My prediction was right about the groundswell of protest when I dared criticize mavericky conservatiive icon Sarah Palin this morning.
Along with those who think the media is evil, and think that it actually took courage for Sarah Palin to go on Oprah (oh, that took courage) I had one persistent commenter who had to point out every time Al Gore made a speech and did not allow the media to cover it.
And there was another one who thought that a news blog shouldn't indulge in opinion.
In the first place, I quite clearly note that this blog is news and commentary. My readers are normally intelligent enough to know one from the other.
As for Al Gore, I will be happy to write about him banning the media...the first time he does so in southwest Missouri. While I have written about a few national stories, and the blog features news and commentary about Missouri state politics, the primary focus of this blog is southwest Missouri.
And the record clearly indicates I have written about such an occasion when a national leader barred the media from a speaking appearance. The following comes from the Sept. 12, 2007, Turner Report:
As I have noted in two earlier posts, former Attorney General John Ashcroft is speaking tonight at Missouri State University and the gutless wonder who formerly served as our state's governor, has it in his contract that no videocameras or recording devices can be used.
He has graciously deigned to allow the university to make an official recording, which as Professor Andrew Cline points out on his Rhetorica website, doesn't help the hard working folks in Springfield's broadcast media much, or for that matter, any print reporters who would like to back up their notes with the recorded version of the speech:
Restricting and avoiding the press are popular tactics of message control. What we too often forget is that any tactic that restricts the press also restricts citizens who may wish to gather information for themselves.
So Ashcroft will speak tonight on the MSU campus, but the press may not use electronics to capture the speech. The (incredibly silly and condescending) reason given: He and the promoters don't want a "media circus" to mar the event.
(BTW, how will this restriction be enforced? The N-L story says part of the money raised for this event pays for security. Are we talking campus police? On duty? Off duty? City police? State police? Local goons? What?)
I claim this restriction has nothing to do with any circus and a lot to do with the need for plausible deniability as part of effective message control. Want to avoid a circus? Don't take questions from the press. And Ashcroft says he won't. I have no problem with that. But why deny print reporters the use of digital recorders? What is it about this small, hand-held device that would cause a media circus?
Perhaps Ashcroft is attempting to avoid any of the YouTube type problems so many politicians are faced with these days. After all, at this point he has been plagued with several, including the many appearances of the Singing Senators since one of Ashcroft's fellow performers, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, had his bathroom incident in Minneapolis.
Quite frankly, the type of "wide stance" taken by Ashcroft during his MSU visit has the capacity to do more damage to our open way of government than anything Senator Craig did and the hypocrisy is just as great.
11 comments:
Open Government? They don't even read the legeslation they try to rip us off with. Randy you must be smoaking hash hesh and drinking Ripple, remember them?
Come to think of it, Team Obama is treating "the media" with serious contempt (and I'm not talking about their more recent feud with Fox News).
Randy, your day in the sun may be over....
Wow, a rant from Sept. 12, 2007, how topical Randy. However, I’m confused as to what the Craig situation has to do with not letting reporters cover a speaking engagement. Of course, I suppose I can understand how stories with a homosexual angle may be of special interest to you.
to anonymous 4:13
pretty tacky! you need to have another keystone light and chill out.
it amazes me how nasty you right winged can get so quickly. so sensitive!
And, as usual, it is the cowards who would not dare say something to somebody's face who rip into people under the cloak of anonymity. And it also seems that the only time I am "ranting" is when I say something they don't like. Nevertheless, they keep coming back for more.
Caleb,
She has the right. I don't think anyone denies that. However, if she is gearing up for a run for 2012, she has a responsibility and obligation as a potential public servant to be questioned by the press.
Of course, she has a right to ignore her responsibilities and obligations, which is what she is presently doing.
Right, it is us right wing folks that take the tacky cheap shots. I guess you missed the fact that it was Randy who brought up the “wide stance” sexual innuendo for no reason other then to take a tacky cheap shot. I figure that folks that want to take a debate to that level right off the bat shouldn’t have a problem with the opposition responding in kind.
However, the thing with Randy is he is big on calling people names but then freaks out when people shoot back (and it’s the funny freak-outs that keeps me coming back).
See the thing is that she has never said she is running for President in 2012 and as of right now she is no longer holding political office. Who cares if she allows the media in to listen to her talk about her book. I would guarantee she will never run for President but she cannot make that known right now because it would hurt her book sales and she is trying to make a living. She has to leave the public wondering in order to stay in the limelight and promote her book. Of course someone with such low character as Turner knows that but chooses only to use bits of information to attack others and make what he thinks is a point.
Well, like I said: if she don't run, who cares. But when she does run (and if you think she won't, I have a bridge to sell you ), we can have this conversation again at a later time.
We can only hope she doesn't run in 2012. She's all smoke and no fire. All blow and no go. All talk and no brains. She's just out to make money now anyway she can. She thinks she's pretty hot stuff but hot stuff doesn't make a president.
Randy: Sarah Palin and John Ashcroft are not "national leaders." Neither of them holds an elective or appointed office anymore.
Both of them more or less disgust me but I think people have a right to talk to the people they want to and to DENY the news media access to them if that is their desire.
I think the same is true for famous liberals who are going about their business. The media's all-pervasiveness is just a little bit TOO much for me.
Carrie Prejean is right: It's really none of the media's business. I'm for a woman's right to choose but why was she booted from her role as a beauty queen simply for expressing her opinion?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't, evidently.
Post a Comment