Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Woodward wasn't threatened.
Topic Started: Mar 2 2013, 12:06 AM (516 Views)
Thumper
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Emails!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/bob-woodward-emails-white-house-threat_n_2781052.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Thumper
Mar 2 2013, 12:06 AM
Saw Woodward on Morning Joe this morning. He said he didn't use the word threatened. That was a word the Washington Post came up with in reporting the story and he didn't feel threatened.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Journalistically chastised for political purposes is probably a better word.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 12:28 AM
Journalistically chastised for political purposes is probably a better word.
Do you know what Sperling was referring to when he said that, Ban? Or, are you just making up something that suits your dogma?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
I assume that any call from the WH to a news media suggesting that what was written or may possibly be written is "not appreciated" and demonstrated by "raising his voice" was an attempt to "control" what is written that may shed an unattractive view of how the WH is handling things. The call came first and the manner of the call prompted a second thought "appology."

Freedom of the press hasn't been written off the amendment to the Constitution as of yet.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pat
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
And let's hope it never is. I give Bob Woodward lots of credit for keeping us informed of the back door crap that goes on. Dick Nixon was stopped in his criminal tracks by Woodward and his partner. You can disagree with the guy but generally he is on to something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 12:41 AM
I assume that any call from the WH to a news media suggesting that what was written or may possibly be written is "not appreciated" and demonstrated by "raising his voice" was an attempt to "control" what is written that may shed an unattractive view of how the WH is handling things. The call came first and the manner of the call prompted a second thought "appology."

Freedom of the press hasn't been written off the amendment to the Constitution as of yet.
From your reply, I assume you think that someone can say something that the white house disagrees with and they should just shut up about it. I disagree, reporters are not beyond making mistakes, and if they do they should be called on it. I have no idea what the true story behind this is and I doubt that you or Pat do either, but if it casts a shadow on Obama you are ready to accept it true or not.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
colo_crawdad
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Hannity's interview of Woodward

One, If "regret" is a threat, then Hannity threatens the White House in the introduction.

Two, Hannity tried desperately to get Woodward to claim that the President lied or the White House lied and Woodward refuses to do so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Banandangees
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:15 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 12:41 AM
I assume that any call from the WH to a news media suggesting that what was written or may possibly be written is "not appreciated" and demonstrated by "raising his voice" was an attempt to "control" what is written that may shed an unattractive view of how the WH is handling things. The call came first and the manner of the call prompted a second thought "appology."

Freedom of the press hasn't been written off the amendment to the Constitution as of yet.
From your reply, I assume you think that someone can say something that the white house disagrees with and they should just shut up about it. I disagree, reporters are not beyond making mistakes, and if they do they should be called on it. I have no idea what the true story behind this is and I doubt that you or Pat do either, but if it casts a shadow on Obama you are ready to accept it true or not.
No, but maybe the whole country would be better off if the WH paid more attention to how to solve problems instead of paying attention to the news media. The news media is the news media... that's what they do, and 1st amendment gives them that right.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mountainrivers
Member Avatar
Fire & Ice Senior Diplomat
[ * ]
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 01:32 AM
Mountainrivers
Mar 2 2013, 01:15 AM
Banandangees
Mar 2 2013, 12:41 AM
I assume that any call from the WH to a news media suggesting that what was written or may possibly be written is "not appreciated" and demonstrated by "raising his voice" was an attempt to "control" what is written that may shed an unattractive view of how the WH is handling things. The call came first and the manner of the call prompted a second thought "appology."

Freedom of the press hasn't been written off the amendment to the Constitution as of yet.
From your reply, I assume you think that someone can say something that the white house disagrees with and they should just shut up about it. I disagree, reporters are not beyond making mistakes, and if they do they should be called on it. I have no idea what the true story behind this is and I doubt that you or Pat do either, but if it casts a shadow on Obama you are ready to accept it true or not.
No, but maybe the whole country would be better off if the WH paid more attention to how to solve problems instead of paying attention to the news media. The news media is the news media... that's what they do, and 1st amendment gives them that right.
The first amendment doesn't give anybody the right to say things unchallenged. The reason politicians pay attention to the media is because that's where most of us get our information. If the information is wrong, there is no obligation for the media to retract it, so the only recourse politicians have is to deny the story and demand it be corrected.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Fire And Ice General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Website Traffic Analysis