Plus, he doesn't have the Australian media in his pocket like he does the US media. No telling what stories they might file. Why, some of the truth may even get out. Nope, can't have that.
He doesn't exactly have the U.S. press in his pocket, else his administration wouldn't be proclaiming rules like this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55816-2003Oct20.html) in which he bans the media from covering the return of the remains of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.
Bush avoids any encounter with the media he can't control. He's given one TV interview that I know of since becoming President, and that was for Fox, the journalistic equivalent of being hit with a wet paper bag.
There was a great interview on Denton's "Enough Rope" with Helen Thomas, who has been in the White House press corps since the Kennedy era. She had this to say about Bush (http://www.abc.net.au/enoughrope/stories/s941661.htm):
Andrew Denton: Can you give an example?
Helen Thomas: Well, I think that a president should always hold news conferences, because under our system of government, it's the only forum in our society, the only institution where a president can be questioned. It's not like the British system where the prime minister goes before the House of Commons on a regular basis and is questioned. We're the only pipeline to the American people. And if a president isn't questioned, he could be a king, he could be a dictator, he could rule by executive order, and that's not good.
Andrew Denton: How many press conferences has this current President held?
Helen Thomas: Only nine so far.
As for the "friendly Press Corps" here in Australia, the SMH is probably the most left-wing of our major newspapers. It was certainly the only one that allowed any real criticism of Bush or the war in Iraq. I doubt the position of the Murdoch papers is going to change much just because Bush won't talk directly to them: their boss already has his ear.
Then there was the time the VP held a "press conference" in the (ironically enough) Constitution Center in Philadelphia, and didn't let the press in. A newspaper reporter tried to attend and was told that it was open only to television, and journalists from print media were not allowed.
no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 18:34 (UTC)He displayed much the same behaviour during the campaign. I guess the people of the United States don't really want to know.
Oi.
no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 18:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 18:58 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 19:06 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 19:09 (UTC)no subject
Date: 21 Oct 2003 19:56 (UTC)Bush avoids any encounter with the media he can't control. He's given one TV interview that I know of since becoming President, and that was for Fox, the journalistic equivalent of being hit with a wet paper bag.
There was a great interview on Denton's "Enough Rope" with Helen Thomas, who has been in the White House press corps since the Kennedy era. She had this to say about Bush (http://www.abc.net.au/enoughrope/stories/s941661.htm):
As for the "friendly Press Corps" here in Australia, the SMH is probably the most left-wing of our major newspapers. It was certainly the only one that allowed any real criticism of Bush or the war in Iraq. I doubt the position of the Murdoch papers is going to change much just because Bush won't talk directly to them: their boss already has his ear.
no subject
Date: 22 Oct 2003 01:00 (UTC)If you want to know how Bush got elected...
Date: 22 Oct 2003 04:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: 28 Oct 2003 15:58 (UTC)