Peeping Wizard Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Did you know that Anderson Cooper doesn't like hot beverages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Par for the course for this admin. One of the most "opaque" administration in US history. Yes, I can see how not wanting hundredes of media types swarming over the clean up of the largest mess in history compares to forcing citizens to stay in "free speech zones" during political conventions. Sometimes i wonder if you guys even read your own ****ing. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 The 65 ft thing is easy to focus on, as being insignificant. Especially if you give the benefit of doubt to the current, over-sensitive to any press that is not in the form of worship, administration. Trying to control the story is nothing new. This group ain't the first to try. Nor, will they be the last. Me thinks this is, more likely, a little shot across the bow, so to speak. There has been growing animosity, amongst the liberal press, towards the Obama administration, and Obama himself, over their perceived mistreatment, by them, of the press corp. After all, they played a majority role in getting the guy elected. They believe he "owes" them. This is just a little, "give him a taste of what it's like" to try and get him to be more cooperative. Which, he may want to do. If they ever go after him like they did Bush, or hell, even Clinton, he'd go down faster than the Hindenberg. BTW, does anyone think there will be a 65ft limit for photographers covering the lawyers down their filing suits? I mean, with all the bull**** moving around, somebody could slip and hurt themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 BTW, does anyone think there will be a 65ft limit for photographers covering the lawyers down their filing suits? I mean, with all the bull**** moving around, somebody could slip and hurt themselves. that's pretty funny right there. If this was 300 yards, or even 100 yards I could understand questioning as to the reason,, what are they hiding, etc. But 65",, that is about the width of a small back yard.. I can hear you talking 65' away, I can see you plain as day. Like I said, I agree with Zoony,, I think this is more along the order of what kind of further damage (real, not PR type) the swarms of photogs and reporters can cause in pursuit of the story. to listen to Anderson Cooper, pictures of oil soaked birds are so important that he must decry his rights being trampled.. my thinking is,, how many more oil soaked bird pictures can be shot? They all look the same. It really isn't a big deal if I don't see a picture of today's oil soaked bird. I agree with Ax also to a point,, given the rather petty nature of this complaint, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that the media is tightening the screws for their own purposes. ( Likely that the least of which is getting us the truth. ) Which of course leads me back to a mantra i've been repeating a while,, we must question our questioners. Their motivations are not what we think they are a lot of the time. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THEREALTOR1 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I say if the reporters wanna wander all over the job site they should put their ass to work while they're there. "Hey mr./mrs. reporter, you wanna go take a pic of that dead bird on the beach, fine, while you're there clean up all the tar balls 100' around it, kthnx" :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 To expand a bit here, is it not reasonable for the government and for BP to ask media to stay clear of their cleanup operations, equipment, boats, and personnel? These people have a job to do. Unattended equipment is hazardous.I suspect all it took were sightings of a few dumbass reporters driving their boat through an oil slick and over top of a floating boom so they could snap a closeup of a bird. I suspect there would be some liability on the Coast Guard's part, too, if someone got injured. Not to mention the danger for cleanup crews out on the water dealing with rogue reporters in speedboats trying to get the story. I mean... 65 feet. Stay clear, 65 feet. I have a $300 home video camera that can zoom in 100 yards like it's nothing. During NBC's olympic coverage they shot a scene with Brian Williams from 20 miles away on top of a mountain, and panned out for effect. This is Mickey Mouse type ****, really. Like I said, I'm sure I'm missing something here (besides his ratings, lol). Anyone care to fill me in? I agree with you. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're hiding something bad. But it seems to me that it's more of a safety issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 I agree with you.I also wouldn't be surprised if they're hiding something bad. But it seems to me that it's more of a safety issue. I also wouldnt be shocked if they're hiding something, seems as if someone usually is. But 65' doesn't seem like much of a buffer. I think the most reasonable explanation is probably correct. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Skins72 Posted July 7, 2010 Share Posted July 7, 2010 Damn, I was all fired up to rant about government abuse and Zoony had to go and douse my rant before it got started with his perfectly reasonable explanation :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.