Skip to main content

Gore bans reporters...

h/t to Tim Blair. Gore is speaking in Saskatchewan to raise awareness of global warming.

But he doesn't want reporters to record his speech.

During question period, the Saskatchewan Party asked how residents who can't attend the speech in Regina later this month will hear Gore's message when there are media restrictions on the event.

Gore's contract bans reporters from recording audio or shooting video.


Maybe it’s about him wanting to control the distribution so he can profit from it or maybe it’s about him wanting to control the message.

I would scoff and joke about it but I’m suddenly not the least bit amused. Pelosi refuses to meet with president Bush. The Dem presidential candidates are refusing to debate on FOX. Gore doesn’t want his speeches recorded by potential unfriendlies. And I’m reminded of our last local election cycle where people had to sneak personal recording devices into speeches or debates because the Dem candidates refused to allow themselves to be recorded. And that was at the few debates that happened. Democrat candidates refused debates over and over. I don’t think there was a even single debate between candidates for some of the offices.

And it’s working. And I look around and the same strategy is being employed, no cameras, no recordings, or else no meetings at all.

It’s not funny. It’s frightening, and mostly because the tactic is downright *lauded* by the Democratic base.

Probably it will backfire if the media is pushed too far. I’m an optimistic person and I try to tell myself that this will certainly happen.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Trying to helplessly coddle your enemies, like Bush is doing, does nobody any favors. If you won't help your allies such as Fox News, then certainly you enemies will come in the night and make a few alliances of convenience. Because this is the point, isn't it, to have the Democrats have a tighter grip on the media through selling exclusives and access. To rule through terror. It cannot be combated with passiveness, neither in Iraq or here.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...