Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

      
Post Reply 
Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
chicago bearcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,215
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #21
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-17-2011 03:38 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 03:11 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 03:06 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 02:51 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Interesting wording chicago, Clinton would be proud. Just wondering: did he meet privately with Bush? Better yet, did he meet with Bush at all?

Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day. We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Truly Clintonian in your dodging....

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he personally met/advised/discussed/(insert whatever term Zakaria wants to use to split hairs) with Bush privately or even in a group?

And when you say the "meeting produced" a report, do you mean that all parties got together to agree or align on a document that they all signed off on with or even without their names? Or do you mean that the White House official who had the meeting, not named Bush, eventually produced a report to the White House that may or may not have included any specific or even general comments from the meeting?

The point here is that a Bush official in this case Paul Wolfowitz called journalists to White House to discuss foreign policy. The report produced was a compilation of the views of each of the members in attendance with their names not attached to particular view point. Wolfowitz did not contribute to report. Whether Zakaria or other journalists met with President is immaterial. Journalists have been used by presidents for advice by both Republicans and Democrats. The Zakaria issue is a non story.

Actually you missed nearly all the points. Yes a Republican president has met with the press privately AS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE POINTS OUT. Those instances were not with reporters, much less hosts reporting on the issues. Yet, liberals screamed bloody murder, but have remained silent on this issue involving a host REPORTING on the same issues discussed. Again as the title of the article indicates, it is Zakaria who is being called to the table to account for not bringing this appearance of conflict of interest to light and thus to recuse himself going forward. CNN also needs to come clean on what it knew about the situation and what its journalistic standards are. Your attempt to create a false equivalence through careful wording both misses the point and falls short anyway as my response showed. Similarly, Zakaria's attempt after the fact to split hairs between advising and discussing in depth also falls short and completely misses his duty to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and duty to provide full disclosure. For further edification, please see my response to b.

I wasnt referring to the original articles examples. I was referring to the countless other journalists used for counsel by presidents of both parties. Those reporters often did not disclose conflict of interest nor did their employers. If the President calls you answer. You give him your thoughts and do so in confidence. Zakaria is right in splitting hairs. He was asked for his thoughts and he gave them. that is very different than direct advice which actually is closer to the Bush/Wolfowitz report since we know that document was specifically used to shape a specific policy decision, and was asked for purpose of soliciting opinions on decisions to go to war with Iraq.
 
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2011 03:50 PM by chicago bearcat.)
05-17-2011 03:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
QSECOFR Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,015
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation: 226
I Root For: CCM
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
Again, boys and girls, it matters not what Bush did, what CLienton did, or what Reagan did. By the libs accounts, Bush was wrong on everything he did. All this stuff about "Well Bush also..." is just a bunch of little kid speak for "I won't look as bad if I can convince my Mommy that Jimmy did even worse things than me."

Does the president have capable foreign policy advisors or not? If not, why? If so, why reach out to a reporter?
 
05-17-2011 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearhawkeye Offline
The King of Breakfast
*

Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-17-2011 03:09 PM)b Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  I could care less about Zakaria. I don't care if he is a member of the Tea Party of the Communist Party. Doesn't anyone find it strange that a sitting president would go to a reporter for advice when he has 100's of "qualified" people to do the same thing???????????

the thing is, he is well qualified. I know he host his own show, is he a reporter?

I would have a problem with him if it comes out that he is in some way advising the prez, But I know the truth don't come out in the first report.

Building upon what I've said, I disagree with both of you. I think the President should seek out the best information/discussion/yes even advice (not that he has to follow it) possible whether it comes from someone on his staff, a reporter, or from bin Laden's notebooks. Obviously he doesn't always have to meet with them personally, but I'm OK with him always searching for the best info from whoever has it.

I can't think of any specific exceptions, but I suppose it is possible that he should not always make those sources known. Regardless, he should strive and typically achieve transparency especially when national security is not at stake.

On the other hand, reporters who claim to be objective and purely fact based (as opposed to opinion writers/hosts), have a different duty to their viewers/readers to strive for independence and to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest. If and when it does arise, they also need to be forthright and transparent to the point of pointing out possible appearances of conflicts of interest immediately and long before being questioned about them. A similar duty holds for their employers to make sure standards are set and met.

