Sandy Berger pleads guilty

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:56 am

True, Chants, he has - and I do appreciate your "inclusiveness" spin on it, that's very clever.

However, he has not been consistently granted the pass, like Guckert had, he was blocked from attending at all for far longer than Guckert was, and when he was admitted, he was not consistently given the opportunity to ask questions, and when he was it was far fewer than the moderate, and especially the conservative, wings of the press corps.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:40 am

You're stretching Beek, and it's not clever.

Relating security procedures to whether or not a left-leaning reporter got called on enough is non-sequiter. You have to do better than that.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:30 am

As can Chants comparing a real journalist with Capitol Hill credentials who by all measures should have gotten a permanent press pass to Guckert.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:22 pm

Thank you Jecks you just proved my point.

- it is up to lower-level White House press aides to decide whether a particular news organization can have access to the briefing room.

Discrection = Vetting process followed and you are just pissed at the results = No Security Breach

You have zero evidence that this was a security breach since you cannot prove that he was unauthorized to have been in that place.

Does the daily press pass process need to be refined and improved? Potentially, but you do not have the evidence to prove that only conjecture and assumptions which mean diddly despite your meaningless status as a Bush apologist.

Trollbait · Post by **Trollbait** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:57 pm

Dammit, now I will never get my epic...........

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:25 pm

Whether Mokhiber is more of a journalist than Gannon was is really more of an opinion than an established fact. Reasonable minds may differ.

In reference to who gets called in the W.H. press room and who does not, Mokhiber has stated that, "[t]here are 100 reporters or so in that room and only ten or so get to ask questions. A lot of people are going to be left out." Since April 4, 2001, he has been called over 100 times. If his math is correct, Mokhiber has either been called on at a higher rate than other reporters, or has attended more than 1,000 press conferences.
He also claims that he was denied access for about for months in 2001. However, there are no four month gaps in his attendance in 2001.

Kind of puts the lie to his claim that he's being kept down by the Bush White House.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:28 pm

Whether Mokhiber is more of a journalist than Gannon was is really more of an opinion than an established fact. Reasonable minds may differ.

If going to an institution of higher learning to learn journalism and being able to get Capitol Hill credentials are a matter of opinion, not fact... well, I'm sorry, I don't buy that, Chants. I don't believe you could form a credible argument about that unless you were taking an anti-intellectual and iconoclastic stance that would truly push the limits of "reasonable."

In reference to who gets called in the W.H. press room and who does not, Mokhiber has stated that, "[t]here are 100 reporters or so in that room and only ten or so get to ask questions. A lot of people are going to be left out."

If I remember that (uncited) passage, Chants, he's referring to press conferences by the President, not McClellan press briefings, where far more than 10 questions get asked.

He also claims that he was denied access for about for months in 2001. However, there are no four month gaps in his attendance in 2001.

Kind of puts the lie to his claim that he's being kept down by the Bush White House.

I'll have to look into this further since you, again, don't cite.

Chants Evensong · Post by **Chants Evensong** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:09 am

My apologies for not providing links. It is somethimes hard to tell when citations and links would be in order. Noticing that you did not provide links to some of your claims, (e.g., day passes are supposed to be reserved for journalists who are in DC for the short term; McClellan says outright that the rules haven't changed- that everything was the same setup as the Clinton administration; [Mokhiber is] a real journalist with Capitol Hill credentials; Mokhiber went to an institution of higher learning to learn journalism, etc., ad nauseum), I followed your lead by example.

If you want a link to Mokhiber's claim that he had been denied a pass for four months in 2001, that is contained in the Editor and Publisher article I linked above.

If you want evidence that there are no four month gaps in 2001 in Mokiber's attendance in the press room, that can be extrapolated from his dated quotes contained in his Common Dreams features, Ari and I and Scottie and Me, also linked above.

I recognize Mokhiber claims he has a Senate Gallery Pass. However, he worked on the Nader green party campaign in 2004. Senate Press Gallery rules fobid press members from working for a political party.

http://www.senate.gov/galleries/daily/applic.pdf

In fairness, I must there appears to be a gap in Mokhiber's attendance at the White House briefings whle he worked on the Nader campaign. Regardless, his ties to Nader, his lobbying, and his campaigns may give pause to one advocating for higher standards in the credentialing process.

As for me, I don't have much of a problem alolowing Gannon or Mokhiber into the White House press briefings. [/i]

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:49 am

I appreciate all that.

Senate Press Gallery rules fobid press members from working for a political party.

They should ban all of FOX News then.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:01 am

By the way, you're right there are no gaps, Chants, in 2001 - except the first four months. The transcripts don't start until April.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:02 am

Oh, and there's an eight month gap in 2004 - I'm wondering if the 2001 thing is a misstatement.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:03 am

Oh, and because I'm dumb, an interesting link:

http://www.jacksonprogressive.com/issue ... 22503.html

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:32 am

Just because FOX is conservative does not make it a front for the republicians.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:39 am

No, it's a front for the Republicans because it's a front for the Republicans.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:41 am

Well then if that is the case you will have no problem showing conclusive evidence of this.

Or are you just mouthing off your opinions as facts once again?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:46 am

OUTFOXED.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:14 pm

I asked for conclusive evidence not a biased hit peice.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:28 pm

Have you seen it?