Reporters cheer Kerry,but snicker for Bush

In a column, John Temple, editor of the Rocky Mountain News in Denver was "inspired" by the meeting but said the partisanship, evidenced by the "cheering and whistling" during Kerry's speech, was "something I had never experienced in a crowd of journalists."

Do you remember Geraldine Ferraro's "press conference" where she was finally forced by her hubby's mob connections to take some questions about him?

Of course the press only asked the softest of softball questions. And even then she didn't answer them. (He never did release his tax returns which would have proven once and for all how mobbed up he was.)

But at the end of the "press conference" they gave her a standing ovation.

That's the media's idea of objectivity.

We live in a country that has given away its freedom of the press with both hands. It is a one party press. And it's been that way for years now. In fact, all the institutions are run by the Democrat party.

That's what they call diversity.

When I was a kid growing up, my local paper (the now defunct Pittsburgh Press) had a drawing of a beacon on its editorial page with the maxim, "Shine light and the people will find their own way."

I may be mistaken, but I believe the now-defunct Cleveland Press also had that image in the upper left-hand corner next to the title. It might have been related to the Scripps-Howard news service.

"something I had never experienced in a crowd of journalists."
And something they should not experience in a crowd of journalists either.

Maybe journalists are schooled differently in the US, but I would never, when working, show my personal belief in public. Maintaining impartiality is the cornerstone of a profession, of which I am still proud to be part.

Impartiality used to be the cornerstone of the media here, but something happened in the 1960's and the media has not been the same in the US since. They used to hide their preference, but it is apparent that they don't even do that any more. How can anyone believe anything these poeple write, knowing that they have such strong biases?

Thankfully, we have the internet.

The internet is our only fact checker. We can't count on the media. Rush Limbaugh is compared to Michael Moore, yet Rush's facts are cross checked on a daily basis by hundreds of news organizations, with every minor discrepency trumpeted. How about Moore? Any big hooplah about all his misstatements? The internet will be the saviour of truth in fact distribution. The word "news" has nothing to do with facts any more.

Did you not read some of these jounalists lamenting that this organization was WRONG in the way they reacted? Those are the people that the President went to talk with, and the ones whose hearts and minds were touched by the President's words.

There is a shift happening in America. The dynamic is changing, and new alliances are forming for survival. This is evidence of a new beginning. Baby steps first...

LLS

Some reporters at a recent convention of minority journalists said they were stunned and embarrassed by the partisanship displayed at two separate speeches, with cheers for Sen. John Kerry and snickers for his opponent, President Bush.

They were? I wouldn't be! It hasn't exactly been a secret for quite some time.

Funny how at a Kerry rally, they are citizens, but when it came to wearing a flag on their lapels, or acting like they cared who won the war, they were serious journalists who couldn't show sides!!!!

I havent had time to read this yet but its the transcript. From what ive skimmed it seems some of the laughter was in response to the Presidents jokes anyway. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040806-1.html

apparently the sniggering was in response to the bolded part of the below quote:

Q Good morning. My name is Mark Trahant. I'm the editorial page editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a member of the Native American Journalist Association. (Applause.) Most school kids learn about the government in the context of city, county, state and federal. And, of course, tribal governments are not part of that at all. Mr. President, you've been a governor and a President, so you have a unique experience, looking at it from two directions. What do you think tribal sovereignty means in the 21st century, and how do we resolve conflicts between tribes and the federal and the state governments?

THE PRESIDENT: Tribal sovereignty means that, it's sovereign. You're a -- you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And, therefore, the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities.

Now, the federal government has got a responsibility on matters like education and security to help, and health care. And it's a solemn duty. And from this perspective, we must continue to uphold that duty. I think that one of the most promising areas of all is to help with economic development. And that means helping people understand what it means to start a business. That's why the Small Business Administration has increased loans. It means, obviously, encouraging capital flows. But none of that will happen unless the education systems flourish and are strong, and that's why I told you we've spent $1.1 billion in the reconstruction of Native American schools. (Applause.)

he was obviously stalling a bit while he tried to remember what he needed to say there. i bet some of you would have a giggle as well hearing that, i know ive done so when hes stumbled over his words in a funny way before...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.