I cut a little more slack to those who make no bones about their political stance (e.g. a Carville or Limbaugh) although it's a good practice for them to be as transparent as possible too.
 
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2011 05:33 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
05-17-2011 04:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearhawkeye Offline
The King of Breakfast
*

Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
Hopefully my last post made my thoughts clear but I'll try to answer your questions:

(05-17-2011 03:46 PM)b Wrote:  
Quote:As such, they both have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest and even the appearance of conflicts of interest. Furthermore, they should be giving full disclosure when such conflicts appear.

while I agree with your message, the truth is we really don't know the extent of the meeting, and quite frankly some people will make a big deal out of anything. If obama reported that they made eye contact one time, I'm sure some would find fault.

We know what Zakaria himself said about the meetings:

Quote:“Mostly it’s been face-to-face meetings...Zakaria told Spitzer on Thursday. “What I’m struck by, though, honestly Elliot, is how much time he’s spent thinking about the issues of the Arab Spring, particularly the issues of Egypt; how to make Egypt go right; what are the mechanisms that the United States has to help the moderates and the liberals. It's been a very thoughtful conversation. We'll see where it goes.”

How do you assess and praise the time the President has spent thinking and the "thoughtfullness" the President has shown on all these issues in meetings without having in-depth conversations? hint: You need a lot more than "eye contact".

Quote: how many weeks do we need to spend on this? More then the birth certificate?

Let's stay on topic with a rational discussion rather than an off-topic pissing contest you seem to claim to dislike.

Quote:
Quote:Neither do attempts by chicago to create an equivalence between a not very similar incident during the Bush administration.

maybe you can explain the difference to me.

Sure. One was a series of in-depth mostly face to face private meetings with the President. The other was being part of a forum by a moderator who may or may not have included any input from the meeting in a report he gave to the President. If you don't see any difference, insert "a pretty woman" for "the President" and ask your wife if she thinks they are the same thing. 03-lmfao
chicago originally attempted to imply that Zakaria had held the same type of meetings with Bush that he did with Obama with a carefully worded description. But as I said, that's not really the point...

Quote:
Quote:I do have a problem when the reporter and his employer both continue to bill him as an unbiased centrist without disclosing ties such as this that at least give the appearance of a possible conflict of interest.

like I said before i'll let it play out a little longer. Is obama a centrist? to the left, hell yeah. to the right, hell no. that's an issue that's hopelessly deadlocked.
I'm not sure what remains to be played out, but wrt to Obama of course he's to the left. The only people who don't think so are those to the left of him....

Quote:Now be honest, did you believe cnn was unbiased before this? if so, then I understand your concern. but many here think cnn is already in obamas pocket, so why the anger about something you already knew?

Yes I think CNN is often biased, but it's not about what I think. It's about what they claim and what the public understands. I'm not angry. I'm just pointing out truths and logic - ideally to help others to eventually understand and maybe question some of their assumptions which is something I try to do as well.
 
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2011 05:43 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
05-17-2011 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearhawkeye Offline
The King of Breakfast
*

Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
Post: #25
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-17-2011 03:47 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 03:38 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 03:11 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 03:06 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-17-2011 02:56 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Zakaria and other journalists had to sign confidentiality agreements so no one knows who exactly was at meeting at White House that day. We do know that the meeting produced a report for President Bush and his cabinet outlining a strategy for dealing with Afghanistan and the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Truly Clintonian in your dodging....

Is there any evidence whatsoever that he personally met/advised/discussed/(insert whatever term Zakaria wants to use to split hairs) with Bush privately or even in a group?

And when you say the "meeting produced" a report, do you mean that all parties got together to agree or align on a document that they all signed off on with or even without their names? Or do you mean that the White House official who had the meeting, not named Bush, eventually produced a report to the White House that may or may not have included any specific or even general comments from the meeting?

