

Bloody William: And yet he's still getting hard questions from the press (as well he should).shiat, he's getting hard questions from HuffPo, while that moron from WaPo asked him what he thought about the goddamn A-Rod thing.

As if Obama's answer was going to be completely surprising.

"I say they should all be juicing up!"

WAHHHHHH! WAHHHHHHHH!! WAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHHHHHHH!!

Diogenes: Bloody William: And yet he's still getting hard questions from the press (as well he should).shiat, he's getting hard questions from HuffPo, while that moron from WaPo asked him what he thought about the goddamn A-Rod thing.

As if Obama's answer was going to be completely surprising.

"I say they should all be juicing up!"

That would have been hilarious...

He should have just made a disgusted face, looked around the room, and said, "Does anybody have a serious question?".

Diogenes: Jeff Gannon. That's all that needs to be said.

qft

keylock71: Diogenes: Bloody William: And yet he's still getting hard questions from the press (as well he should).shiat, he's getting hard questions from HuffPo, while that moron from WaPo asked him what he thought about the goddamn A-Rod thing.

As if Obama's answer was going to be completely surprising.

"I say they should all be juicing up!"

That would have been hilarious...

He should have just made a disgusted face, looked around the room, and said, "Does anybody have a serious question?".

Jesus, I wanted him to do that so much. I wanted him to just look incredulously at the guy and say, "Are you shiatting me? Are you shiatting me?"

Diogenes: Jeff Gannon. That's all that needs to be said.

but... but... Bush!

I also wondered if this same "free press" would have meekly allowed president Bush get away with treating the press in such a way? Or would they have raised a hue and cry that would have deafened the world?

I do believe that's exactly what they did, and buried the very idea that it was being done.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: Jeff Gannon. That's all that needs to be said.

but... but... Bush!

Sorry, dude. The Gannon thing goes way beyond false equivalence. And it goes way beyond preselection of the reporters. That was planting a guy who was moonlighting as a "reporter" (uncredentialed) from his day job as a male prostitute and was given slanted softball questions to ask.

And don't even get me started on Armstrong Williams.

You have no footing on this one.

hubiestubert: I also wondered if this same "free press" would have meekly allowed president Bush get away with treating the press in such a way? Or would they have raised a hue and cry that would have deafened the world?

I do believe that's exactly what they did, and buried the very idea that it was being done.

Pretty much. I mean, farking seriously, have these people been in a coma these last 8 years?

I don't like the idea of a pre-made press list, but this isn't nearly as big a deal as they're trying to make it. There's only so much time in a press conference, he can't answer everyone's question, it logistically makes sense (and puts him in control of the conference without resorting to the childish nickname bullshiat of Bush) to know exactly who he's calling on, when, and what outlet they're from.

Bloody William: I don't like the idea of a pre-made press list, but this isn't nearly as big a deal as they're trying to make it.

The going tactic is not to attack the practice, but to attack whether or not it's "change."

Guess what folks? Some things are just the norm, and they're not wrong nor are they hurting anyone.

Diogenes: Jeff Gannon. That's all that needs to be said.

I resisted the temptation to even mention that particular portion of the show. Gannon of all people raising the "hue and cry" is particularly ironic. As in pot, kettle, shaking hands, and then having fabulous gay sex in military regalia while working for the American Family Association and getting comped suites on the Westboro Baptist Church's card.

Diogenes: You have no footing on this one

Footing for what? I'm just saying that "but... but... Bush" is not a valid argument for what your guy is doing, just like "but... but... Clinton" wasn't a valid argument for Bush backers to excuse their guy.

FTFA:

"We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors."

Writing like that of a precocious English grad. I love vocabulary and the English language, but that's just obnoxious writing.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: You have no footing on this one

Footing for what? I'm just saying that "but... but... Bush" is not a valid argument for what your guy is doing, just like "but... but... Clinton" wasn't a valid argument for Bush backers to excuse their guy.

What part of "false equivalence" do you not get?

Complicit: FTFA:

"We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors."

Writing like that of a precocious English grad. I love vocabulary and the English language, but that's just obnoxious writing.

Seriously. Don't be afraid to use big words, but don't wave them around like your dick. Just using "parsimonious" in that sentence would be enough, but dropping in an "interlocutor?" That's crossing the line from "wide vocabulary" to "pretentious twat."

To be fair, Gannon has since shut down his site and has been awfully quiet as of late...

Transparency we can believe in. Or not.

Diogenes: What part of "false equivalence" do you not get?

I understand the concept, I don't think it applies in this case. Do elaborate if you disagree.

KaponoFor3: I understand the concept, I don't think it applies in this case. Do elaborate if you disagree.

If you can't see the difference between having a non-journalist plant with preselected questions, and having a designated group of journalists to call on for one press conference, you're beyond my help.

Plant - content management.
Preselected pool per conference - time management.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: What part of "false equivalence" do you not get?

I understand the concept, I don't think it applies in this case. Do elaborate if you disagree.

Wow. You completely missed the point.

