28 Comments
The David Horowitz lecture is scheduled to begin momentarily. Unlike previous events with controversial speakers that Bwog was able to liveblog, we will not be able to do that this time. After initially granting Bwog press credentials to the event, the College Republicans then revoked them, saying that Bwog “lacks journalistic integrity” and calling it a “gossip rag.” The Republicans–like all student groups that invite speakers–have full control over the media policy for their events, and are also prohibiting all media outlets from broadcasting live in any form from the event.
Check back later for a full update.
Loading …
28 Comments
@this is all because Kulawik didn’t get a bwog personal. Don’t worry College Republicans – There’s always Craigslist
@seriously Bwog really did create the cult of Kulawik & they did it with this post back in April ’06:
http://bwog.net/publicate/index.php?page=post&article_id=1256
Before that the Republicans were left to their own business & the campus was a MUCH better place.
@hooray im glad for the republicans that they choose to no longer be masochists. hooray! and bwog is surprised by this why?
@yah allowing tpm to tape part of the speech is definitely catering to the right wing http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/057129.php
@meh who cares? BWOG is biased, but that is their right. Just like it is the repubs right to allow whoever the hell they want.
Blogging is legit journalism, but not all blogs are journalism.
Was Talkingpointsmemo covering the event live, or just attending, then covering?
@also it’s flat wrong to say that no media was allowed in the event. Talkingpointsmemo was there.
@whats awesome is how the lefty partisan commentators are hyperventilating adn going ‘they only want the fox news suxors’, ‘what did bwog do wrong’,
‘the club has no right to stop live coverage’ despite the fact bwog’s even said that NO media at all is allowed to cover it live.
The reasons seem pretty prudent–the second you get live coverage (like at minutemen/remember the edwards rally/etc) you get a bunch of folks in there who want to steal the media spotlight and cause a disruption. Allowing the media to cover it but not in a ‘live’ manner ensures that any potential disruptors don’t get the instant gratification they’ll want. This also ensures that anybody making a disruption can’t use the ‘we’re just presenting our views to the public’ excuse as they’ll simply be preventing somebody from speaking.
Otherwise, bwog is a gossip rag (nothing wrong with that) and as such doesn’t abide by a lot of journalistic standards–particularly in terms of impartiality (instapundit/tpmcafe etc aren’t journalists—they are media–but they certainly don’t hold themselves to the same standards in terms of objectivity). I mean can anybody really say bwog isn’t at least clearly left of center and derisive of figures like Kulawik (ironically they’re more responsible for building his cult of personality than anybody else)?
@Anonymous I’m sorry, I tried to read your post but my head was swimming because I’ve been hyperventilating.
So instead I would like to say I think it’s hilarious that “Islamofascism Awareness Week” is ostensibly to raise awareness of a problem. How anyone plans to accomplish this without letting in mainstream media sources is pretty mindboggling.
Hold on, I need to go get my brown paper bag.
@better take a couple extra huffs out of that bag. in your haste you somehow conflated ‘mainstream media coverage’ with ‘live coverage’
becuase ya know, like bwog and other sources couldn’t go there and then ya know report what happened later in some type of verbal or written summary or something
@Or... From what I remember of the Minutemen event, a Minuteman supporter kicked a student in the face, and was caught on camera doing it. I guess it therefore makes sense to take all cameras out, right? And why does Fox News get to cover it then? Presumably, they will edit out any footage of Horowitz getting owned.
@your memory's very one sided. the disgusting behavior of the protesters and the bum rushing of the stage through security was what precipitated that incident and the circus that followed. and i’ve listed the reason why i’d disallow cameras–you in your vapidity have no response for it and refused to address it and tried to change the point–follow along hate monger
And i wasn’t at the event–the event specifically said that no press would get to cover it live but that press would be allowed to be there
and its funny for bwog commentators to worry about possible unfair slanted coverage of an event
@Actually my ‘vapidity’ in not responding to your answer arises from the fact that your reason is completely retarded. You think they stormed the stage for media attention? What a dumbass you are! No one knew beforehand that the event was being recorded by a news network. The storming was a gut reaction to provocation from Gilchrist (we’re not just on the border shooting Mexicans ya’know…)
I thought what the protesters did was disgraceful, but the chain of events was: Gilchrist talking smack, protestors yelling & rushing the stage, and a Gilchrist-man kicking a student in the face. As you later pointed out, if media sources are going to report on the event later on, the media is going to find out about what happened anyway. Whether it’s live or staggered has nothing do with anything. Your ‘instant gratification’ idea is complete crap, try again.
@gut reaction I assume the posters and poster-making supplies sprang forth from their guts as well?
@cool so ‘complete crap’ constitute’s an argument. Good luck in law school.
By the way, I clearly pointed out that while media does report on things as a summary it has nowhere the effect of having one’s entire message delivered in some cases live or in motion. For example, whereas the media spun the minuteman incident into those ‘brown shirt havana north columbia protestors’, a live recording would give protestors/whoever effective media control and a pulpit. But hey, keep on ignoring an argument, not understanding why its different to have your words viewed live vs being just summarized (why does osama always release tapes versus just transcripts considering the security risks the former poses?) and generally looking like an idiot. It’s really working out for you.
@Is this because Kulawik is still sore about the way Bwog covered Minutemen?
“Kulawik, citing unfair treatment on the Bwog, has refused to answer any of The Blue and White’s questions since October 12 [2006].”
–“I Know You Hate Yourselves,” Blue & White, Oct 2006
@hey i demand that in MLA format
@I am Chris’ angry zits, and I will punish Bwog for calling me out.
@Well, given the nature of bwog’s coverage of this issue over the past few days, you really can’t blame the Republicans.
@really though You’ve got to be nice to them once in a while!!
@this post has serious grammar issues.
@autocomplete Typical Republicans…
@you're ridiculous
@bwog.... What did you do to piss off the republicans this time? You have to realize their self-esteem is fragile, having to survive on a campus so dominated by people who actually care about others more than money(awaits vicious anti-democrat attack).
@everyone knows that Bwog is to journalistic integrity as Jester is to sound science
@ironic I mean they are right, come on guys don’t you know they have to save all the press passes for Fox News, the paradigm of fair and balanced journalism?
@If... blogging is not journalism, CUCR aren’t morally upstanding people, methinks? … But Bwog is a gossip rag, that’s not incorrect.
@word son how can i find out what the dirty republicans are doing without my bwog on constant refresh mode. wtf.
@wtf!! I think bwog is actually good for an event like this because you guys would try to not pick sides. Boo Republicans, how dare you diss bwog?