you can't possibly be suggesting that a government should get to decide who gets access to press conferences.

They already do. I can't just wander off the street and start asking questions. They pick who they allow.

And for all of their "frothing" there have been a number of stories broken by non-mainstream media outlets like Zero Hedge, Drudge, New Russia, and yes, even Infowars, that mainstream media was then forced to acknowledge and report on.

Why don't we also invite Fred Phelps to official Pentagon briefings? I mean, that man has questions he would like to ask.

"Free press" means the press can say whatever it wants. It does not have any right, to any government proceeding. There are no videos allowed in Supreme Court trials. When audio is allowed, it because the court allows it. The press has no right to any type of government access, at all.

Refusing access to objectively crazy people is not suppressing free speech. Those crazy people are still allowed to publish their crazy thoughts. But no, government officials do not need to pretend that these people need to be answered.

Hrm.... seems legit.

"Free press" means the press can say whatever it wants. It does not have any right, to any government proceeding. There are no videos allowed in Supreme Court trials. When audio is allowed, it because the court allows it. The press has no right to any type of government access, at all.

Refusing access to objectively crazy people is not suppressing free speech. Those crazy people are still allowed to publish their crazy thoughts. But no, government officials do not need to pretend that these people need to be answered.

You're right, you don't get unfettered access to anything you want just because you're press, but that's a wildly different thing than saying whom among "the press" can attend which press conferences -- the whole point of a press conference is to share info with the press. And you cite that video and audio recordings are prohibited in courtrooms, but how often are reporters themselves stricken from the room? If you say that a free press is one free to say whatever it likes, which is a perfectly fine definition, how does a member of the press say anything at all without receiving the information first-hand?

If people are disruptive then throw them out. If people have inane questions then let them be asked and let them be ignored. But if you're going to invite the general press to receive information, those presenting it should not be allowed to cherry-pick members of the press who they know won't ask any difficult or inconvenient questions. That's preposterous on its face. Should the Democratic party be able to call a press conference that excludes Fox news' reporters? The Republican party to exclude reporters from CNN or MSNBC? Should Zero-Hedge be stricken from any press conference to which the Federal Reserve is a party? You don't see any problem allowing these entities to share information with everyone and their mothers, as long as they aren't their self-assigned detractors?

you can't possibly be suggesting that a government should get to decide who gets access to press conferences.

They already do. I can't just wander off the street and start asking questions. They pick who they allow.

Are you a practicing journalist who applied in advance for a press pass? If so, you would be allowed in with the rest of the press.

BTW do you have a link to that info wars article; the funny/crazy punch line will surely be the arguments made further down to support the opening claim?

Breaking news.... there has been a shootouts and explosions at MIT. No not a joke. Those in the Boston area. Stay safe.

Breaking news.... there has been a shootouts and explosions at MIT. No not a joke. Those in the Boston area. Stay safe.

Students are needed to protect,as one of overseas students from China was died in this terrible accident!

MIT said right after the 10:30 p.m. shooting that police were sweeping the campus in Cambridge and urged people to remain indoors. They urged people urged to stay away from the Stata Building, a mixed-use building with faculty offices, classrooms and a common area.

Hours later, MIT, which has about 11,000 students, said the campus was clear but the shooter was still on the loose.

Should the Democratic party be able to call a press conference that excludes Fox news' reporters? The Republican party to exclude reporters from CNN or MSNBC? Should Zero-Hedge be stricken from any press conference to which the Federal Reserve is a party? You don't see any problem allowing these entities to share information with everyone and their mothers, as long as they aren't their self-assigned detractors?

I don't invite my bitter ex-girlfriend to my current girlfriend's birthday party so she can troll her, no.

Comparing Fox News and MSNBC to infowars makes me think you've either not read much if anything on infowars/WND's site, or else you are a person who feels all viewpoints are equally valid. I have a certain cut off.

I don't really care what the guy with a shopping cart full of urine jars thinks about the gold standard.

BTW do you have a link to that info wars article; the funny/crazy punch line will surely be the arguments made further down to support the opening claim?

Obama Now Global Head of Al-Qaeda

More from info wars

UN Gun Confiscation and The Robot Takeover

Americans to be rounded up and placed in FEMA concentration camps

I'm not hurling around the word "crazy" for nothing.

Was drunk.
Can be deleted.


L. Spiro

Obama Now Global Head of Al-Qaeda
More from info wars

UN Gun Confiscation and The Robot Takeover

Americans to be rounded up and placed in FEMA concentration camps

I'm not hurling around the word "crazy" for nothing.

Crazy or not, they're still a professional journalism company, employing people to act as journalists.
FOX news is pretty crazy too, and their sister newspapers in my country routinely publish outright lies, mis-truths and vile political propaganda. Nonetheless, they're still a newspaper, and they're a member of the self-regulation groups that govern papers, and their employees are protected under the legislation regarding journalists.

Those Infowars headlines are ridiculous, but they're just as ridiculous and sensationalist as the ones in the 'respectable' newscorp papers here. I didn't watch the video one about robots/guns, but the fact based portions of the other two aren't that bad. Yes, Obama does fund people to fight alongside "Al Qadia members", cooperating in the same war -- the argument is then made that this is just as bad as the people who were fighting alongside the Taliban, who were locked in Guantanamo for such evilness. You can call that line of reasoning crazy if you like, but the fact remains that the rebels that we're funding to fight against Assad, do contain terrorist elements. That's a valid fact to report, which isn't ever highlighted by the right-wing, pro-war press, so it's healthy to have a (very) alternative press that does highlight it. The other article, warning about the contents of the NDAA, also cites a bunch of interesting factual points -- their interpretation that these facts mean that the government is preparing to round up traitors in concentration camps (and their belief in the REX84 conspiracy) may be a 'crazy' opinion, but the fact that the government now has the legal power to do so is worth reporting anyway.

Also, it would be very naive to believe that the government doesn't have all sorts of emergency/disaster/mass-unrest/continuity-of-government plans of some sort, nor that they don't have huge lists compiled of dangerous people as they always have. It may well be that there is still a plan somewhere in a drawer to round up communist sympathisers, though it'll never be needed now that the USSR isn't about to invade! If not for InfoWars assumption that the execution of such a plan is imminent (and their general sensationalist tabloid style), they might actually be able to produce an interesting article on the topic...

In another recent thread, when I told someone that Obama now has the legal power to authorize assassinations of US citizens abroad, I was told that this is untrue and just a "crazy left wing conspiracy", but it's true, and the only people who think it's a big deal are "crazy" journalists like these guys. It's an obvious sign of an unhealthy press environment already, when such big news stories like that aren't well known within the US population...

It's a very dangerous slippery slope to start declaring that some journalism simply doensn't count, just because we don't like the slant with which they see the world.

Comparing Fox News and MSNBC to infowars makes me think you've either not read much if anything on infowars/WND's site, or else you are a person who feels all viewpoints are equally valid. I have a certain cut off.

Or, I'm a person who doesn't think that you, the government, or those being reported on should get to decide who's viewpoints are valid or not, for me, and for the rest of the people of this country. If you want to ignore a particular report, you're free to do so. Its everyone's right to choose where their information comes from, its no one's right to choose for you.

If you don't like what you see on the television, you get to change the channel, not petition to shut down the station.