Diogenes: Jeff Gannon.

Well, that makes it OK!

Dancin_In_Anson: Diogenes: Jeff Gannon.

Well, that makes it OK!

Please see above.

So, has he only been picking the same people over and over? Or, has he only picked people who are known to agree with him?

That's the only way that I can see this being a problem.

Diogenes: If you can't see the difference between having a non-journalist plant with preselected questions, and having a designated group of journalists to call on for one press conference, you're beyond my help.

It's really the same thing -- controlling the pool and attempting to avoid tough questions. I watched Obama's entire press conference, and saw at least three examples where he didn't answer the question he was asked. He answered the question he WANTED to be asked. Big difference.

Diogenes: Please see above.

Yes we get it. This is a completely different situation from Gannon. Why did you even bring his name up?

OK. You guys win. Obama's a beast and I regret voting for him. He snowed us all.

But seriously, I don't have time to deal with you guys. I have a severity 1 ticket that just got escalated. Anyone else who wants to carry on the good fight, go at it.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: If you can't see the difference between having a non-journalist plant with preselected questions, and having a designated group of journalists to call on for one press conference, you're beyond my help.

It's really the same thing -- controlling the pool and attempting to avoid tough questions.

In all fairness, unless you know exactly what the non-selected reporters were going to ask, you can't say that with any certainty...

Bloody William: I don't like the idea of a pre-made press list, but this isn't nearly as big a deal as they're trying to make it. There's only so much time in a press conference, he can't answer everyone's question, it logistically makes sense (and puts him in control of the conference without resorting to the childish nickname bullshiat of Bush) to know exactly who he's calling on, when, and what outlet they're from.

I was listening to Chuck Todd on Tuesday and he explained that Obama is using a rotating list of reporters for the most part. He knows there are some news outlets he must call on (Fox & NBC) but the rest deserve floor time, too. He also said that those reporters that would probably get called on were told only 5 minutes before the conference started.

The only direction they were given regarding their questions was to make sure it would be a question of interest to the nation. I guess the idiot from WaPo didn't understand what that meant.

Diogenes: Obama's a beast and I regret voting for him. He snowed us all.

No one is saying that.

The only point I have is that pointing at the guy who came before him, and saying "hey he did it too / he did it worse" in no way justifies or excuses what Obama is doing. The same standard rightfully applied to Bush and "but but Clinton" arguments.

I noticed this and pointed it out during the discussion thread

/obama voter

Diogenes: OK. You guys win. Obama's a beast and I regret voting for him. He snowed us all.

But seriously, I don't have time to deal with you guys. I have a severity 1 ticket that just got escalated. Anyone else who wants to carry on the good fight, go at it.

you're much better off with that than dealing with the "independents". Hell, you'd be better off if your house was on fire than talking to either of them.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: You have no footing on this one

Footing for what? I'm just saying that "but... but... Bush" is not a valid argument for what your guy is doing, just like "but... but... Clinton" wasn't a valid argument for Bush backers to excuse their guy.

KaponoFor3, are you saying that Bush never used a predetermined list? I certainly hope not, because then you'd be contradicting Ari Fleischer. Transcript of a press briefing from March 2003 :

MR. FLEISCHER: We've got to keep moving now. Lester.

Q (referring to Bush's press conference the night before)Last night, after the fifth time has looked down at an apparent list of reporters, he smiled and he said, this is scripted.

MR. FLEISCHER: Are you going to complain he didn't call on you?

Q No, no, no. No, no. Which surely suggests that he did not write that script which gave two questions to one network, two questions to one wire service, and one to other vague and wealthy media -- but left all the rest, including Helen Thomas, ruled out in advance of any chance to ask, and left to serve only as window dressing.

And my question is, since you are always fair, Ari, in recognizing all of us, who was it that wrote that script that the President confessed to? Was it Karl Rove or Karen or who?

MR. FLEISCHER: It was me who gave the President a suggestion on the reporters to call.

Emphasis mine.

So here's the difference--Obama's sort of using a rotating list for both fairness and time management. Bush had Fleischer hand-pick which reporters he should call on, admitting to purposely avoiding Helen Thomas. Obama had some pretty tough questions Monday night. I don't recall Bush EVER getting lobbed anything but softballs.

of, and "independents"... try reading the F*cking headline if you f*cking can't remember who first f*cking mentioned Bush in this one.

brigid_fitch: KaponoFor3, are you saying that Bush never used a predetermined list?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying whatever Bush did is not an excuse or justification for what Obama does.

That's it, that's all. Not defending Bush's practices in one bit.

KaponoFor3: Diogenes: You have no footing on this one

Footing for what? I'm just saying that "but... but... Bush" is not a valid argument for what your guy is doing, just like "but... but... Clinton" wasn't a valid argument for Bush backers to excuse their guy.

1) Hard questions are being asked, and they are being answered.
2) If you didn't ask this question when Bush was in power, then why are you asking it now?

