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


1 posted on 02/07/2007 6:10:29 AM PST by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: presidio9

Depends on which party they are from.


2 posted on 02/07/2007 6:14:19 AM PST by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

Edward R. Murrow was a journalist.

The White House Press Corps are reporters, and only just.


3 posted on 02/07/2007 6:15:38 AM PST by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9

The Blue Dress:
When news of the the existence of the dress surfaced in published reports in early August, politicians and commentators alike agreed that the blue dress proved Clinton lied when he denied a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called the evidence "very critical." Senator Arlen Spector (R-Pa) agreed that it would be "the most powerful kind of corroboration" of an affair. A George Washington law professor, Jonathan Turley, appearing on "Meet the Press" said of the semen stain: "No one will be able to spin him out of that."
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/lewinskydress.html


5 posted on 02/07/2007 6:20:47 AM PST by radar101 (LIBERALS = Hypocrisy and Fantasy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
Umm NO utter absurd NONSENSE. The ONLY thing they have been even more pathetically incompetent at then Foreign Affairs reporting IS Domestic Economic Reporting.

Compare and Contrast their Reporting of the mythical "Clinton Economy" with their trash talking of the Economy during both Reagan and Bushs 2 Presidency. Based on just the basic economic data the Economy performed better under Reagan and Bush then under Clinton.

The difference was under Reagan or Bush the reporting is "here is the good news now listen while we spend all our time spinning the good news as not really all that good"

Compared with the Clinton years where the "Journalists" spend all their time on the verge of verbal hysteric over what was not really such good economic news.

Washington Post touts low unemployment, strong economy; credits President [FLASHBACK]

Washington Post Archives | May 4, 1996 | John M. Berry; Washington Post Staff Writers

Posted on 01/07/2006 8:14:50 AM PST by nwrep

In sharp contrast to yesterday, when the 4.9% unemployment rate was described by the MSM as "weak numbers", the media was tripping over itself in 1996 while reporting the 5.6% unemployment under President Clinton in 1996 as evidence of a rosy economy and good policies by the administration. Below is how the Post described the news. Notice that it buried the weaker than expected payroll growth deep in the report, while yesterday it lead most of the major newscasts, which downplayed the unemployment numbers.

The unemployment rate dropped to 5.4 percent, its lowest level in 14 months, the government reported yesterday, capping a week of good economic news for the country -- and great news for President Clinton's reelection bid. Wages are rising at their fastest pace in five years, consumer confidence is soaring, and business and consumer spending has fueled an unexpectedly strong burst of economic growth.

6 posted on 02/07/2007 6:21:15 AM PST by MNJohnnie ( If they say "speaking truth to power,"-they haven't had a l thought since the Beatles broke up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: presidio9
"White House Press Cut Presidents Few Breaks"



"White House Press Cut Republican Presidents Few Breaks".... Fixed.
10 posted on 02/07/2007 8:21:01 AM PST by Element187
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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