1) contrary to what you say, my statement in No. 1 is correct, and. anyone who knows anything about american journalism from colonial times forward knows it.

2) local cabel access programing is often amusing, but the program hosts hardly have any qualifications to be credentialed and have a seat in the white house press room. get a list  of reporters/orgs
 credentialed by the wh and you sill see how diverse the representation and coverage is.

3) i don’t know what questions you are interested in, but given the avalanche of news coverage in the last 2 decades – including coverage of the wh – my guess is that in the scheme of things your questions would be irrelevant or far down the list in terms of importance.

4) it appears that the lovely ms. o’donnell did NOT ask why “we” didn’t get what “we” wanted, as you argue. you appear to have grossly misrepresented the facts.

5) activist orgs have their own spin on whatever they are reporting. they are obviously(and understandably)  biased anto their point of view, and what’s most important, don’t even aspire to it balance, fairness and accuracy. the credibility of internet “news” depends on the source. anybody with walking around sense should know to be highly skeptical about the “news” they get from unidentified sources on the internet. alot of it’s outright lies.

6) i am not your “man.” further, i am at a loss to understand why you actually think you are qualified to give me advice when you don’t know a single frigging thing about me .i am particularly amused that you want me to learn how to write at a “higher level than a 3rd grader.” LOL LOL LOL. are you frigging kidding? LOL LOL LOL. sigh.

1) u.s. journalism is no more fraud than it’s ever been. in fact, it’s much more responsible, and even a casual look at american journalism in different eras proves it.

2) there are too many “activist organizations” to assign any one of them a seat in the white house press room.
if ALL of them had a “front row seat” you would have to move the briefings to a frigging stadium, maybe the washington mall. besides, activist orgs are not exactly in the dark when it comes to knowing what’s going on in washington. 

3) activist orgs do NOT report the news to the general public.

4) the white house press room is NOT “limited to nbc and a handful of other networks.” what do you want, local cabel access programs to be accredited press at the wshite house? i don’t think so.

5) you can frequently see wh briefings on cable news or c-span.

Would *have*. 

More like womanless freshmen in their dorm rooms on a Saturday night. Except, you know, older. 

How much did George Soros/Media Matters pay you to say about saying about that?

NBC and all other mainstream news organizations/donators-in-kind to the Obama ’12 campaign ARE activist organizaitons.

How much did the Koch Brothers pay you to say that?
/sarc

Weird, all u rightwing trolls here – r u on assignment from Koch Bros or just like skinheads randomly bashing targets of opportunity?

I watched both videos at the HuffPo three times and I strained to find ANY difference between the two. Eventually I gave up and assumed it was a liberal hallucination.

The most interesting thing about the whole HuffPo piece were the comments. Hundreds of people claimed to hear something that clearly was not there. Were they deluded? Did they lie and not bother to watch both vids? Are some so eager to accept propaganda that reinforces their own beliefs that they are unwilling to verify it for themselves?

Chait was the major source of this story. He deserves no quarter.

It just shows that the Left cannot let go of a meme — “Breitbart edits videos!” — once they have decided the “truth.”

Plus, this was much ado about nothing anyway. Asking rhetorical questions happens all the time.