The truth hurts.

Had to laugh.  Let's bring in Maddow & Olby for some objective analysis of... criticism of Maddow & Olby.

Yep.  Acorn's just a story about a story about Acorn - nothing to see there.

And Bush love is their defense.  Guess he wasn't such a bad Prez after all.  "Why, Obama's just adhering to the fine tradition established by Bush."

That they can't see the difference between being ignored and being the target of official, orchestrated demonization, repulsive even to a sizable portion of their sympathisers, says a lot.

Any high school principal worth a plug nickel would put a stop to this in a New York minute, but not BO.

Interesting that the only network still functioning as a 'news organization' in the traditional liberal sense (one that Woodward & Bernstein would be willing to work for), the one actually breaking investigative news stories, is Fox.  And that it's the one that liberals would like to see go away.

They are actually far more 'balanced' than CNN or MSNBC, where those holding views not held by the hosts are viciously attacked or demeaned, when they're given a voice at all.  Fox has regulars, and invites others, with opposing views and treats them with respect.

Speaking of willful ignorance, my remarks above concerned the media, not 'the democrat.'  But since you brought it up, calling something 'the exact same shit' doesn't make it so.  Presidents and administrations are perfectly free to favor their friends.  That has always been the case, but I disagree with you, that's not 'wrong no matter what party.'  What's not OK is to attack critics in a manner designed to intimidate all media into not paying attention, to go Nixon, to target specific outlets as enemies.  Attempting to blind the press to reality is wrong.  That is not OK, something everyone on the left should agree with - it's a fundamental liberal principle.  Maddow & Olby ain't, and never will be, Woodward & Bernstein.

And Obama the Prez ain't, and never will be, Obama the candidate.  His cocky assurances of transparency, openness and inclusiveness vaporized at noon January 20th.  Now we know he's just as venal as any of the worst politicians you can think of, though not as skilled at hiding his venality as most.

Well, lets look at a few from the most recent admin: Bush handled his administration well: Cheney barred certain reporters, Bush limited his conferences, financed pundits, answered questions from faux journalists, denied access to certain reporters, had pre-made videos done to go out with news, sort of a pre-PR deal that was claimed to be "news." The list goes on. 

Clinton did the same when handling the scandals he had. 

My point isn't that Obama should be excluded because it's happened, on the contrary, the fact that it has happened is enough - as an aspiring journalist and US citizen - to make me pissed off. To me, it seems as if most on JU are slamming Obama because he's a Democrat, and because it's Obama. I don't remember any moment on here during Bush's presidency when there was as much, if any outrage over the tactics that were used. 

Seriously, if you don't like it because you think it is wrong, then be willing to apply that principle to ANY presidency. Not JUST a democrat, nor JUST a republican. Otherwise, it's a double standard and they're full of shit and a hypocrite. 

~AJ

Jesus christ Daiwa, are you serious? Just like that? Dear gawd...I've implied that what I think Obama is doing is WRONG, repteadly. If I think it's wrong, why would I be excusing it. And they're not beside the point daiwa, what is the point is that it is being done; It has been done. You seem to think I'm trying to excuse what Obama is doing, but you're excusing what Bush, Clinton, Bush Sr, et al. have done. 

Why? Who knows, though I've go this gut feeling it's because it's Obama and he's a democrat. That or it's something else, and I just won't go there. 

In fact, re-read my post, and just take a second or two more in thinking about it. Your excuses for it happening are ridiculous. Okay, so Obama is doing it - I'm not saying it is right. I'm saying it's wrong, JUST LIKE before. I'm also saying, you really need to get off the fucking bash Obama bandwagon and hold your republican, and other presidents (whether they did it to X degree or not) accountable for doing it. (Why am I feeling like this is claptrap is the same shit that democrats pulled when they bashed Bush, made excuses, etc.?) 

Btw, go look it up, I'm not going to provide the evidence because I fucking know what you're gonna do. You're going to dismiss and/or what Bush did again and again; I've been around this block with you before. If you're not willing to go research it, then you're obviously not willing to listen. 

Have a good rest of your monday. 

~AJ

I'm afraid Jesus has nothing to do with it, AJ.

What BO's team is doing is wrong - you should do more than just 'imply' it and then say it isn't so bad given what other presidents have done when there is in fact no equivalence.

You can only invoke the double standard argument when the same thing is done by two different parties & assessed differently.  Not the case here, unless you can demostrate that Bush, Rove or any other Bush admin spokesperson went on national TV & told the host network that one of their competitors was not a legitimate news organization and that they should not pay attention to or pick up on stories from that network because it has 'a perspective.'  There is nothing hypocritical or 'full of shit' about calling them out on this behavior.

Not my job to make your argument, AJ.  I've acknowledged 'what Bush did' - you refuse to accept that there is a difference in these behaviors, without bothering to demonstrate how they are the same.  Because you can't.

Nothing personal, BTW.  Going 'around the block' is what it's all about, after all.

How can we 'agree to disagree' when we're not even talking about the same thing?

Your argument is premised on there being an "it," which I contend is a false premise.  A premise that you've not supported with any facts or examples.  What the two administrations did were not simply differing degrees of a thing, they were two different things.  You can call them both 'wrong' if you wish, but that doesn't make them equivalent or constitute evidence that I'm applying a double standard.

That's all.

You have a good night, too, AJ.