The point here is that a Bush official in this case Paul Wolfowitz called journalists to White House to discuss foreign policy. The report produced was a compilation of the views of each of the members in attendance with their names not attached to particular view point. Wolfowitz did not contribute to report. Whether Zakaria or other journalists met with President is immaterial. Journalists have been used by presidents for advice by both Republicans and Democrats. The Zakaria issue is a non story.

Actually you missed nearly all the points. Yes a Republican president has met with the press privately AS THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE POINTS OUT. Those instances were not with reporters, much less hosts reporting on the issues. Yet, liberals screamed bloody murder, but have remained silent on this issue involving a host REPORTING on the same issues discussed. Again as the title of the article indicates, it is Zakaria who is being called to the table to account for not bringing this appearance of conflict of interest to light and thus to recuse himself going forward. CNN also needs to come clean on what it knew about the situation and what its journalistic standards are. Your attempt to create a false equivalence through careful wording both misses the point and falls short anyway as my response showed. Similarly, Zakaria's attempt after the fact to split hairs between advising and discussing in depth also falls short and completely misses his duty to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest and duty to provide full disclosure. For further edification, please see my response to b.

I wasnt referring to the original articles examples.
Of course not because you completely miss the point of the article and then proceed to try to make a case about issues it already stated and aren't in contention.

Quote: I was referring to the countless other journalists used for counsel by presidents of both parties. Those reporters often did not disclose conflict of interest nor did their employers.
Source for "countless"? Source for what they and their employers did or didn't disclose? Did they present themselves as objective reporters or were they upfront about their partisanship? Even if everything you say is true, do you believe they were correct in not disclosing the conflict to their readers/viewers?

Quote:If the President calls you answer. You give him your thoughts and do so in confidence.
You work for an employer and should act as though you work on behalf of the public if you are an unbiased reporter. YOU DO NOT WORK FOR THE ADMINISTRATION! What a perfect example of the modern liberal's understanding of the role of the press under a liberal administration you've provided! Straight from Journalism in China 101. Short of national security which isn't in play, yes you give your thoughts but you don't compromise yourself and your credibility by promising to keep the very fact you met confidential. Unless you really are just a partisan hack trying to make others believe you are neutral.

Besides Zakaria didn't keep the confidence (except from those he has the most duty to - the public). My guess is he boasted about it around the office. Spitzer sure didn't act like he was breaking confidential news he uncovered when he slobbered his praise. LOL

Quote:Zakaria is right in splitting hairs. He was asked for his thoughts and he gave them. that is very different than direct advice which actually is closer to the Bush/Wolfowitz report since we know that document was specifically used to shape a specific policy decision, and was asked for purpose of soliciting opinions on decisions to go to war with Iraq.

More Clintonian silliness. So he technically never started a sentence with "My advice to you Mr. President..." and Obama never said "What's your advice Fareed?" They gave opinions back and forth and discussed in depth. What do you think Obama asked about and why did he ask it? Do you think he explicitly excluded everything Zakaria said from any and all internal thought processes along with all discussions he had with others on policy matters? You and Zakaria are both splitting hairs and I think if you really took some time you'd hear how silly it sounds. If not, I really don't know what else to say on the issue.
 
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2011 05:32 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
05-17-2011 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cpawfan Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,254
Joined: Sep 2007
Reputation: 40
I Root For: UC Bearcats
Location: Volleyball Court
Post: #26
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-17-2011 03:58 PM)QSECOFR Wrote:  Again, boys and girls, it matters not what Bush did, what CLienton did, or what Reagan did. By the libs accounts, Bush was wrong on everything he did. All this stuff about "Well Bush also..." is just a bunch of little kid speak for "I won't look as bad if I can convince my Mommy that Jimmy did even worse things than me."

Does the president have capable foreign policy advisors or not? If not, why? If so, why reach out to a reporter?

For some reason, I'm reminded of this quote

"What I have learned in 11 years in the sports business is that the dumbest guys in the room are always the media guys." -- Mark Cuban August 5, 2010
 
05-18-2011 07:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Eastside_J Away
Impressing Jodie Foster

Posts: 7,877
Joined: Mar 2004
I Root For: Cincinnati.
Location:

Donators
Post: #27
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
From Chicago's - NY times link regarding meeting with Bush.

