Seems that many are agenda driven, and openly hostile. I've seen this during many administrations. Can't they be banned ??
2006-11-12 14:18:09 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Unfortunately no,I wished they could be but Tony Snow went into detail about it when he was doing his show.I like it when Snow lays into them tho.Freedom of Press and when they hold a press conference its to the biased Dan Rather azz sucking libs.
2006-11-12 14:24:06 · answer #1 · answered by halfbright 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yah maybe they have something to be openly hostile about.
Im sure they can be banned.Well I am not sure if legally it can be done, but that has never stopped Bush before.
2006-11-12 14:35:02 · answer #2 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
maximum places that i've got lived tend to be as gay friendly because it may desire to possibly be in this worldwide. Missouri is fantastically friendly- I recommend you will not get killed or beat up or something. Illinois is definitely gay friendly. Virginia- in the mountains- isn't gay friendly. Florida is gay friendly in merely approximately all places. Kansas, not lots. San Francisco in Cali is meant to be the gay capital and the Villages in manhattan are meant to be large with the LGBT community- probable between the acceptable places to stay once you're an LGBT. universal, in case you be attentive to the place to stay at in united statesa., it is completely effective. merely stay out of tiny southern cities in Alabama or Mississippi. There you'll be able to desire to get killed :P
2016-10-17 05:12:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they can. And you can bet they actually do!! These reporters have an obligation to their various news services to seek relevant answers to relevant questions. But if the president or the president's press secretary doesn't like the reporter, he can just answer the questions from other reporters. The president always does what he wants.
2006-11-12 14:28:12 · answer #4 · answered by voltaire 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yep! They've got a right to screen reporters and keep out the problem ones. (Remember "Murphy Brown?") Networks, news services, and other news organizations would just have to put another reporter in place.
2006-11-12 14:28:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It worked well for Hitler. I'll prep an email for my Reich head architect Karl Rove. He has lots of free time on his hands these days and I'm sure exterminating people with differing viewpoints isn't too far off his radar screen of tasks to get accomplished!
Great suggestion!
2006-11-12 15:01:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably they have the legal authority. The rest of the press would go nuclear were that to happen.
2006-11-12 14:53:29 · answer #7 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reporting is a sacred duty to be done without bias or prejudice.
If you can not do that, go into another line of work like being a lawyer.
2006-11-12 14:22:14 · answer #8 · answered by wildmedicsue 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Makes you wonder why are they so hostile? Does it affect their reporting? But no you can't ban them.
2006-11-12 14:26:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. But the libs have come up with many a conspiracy theory because of these types of things.
2006-11-12 14:37:01 · answer #10 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