2007-01-08 10:47:58 · 13 answers · asked by Taco 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hold on now. There is only 1 person in the press gallery sitting in the first row who is NOT chicken. Her name is Helen Thomas and GW does not allow her to ask a question.
He only did once and her questions was "If you did not invade Iraq for the oil, why did you invade Iraq"? That made him wiggle and he sure cut her off on any more questions.
That is it for her. No more questions forever.
If the American press had any stones, they would investigate who supplied the gas for Iraq that was used on the Kurds? Did the US conspire with Sadam during the Iranian war? Why was Rumsfeld giving Sadam an award the same time he was gassing the Kurds, who really supplied the WMD to Iraq in the first place? Was it truly the US that helped Sadam into power? And finally, what did Sadam do to turn the US against him? He WAS their boy in Iraq.
There are lots of great investigative stories to be followed up.
They don't do it since they would be harrassed by the white house, phones spied on or maybe thrown in jail for ever without charge under the Patriot Act.
Come to think of it, I don't blame the reporters for being chicken!!
2007-01-08 11:58:43 · answer #1 · answered by Dave 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Freedom of speech is only REALLY allowed to a certain extent. Because people with high power feel the need to take the law into their own hands, I would understand why a reporter would be afraid of openly offending someone rich and powerful, like a government official. If you know anything about Nixon, you'll know that sometimes people of power will go to great lengths to "persuade" people to keep a secret. Sure, we have freedom of speech, but always at our own risk.
2007-01-08 18:55:10 · answer #2 · answered by Carolinii 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The news industry used to be focused more on news (no matter how unpopular it was) than on money. Things have changed drastically in the last 2 decades. Now news organizations are more money making ventures, so if they post unpopular opinion they run the risk of losing business for being seen as "un-American" or un-patriotic."
It's sad but the news world is no longer full of mavericks, but is now full of the complacent or the scared.
I remember some people were angry about how hard questions weren't being asked of this administration during important times, but nothing really got done about it. All I have to say is thank goodness for Helen Thomas. That woman has more guts than most anyone in news today.
It's funny how moronic Republicans say the news is liberal biased. That would generally spell disaster because the country as a whole is more moderate to conservative. If these news organizations were so horribly biased, the only channel on the airways would be FOX.
2007-01-08 18:53:53 · answer #3 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Well, they are short on conspiracy theorists, and just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they are chicken, maybe its just your take on things is a bit skewed. There are enough venues on the web to find someone who believes darn near anything you can type. Find them and bolster your preconceived ideas, don't challenge them with any other news source. Maybe then you will be content.
2007-01-08 18:57:51 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The american media is owned and controlled. it's obvious when americans are not getting honest answers from it's media. Thats why alternative media sources are booming. Just watch as politicians will cry that terrorists are using the internet to curb your free speech and alternative news will be labeled a threat to national security!
2007-01-08 18:57:46 · answer #5 · answered by jeb b 1 · 0⤊ 3⤋
If you're talking about the media, they're not "chicken". They're biased and only report what they think will advance their own agenda. And, it's getting worse all the time.
2007-01-08 18:52:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
They are afraid of Radicals with a sharp knife.
News papers all over the world tremble at the pressure applied by those that control thought with threats of death.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-08 18:52:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Look a little deeper til you've figured out the whole country. You have fifteen minutes.
2007-01-08 18:49:38 · answer #8 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
what gives you the idea that reporters are "chicken". details? as for me, i personally find that the goverment is very much based of the views on US reporters.
as for bias in the papers, they cannot afford to become biased. newspapers need to appeal to all so that they can gain $. no, their not really depended on their advertisements (meaning they are not always trying to appeal to them, they have other cash flow options). would you rather have a newspaper that is dependent on corparate sponsors, or one that is funded federally (like the older days) and is extremely biased to one party/govermental organization?
2007-01-08 18:50:50 · answer #9 · answered by turkey 2 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because if they say or do anything that upsets their advertisers, they get in trouble or get fired. It's all about the money.
2007-01-08 18:52:22 · answer #10 · answered by The answer guy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