Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Avatar4321 said:I heard somewhere that Howard Dean is calling for Cheney's resignation over this. Anyone hear anything about that?
krisy said:I have no problem with them asking questions,I understand this is their job. Some of the questions were out of line at what they insinuated. The one in particular that bugged me was the guy asking about the delay in info. Who cares? The man that was shot is all right,and it wasn't like Cheney shot somebody in the middle of a bar fight for Pete's sake. It was a hunting accident,and some reporter is trying his best to make scandal of it. How can I take these people seriously? They are the same people that think anything Angelina Jolie says is news
Hagbard Celine said:Well, seeing that Angelina and Brad are soon to give birth to our supreme being child, I think they're on the right track
But seriously, I think reporters are justified in fishing for a deeper story--I don't think they would be doing their jobs right if they didn't atleast ask--even if it does seem insulting or low to onlookers.
Nuc said:This is a good case for gun control......for geriatrics. Similar to how they should not be allowed to drive.
dilloduck said:The press are a bunch of whiney babies for one reason and one reason only. THEY ARE PISSED THE WEREN'T TOLD SOONER AND A "COMMON CITIZEN" WAS ALLOWED TO REPORT THE STORY FIRST. (ok 2 i know thats 2 reasons)
They wanted to report it as a news flash like VP SHOOTS FRIEND. Then let the shit play out like an assassination or something until the whole story came in. They missed a chance at baiting the public into believing something BEFORE all the truth was known. What a bunch of pompous low lifes!
Whatever you say man 
dilloduck said:Bullshit--these old ranchers down here can shoot the wings off a fly. From the hip !
Hagbard Celine said:
Nuc said:This is a good case for gun control......for geriatrics. Similar to how they should not be allowed to drive.
dilloduck said:The press are a bunch of whiney babies for one reason and one reason only. THEY ARE PISSED THE WEREN'T TOLD SOONER AND A "COMMON CITIZEN" WAS ALLOWED TO REPORT THE STORY FIRST. (ok 2 i know thats 2 reasons)
They wanted to report it as a news flash like VP SHOOTS FRIEND. Then let the shit play out like an assassination or something until the whole story came in. They missed a chance at baiting the public into believing something BEFORE all the truth was known. What a bunch of pompous low lifes!
gop_jeff said:Yeah... the commentator on ABC Radio News this morning said something to the effect of "No one told us for 24 hours," in a tone of voice like "How dare they!"
I think you're interpreting a discussion of facts as "pissed." Reporters, especially the televised talking heads you're referring to have no motive for being "pissed" about this story. They're just stating that the story was with-held for 24 hours before being released, which is apparently true right?dilloduck said:Gotta different theory of why they are pissed? I'd love to hear it.
Hagbard Celine said:I think you're interpreting a discussion of facts as "pissed." Reporters, especially the televised talking heads you're referring to have no motive for being "pissed" about this story. They're just stating that the story was with-held for 24 hours before being released, which is apparently true right?
Hagbard Celine said:I think you're interpreting a discussion of facts as "pissed." Reporters, especially the televised talking heads you're referring to have no motive for being "pissed" about this story. They're just stating that the story was with-held for 24 hours before being released, which is apparently true right?
Hagbard Celine said:But seriously, I think reporters are justified in fishing for a deeper story--I don't think they would be doing their jobs right if they didn't atleast ask--even if it does seem insulting or low to onlookers.
You've misinterpreted what I said. "Fishing" is a verb I used to indicate what reporters do, not an adjective referring to the nature of the incident.GotZoom said:Why the assumption of something fishy?
Why can't they accept that this was an ... accident?
Ohhh..because it has to do with President Bush...his VP...etc....
Hagbard Celine said:You've misinterpreted what I said. "Fishing" is a verb I used to indicate what reporters do, not an adjective referring to the nature of the incident.
Because it's a reporter's job to stand in the stead of the average citizen. That means asking any and all questions relevant to an issue so that the whole story, not just the polished, PR version is printed for the public record.manu1959 said:you said they were justifed.....why?
