we all know that you prefer Rush Limbaugh telling you what to think. Seriously, I do think the balkanization of media coverage into separate territories based on ideology is part of the problem here.
Dana On 7/14/05, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So Clintons negative press coverage was lower because he was a better > President? Who decides that? > I don't want people like Dan Rather telling me what to think. > > > On 7/14/05, Gruss Gott wrote: > > The federal gov't does a fine job of getting it's message out without > > the press. There's the Whitehouse spokesman, televised speeches, news > > releases, weekly radio addresses, CSPAN, etc. > > > > The press, however, should be our challenge to the gov't. Sure, let's > > have E! and OLN, and let them report on non-political stuff. > > > > But if there's reporter talking to the administration, I want a > > constant challenge on what's being said. If all I want is the > > Whitehouse publicity, why have the press? I can just get the > > propaganda first hand from the Whitehouse. > > > > What you're asking for is the Whitehouse News Network (WNN). They > > simply televise what the latest message is. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164868 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
