Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: West Coast Conservative

What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????


7 posted on 11/04/2004 9:36:35 AM PST by NeonKnight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: NeonKnight; neverdem

What?

You surprised they DIDN'T just "sit on this stuff" till after the election?

/sarcasm


22 posted on 11/04/2004 9:39:02 AM PST by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Kerry's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight

You're surprised?


40 posted on 11/04/2004 9:43:42 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight
What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????

Simply put...yes.

60 posted on 11/04/2004 9:47:11 AM PST by Osage Orange (Dems...those unaccountable looking, gargoyle-like scarecrows looking to party, and raid the pantry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight
What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????

Yes but it based around an agreement Newsweek made with both the Bush and Kerry campaigns. They would get access behind-the-scenes providing they promise NOT to reveal the workings until AFTER the election.

In other words, yes they sat on it because they promised to.

77 posted on 11/04/2004 9:52:38 AM PST by danzaroni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight

Actually, I heard on a radio morning show today that was interviewing another Newsweek guy that the embedded reporters for BOTH campaigns doing this all-access reporting had to sign something agreeing not to report anything until after the election so as "not to sway the outcome one way or another".

The Newsweek guy also was saying in the interview (I think this might even be in the report) that Ter-ay-za kept insisting during the dem primaries that SHE (Not J F'n K) wanted to have a public one-on-one debate with Howard Dean, and that the staffers had their hands full dissuading her. Now THAT would have been comedy....


89 posted on 11/04/2004 9:57:44 AM PST by mrtheo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight

What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????

You know I am beginning to think the bias was not only ideology, but the anticipated increase in revenue if classless lowlifes moved into the White House. Bush years were awfully boring gossip wise- they wanted bubba years!

117 posted on 11/04/2004 10:09:53 AM PST by Protect the Bill of Rights (Can You Say MANDATE, boys and girls?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight
What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????

Yep! The media kept all this info to themselves during the campaign - and now they want us to buy their magazines to get the info after the election... I know what I want to tell Evan Thomas to do with his Newsweek... I'll just wait for the juice here at FR!

133 posted on 11/04/2004 10:23:08 AM PST by LibSnubber (liberal democrats are domestic terrorists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: NeonKnight
What? Did the press just sit on all of this stuff until after the election????

Shocked, shocked I tells ya!
186 posted on 11/04/2004 5:36:55 PM PST by SERKIT ("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson