|
Well, I'd say the title of the thread seems to imply a strike on his part against Freedom Of The Press which clearly wasn't evidenced by the story, in particular, or the practice, in general.
You might think his action was wrongheaded, but that doesn't mean it violated the Freedom of the Press in any way... not even it's spirit.
It did cause him to rethink his policy, but I certainly hope the change was made because of a true desire that he should allow coverage and not because of the publicity involved, because it has caused him to treat the different media outlets differently. Now the print media will be allowed to tape his appearances at functions, but he'll still deny broadcast media access? Seems to me he was in better shape before, at least he was being fair.
[ 04-13-2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]
__________________
[img]\"http://home.carolina.rr.com/orthanc/pics/Spinning%20Hammer%20Sig%20Pic.gif\" alt=\" - \" />
|