I guess I'm not "independent" enough to see that the headline clearly isn't even the slightest attempt to make a direct comparison between Bush and Obama. Gosh, I sure wish I could be brilliant and open minded and so much better than everyone else that my shiat doesn't stink.

KaponoFor3: The only point I have is that pointing at the guy who came before him, and saying "hey he did it too / he did it worse" in no way justifies or excuses what Obama is doing.

What exactly is wrong with what Obama did on Monday night? Let's ignore Bush's press conferences for a moment and focus just on Obama's one example we have to work with right now.

He obviously had a list in front of him of pre-determined reporters. However, it was a fairly diverse list--Fox, WaPo, HuffPo, NBC, Helen Thomas of Hearst (whom I need to add, was literally ignored for almost 8 years straight), and Reuters, just to name a few. Why is the fact that he had a list so terrible? I'll take that rather than previous administrations who had reporters jumping from their seats screaming, "Mr. President"!

It was the caliber of questions which surprised me. Like I said, Bush always seemed to have fairly easy questions that made me wonder if they weren't submitted to him beforehand. That was most obviously not the case on Monday night--with the exception of WaPo, he had some really tough questions.

Example: You never heard a reporter ask Bush if he was going to have Rove arrested for contempt of court by ignoring a subpoena, did you?

KaponoFor3: The only point I have is that pointing at the guy who came before him, and saying "hey he did it too / he did it worse" in no way justifies or excuses what Obama is doing. The same standard rightfully applied to Bush and "but but Clinton" arguments.

No one is doing that. We're saying "he's doing it better!" which is a perfectly good way to judge the quality of a president.

Has it gotten worse or better? Well.. for starters he hasn't started placing plants in the press pool. And he takes questions from every news agency on a rotating basis, also good.

So far, like every politician since the dawn of time, he answers he wanted to hear instead of the one asked of him. This is shocking to you? Do you think we deify him to such an extent that we don't notice this?

Jesus.

brigid_fitch: So here's the difference--Obama's sort of using a rotating list for both fairness and time management. Bush had Fleischer hand-pick which reporters he should call on, admitting to purposely avoiding Helen Thomas.

To be fair, I'd avoid Helen Thomas, too.

KaponoFor3: brigid_fitch: KaponoFor3, are you saying that Bush never used a predetermined list?

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying whatever Bush did is not an excuse or justification for what Obama does.

That's it, that's all. Not defending Bush's practices in one bit.

Fair enough--you aren't. However, the WSJ article certainly is and they're dead wrong. FTFA:

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.

absoluteparanoia: Has it gotten worse or better? Well.. for starters he hasn't started placing plants in the press pool. And he takes questions from every news agency on a rotating basis, also good.

But apparently a subjective opinion that Obama's questions weren't hard enough is exactly the same as the proven fact that completely absurd ringers were in place before.

oops, there I go again making a comparison which clearly wasn't the point of the headline...

Sometimes I worry that people like Jeff Gannon are actually serious when they come up with BS like this.

If you're agreeing with Gannon's article is "tactics, not true position," rock on! Otherwise, you need to seek professional help, because you're obviously delusional.

brigid_fitch: He obviously had a list in front of him of pre-determined reporters. However, it was a fairly diverse list--Fox, WaPo, HuffPo, NBC, Helen Thomas of Hearst (whom I need to add, was literally ignored for almost 8 years straight), and Reuters, just to name a few. Why is the fact that he had a list so terrible? I'll take that rather than previous administrations who had reporters jumping from their seats screaming, "Mr. President"!

It was the caliber of questions which surprised me. Like I said, Bush always seemed to have fairly easy questions that made me wonder if they weren't submitted to him beforehand. That was most obviously not the case on Monday night--with the exception of WaPo, he had some really tough questions.

Example: You never heard a reporter ask Bush if he was going to have Rove arrested for contempt of court by ignoring a subpoena, did you?

This won't work. He's being intentionally obtuse so that he can posit an impossible argument for you.

"Explain how Obama the debbil, without comparing him to any previous administration. GO."

It's intellectually dishonest, whether he's aware of it or not.

TFA: Compared to president Bush......

The Fark Headline: Remember how Bush.....

The Fark Independant^tm: "b-b-b-but Bush!? Who is talking about Bush?! Nobody is talking about Bush! Why can't you prop up your messiah without putting down Bush? Can't be done!? Haw Haw!"

We see what you did there.

What was really funny was when the questions got out of order, and the answers Rahm had written for him on the teleprompter were also out of order. LOL LMAO

Bill_Wick's_Friend: TFA: Compared to president Bush......

The Fark Headline: Remember how Bush.....

The Fark Independanttm: "b-b-b-but Bush!? Who is talking about Bush?! Nobody is talking about Bush! Why can't you prop up your messiah without putting down Bush? Can't be done!? Haw Haw!"

We see what you did there.

Thank you. This what I've been trying to say. What's funny is that if you read the headline correctly (as written) it implies that Obama has actually brought change. Considering that the list in front of him has no relation to journalists he likes or dislikes.