Quote:Mr. Zakaria said he felt participating was appropriate because his views, as a columnist for Newsweek, were public, although he has never divulged his involvement to his readers.

“My column is an analytical column,” he said, adding that he gives advice to policy makers and elected officials: “If a senator calls me up and asks me what should we do in Iraq, I’m happy to talk to him.”

Hmmm, sounds like he is trying to say that his Newsweek role was as an "analytical" column writer is an important excuse for him to be able to advise Presidents (or Senators). Because as an opinion columnist (or "analytical" using his very Clintonian style term) his views on subjects are shared openly.

Looks like he has already drawn the distinction in his own excuse for being present, logically it follows that if the opposite were true and he were acting as a traditional jounalist or reporter, this would be a conflict and the involvement would be improper.
 
05-18-2011 12:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chicago bearcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,215
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #28
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.

"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."

"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html
 
05-18-2011 04:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearhawkeye Offline
The King of Breakfast
*

Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-18-2011 04:53 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.

"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."

"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html

I don't think you even understand your own arguments. Krauthammer told his readers/viewers at that time - unlike Zakaria. Neither did CNN. Which is why they are criticized in the article.

And you need to check your facts. Olbermann got into trouble not specifically for giving the donation, but for not telling his bosses per their policy - again pointing out the duty employers feel for their employees.

And since you brought up Krauthammer's old compliment, here's his update on how Obama actually governs. I put a money quote in bold for you. It gets to the heart of what I really dislike about this President and his style of government:

Quote:Demagoguery 101
By Charles Krauthammer, Published: May 12

“I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues.”

— Barack Obama, speech on immigration, El Paso, May 10

Constructive and civil debate — like the one Obama initiated just four weeks ago on deficit reduction? The speech in which he accused the Republicans of abandoning families of autistic and Down syndrome kids? The debate in which Obama’s secretary of health and human services said that the Republican Medicare plan would make old folks “die sooner”?

In this same spirit of comity and mutual respect, Obama’s most recent invitation to civil discourse — on immigration — came just 11 minutes after he accused opponents of moving the goal posts on border enforcement. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said sarcastically. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”

Nice touch. Looks like the Tucson truce — no demonization, no cross-hairs metaphors — is officially over. After all, the Republicans want to kill off the elderly, throw the disabled in the snow and watch alligators lunch on illegal immigrants.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith. “They’ll never be satisfied,” said Obama about border control. “And I understand that. That’s politics.”

How understanding. The other side plays “politics,” Obama acts in the public interest. Their eyes are on poll numbers, political power, the next election; Obama’s rest fixedly on the little children.

This impugning of motives is an Obama constant. “They” play politics with deficit reduction, with government shutdowns, with health care. And now immigration. It is ironic that such a charge should be made in a speech that is nothing but politics. There is zero chance of any immigration legislation passing Congress in the next two years. El Paso was simply an attempt to gin up the Hispanic vote as part of an openly political two-city, three-event campaign swing in preparation for 2012.

Accordingly, the El Paso speech featured two other staples: the breathtaking invention and the statistical sleight of hand.

“The [border] fence is now basically complete,” asserted the president. Complete? There are now 350 miles of pedestrian fencing along the Mexican border. The border is 1,954 miles long. That’s 18 percent. And only one-tenth of that 18 percent is the double and triple fencing that has proved so remarkably effective in, for example, the Yuma sector. Another 299 miles — 15 percent — are vehicle barriers that pedestrians can walk right through.

Obama then boasted that on his watch 31 percent more drugs have been seized, 64 percent more weapons — proof of how he has secured the border. And for more proof: Apprehension of illegal immigrants is down 40 percent. Down? Indeed, says Obama, this means that fewer people are trying to cross the border.

Interesting logic. Seizures of drugs and guns go up — proof of effective border control. Seizures of people go down — yet more proof of effective border control. Up or down, it matters not. Whatever the numbers, Obama vindicates himself.

