"Ex-patriots"? You must mean those who no longer feel any love of country. For all your condscension, you are a master of malapropism, if nothing else. The word is "expatriates" and btw that pub of male strutting, Doheny and Nesbits, is so yesterday!

When they aren't hyping plates thrown in the air and lens reflections as flying saucers, they mine this site for material.

http://rense.com

they left out the mink coat but they got the pimp hat and suit.

oh my god that bush thing was infuriating. what a robot. what a tool. he can't think on his feet, he can only spit out pieces of propaganda, and he must finish chewing when he bites down on a sugar cube! don't interrupt the horsie! he'll bit your hand off! it's just so ....embarrassing that he is our president, seriously. it's humiliating and i haven't even left my house.

those other clips were a breath of fresh airi love that guy paxman! i mean, i lived the reporter in the last one, too. but bush got my pulse over 200 with his detestable, loathsome self.

thanks for exposing how vapid and moronic and useless our mainstream press is for the most part. we all really need the reminders. their complicity in so much ruin today is shocking. sorrowful.

If prospective sources learn that a particular reporter (or, worse, all reporters) may burn them by treating every interaction as presumptively on the record, then those sources will of course go out of their way to avoid the press. Who wouldn't?

Then how do you explain the fact that Paxman continues to have interviews with some of the most powerful sources in Britain? Is it just that the Brits are so much more masochistic than us yanks?

(Sorry if someone's already gotten to this. I've been out moving mountains of snow from place to place.)

Who would have known? LOL

The new lemon seems not to be McCain ironically, enough, but Clinton. The name Clinton has replaced that of Bush, and there is still much juice in that rind. The names have been changed--the Democrat good guy is Obama now, but the bad guy is also a Democrat, Clinton.

Hillary just hasn't invited journalists to enough "ordinary folk" meat-grilling parties at her house. These are clearly the types of things that should determine our choice for president.

Say nothing of the fact that McCain chews the head off of any reporter who dares ask him whether he and John Kerry discussed being running mates in 2004 - the man is clearly a sweet, honest, and completely open guy!

You are far too impressed with yourself. Some Dublin jounos, as I know, drink in the Palace Bar, others in McDaids, some have been around long enough to still know here Joe Dwyers' is.

Stop kidding yourself -- you are a pretty transparent type, I'll look up Wendy Shea for a definition. I am sure it is as caustic as she would apply to me.

“Anyone making the TV interview rounds is going to be encouraged to dish dirt ... Two words: "No comment"

This excerpt from Wikipedia doesn’t sound like a dirt disher to me. She got carried away and spoke too honestly. When you read this and take away the one comment "She is a monster” none of this would have happened. Should we be talking so much about one loose noun? Not if we had a higher standard of politics and journalism.

In a March 6 interview with The Scotsman, she was quoted as saying: "We fucked up in Ohio. In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio's the only place they can win" "She is a monster, too -- that is off the record -- she is stooping to anything...You just look at her and think, 'Ergh.' But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

that is, for "off the record" statements? Is Ms. Peev correct: once the tape recorder is on, even if you say, previous to the statement, "this is off the record", it is, in fact, fair play? Or do you have to come to an agreement before the interview? Can you preface the statement with, "this is off the record" and have that respected, according to journalistic ethics? Was Powers' statement admissible because she didn't say "off the record" until after she uttered the statement, or because she was already being recorded?

Honestly, I'm just asking because I realize I don't know the journalistic ethics on "off the record" statements and a lot of people are saying different things. I have no other agenda. For instance, on any given TV drama, a "source" will say, "this is off the record" and the TV journalist won't use it. Is this, as much TV is, completely incorrect and foolish? (Yes, I admit I'm completely uniformed about this topic. and how!)

I agree that the US press are a bunch of pandering sissies when it comes to the powerful (generally; certainly not all of them), but if there are some rules in place, rules is rules. But if there are not, then it's fair game. I just don't really know the true journalistic ethical take on this.

Glenn? Bueller? Anyone? Thanks!

Yes, That's it William.

Now, in english, we call that the Big Head.

Well done.

Bah.

"A+" :)~

Your say:

"If prospective sources learn that a particular reporter (or, worse, all reporters) may burn them by treating every interaction as presumptively on the record, then those sources will of course go out of their way to avoid the press. Who wouldn't?

Then how do you explain the fact that Paxman continues to have interviews with some of the most powerful sources in Britain? Is it just that the Brits are so much more masochistic than us yanks?"

Jeremy Paxman specialises in the in studio, on camera interview. He is good when he is comprehensively briefed, lousy when not (and I have seen him lousy.) When exactly do you think he does anything "off the record?" Paxo as he is known is a legendarily hard worker, he has to do a major interview almost every night, he masters the brief, he learns the facts (usually), and he can therefore ask hard questiosn and spot bullshit. He relies on the Newsnight team of journalists, something that despite a big ego, to brief him. They rely on background sources to do that briefing. But the idea that Paxman published anything off the record is laughable -- everything he does is on its face "on the record."

Paxman is second to none as a tough interviewer, though John Humphries comes close, but neither is an investigative journalist, both are studio interviewers.