user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Voted : Yes: Stand on principles of openness and information exchange
Simply demonstrates conservatives hostility to a free press.
Depends. How biased are they?
I wouldn't expect any reporters that are too biased to cover a story fairly to be allowed in, why bother with them? If fred phelps started up the god hates fags gazette I wouldn't really expect that many GHFG reporters would be invited to conferences.
If however they are a real paper with only a slight liberal bias, but that could have covered the event fairly they should have been allowed in.
Voted : Yes: Stand on principles of openness and information exchange
So long as a the person is a legit journalist then they should be let in.
hmmm a question presented as an "either/or" by someone who despises black and white questions. I suspect there is something more here than meets the eye.
^ Yep.
You see, when presented with only option A or option B, you should always try to find and option C.
This false, black and white dichotomy presented in the ballot question forces us into a mold, why does it have to be either one way or the other?
Of course that's assuming the news story is real at all, I see no source and of course it could have been "reinterpreted" to make it produce the desired outrage from the B&W community.
What about the college that banned a conservative student reporter from covering a speech by some liberal guy. Can't remember the names of the school or anything, but the guys was on TV and basically said the school has a liberal leaning and they prevented he and his fellow conservative students from attending and reporting on the speech by the liberal. Goes both ways.
"Of course that's assuming the news story is real at all, I see no source and of course it could have been "reinterpreted" to make it produce the desired outrage from the B&W community."
Actually, considering who wrote this ballot, I would trust it's truthfulness, without a doubt.
Tom: I agree! Same principle clearly applies if a conservative journalist is denied access to a Lib event! This is NOT merely GOP vs Dem or Con vs Lib ... it is about the ^%$#ing principle folks!
FF & herz: Oh, I'm sorry, did I rudely constrain the ballot to merely two choices, arrogantly precluding people from selecting an option other than A or B? Let me go back and check ...
No ... at least on my browser, there is a clear option to add as many additional options as you like.
If you need assistance adding choices to ballots, do feel free to read the FAQs.
^ that's never been a requirement you've used against me. You criticize me all the time for presenting articles as black or white, even when I leave it open for new choices (which is always abused by the same user).
Another double standard cath?
Let's see: no source, something you'd attack me for, it appears as if you've written the story, something you'd never tolerate from me, and you've presented it as an either or, when it obviously has many other options. Tsk, you wouldn't tolerate that if I'd posted a similiar article, but reversed.
You have to ask yourself, which is more important? Integrity or partisan bias?
No Herzog, its YOU who has to ask himself that question. Believe me.
|
|