You can believe this flimflam or you can believe the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. The GAO reported in February that less than half the border is under “operational control” of the government. Which undermines the entire premise of Obama’s charge that, because the border is effectively secure, “Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement” didn’t really mean it.

I count myself among those who really do mean it. I have little doubt that most Americans would be quite willing to regularize and legalize the current millions of illegal immigrants if they were convinced that this was the last such cohort, as evidenced by, say, a GAO finding that the border is under full operational control and certification to the same effect by the governors of the four southern border states.

Americans are a generous people. Upon receipt of objective and reliable evidence that the border is secure — not Obama’s infinitely manipulable interdiction statistics — the question would be settled and the immigrants legalized.

Why doesn’t Obama put such a provision in comprehensive immigration legislation? Because for Obama, immigration reform is not about legislation, it’s about reelection. If I may quote the president: I understand that. That’s politics.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Demagoguery 101
 
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2011 09:04 PM by Bearhawkeye.)
05-18-2011 08:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chicago bearcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,215
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #30
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-18-2011 08:58 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 04:53 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.

"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."

"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html

And you need to check your facts. Olbermann got into trouble not specifically for giving the donation, but for not telling his bosses per their policy - again pointing out the duty employers feel for their employees.
h


Look at my post it says Olbermann and Hannity failed to disclose it. Im aware that is why he was disciplined.
 
(This post was last modified: 05-18-2011 09:25 PM by chicago bearcat.)
05-18-2011 09:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bearhawkeye Offline
The King of Breakfast
*

Posts: 13,708
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 585
I Root For: Zinzinnati
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(05-18-2011 09:23 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 08:58 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 04:53 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.

"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."

"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html

And you need to check your facts. Olbermann got into trouble not specifically for giving the donation, but for not telling his bosses per their policy - again pointing out the duty employers feel for their employees.
h


Look at my post it says Olbermann and Hannity failed to disclose it. Im aware that is why he was disciplined.

Didn't see this until you mentioned it in another thread. Hilarious that you avoid all the other points that show how wrong you are to focus on this one and then try to call me out for not addressing this obscurity. Now to that point, if you knew it, you didn't admit it. The fact is Olbie' trouble was for not telling his bosses - nobody but you apparently is surprised by his giving to Dems.
 
06-06-2011 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
chicago bearcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,215
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 36
I Root For: Bearcats
Location:
Post: #32
RE: Bozell: After Advising Obama, CNN's Zakaria Must Recuse Himself From Covering Foreign
(06-06-2011 09:45 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 09:23 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 08:58 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  
(05-18-2011 04:53 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  Guess have to agree to disagree. I just dont think its that big a deal. A true example of conflict of interest was Olbermann and Hannity making campaign contributions to specific candidates and failing to disclose it. Giving your view on an issue to a president is not tantamount to supporting him. In fact its possible that Zakaria discussed his view of a foreign policy issue and that it was completely different than what what put into practice. I am happy that President is soliciting multiple opinions. Obama previously met with several conservative columnists including Charles Krauthammer at George Will's House.

"Obama enjoys debating his ideological opponents more than his allies, an adviser said, and plans further meetings with journalists of varying stripes during his term."

"Obama's a man who has demonstrated he is interested in hearing other views," said syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...04155.html

And you need to check your facts. Olbermann got into trouble not specifically for giving the donation, but for not telling his bosses per their policy - again pointing out the duty employers feel for their employees.
h


Look at my post it says Olbermann and Hannity failed to disclose it. Im aware that is why he was disciplined.

Didn't see this until you mentioned it in another thread. Hilarious that you avoid all the other points that show how wrong you are to focus on this one and then try to call me out for not addressing this obscurity. Now to that point, if you knew it, you didn't admit it. The fact is Olbie' trouble was for not telling his bosses - nobody but you apparently is surprised by his giving to Dems.

Im confused you say "if you knew it, you didnt admit it". I knew it and said that in first post. I was not suprised at all that Olbermann gave money, only surprised he failed to disclose it to his bosses which is what I wrote in original post.
 
06-06-2011 09:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.