Read the transcripts? Quite a few actually. Specially when trying to make sense of some of the things that W has been reported as having said.

Also, I have to be impressed by the number of questions that come out on paper as patsies… Those are the ones where the politician starts his reply by saying “I am very glad that you asked that…”

But I was not talking specifically of Bush; I was taking the wider, non-partisan view of just how subtle political control of the media can be. I have seen press conferences of Clinton (at the time of the Lewinsky thing) doing exactly the same. I would expect that Bush 1 and Reagan were as selective. And if there were other Democrat Presidents I have missed slot their names in …

Obviously, the idea is a non-issue in your mind.

FoxNews rules. But then that is another story altogether, huh!

I will continue to keep my scepticism as sharp as I am able.

If he/she starts asking questions that are even potentially “embarrassing� to the President what chance might there be of that person, or that paper even, being represented at future Press Conferences? Fairly slim I would guess.

Why don’t you address that one to Helen Thomas?

Seriously; have you ever actually seen a White House press conference? Or read a transcript of one?

The invites are not that hard to get. Even I’ve gotten in. That was when I had about $467 in outstanding warrants and a subscription to the “Catholic Worker.”

There are far better, far more important examples than the Mohammet cartoons or South Park, that need to be considered.

This is where the debate in your country and mine becomes academic.

I have written previously about the ab-use of “freedom of the press” (which is too closely related to “…speech” to be seperable) in this country by a past (and little lamented) prime minister. PM Rob Muldoon took such exception to the reportage (and lampooning) by one particular reporter that he refused point blank to attend his press conferences if that reporter was present. That reaction from the PM was reported on tv news (state owned at the time BTW) and his polls reached the same levels as GWB has at the moment and lower as a result.

Now I understand that press attendance at White House Press Conferences is by invitation. No invite, no get through the door. So, how might that affect “freedom of speech/the press”?

If I want to question the President on a matter, there are two “levels of control”. I first have to get an invite to the press conference. Then I have to “arrange” to have my question heard. As I don’t run a kinky web site for gay men the chances at that point would be getting very thin.

But, what about a reporter from WaPo, or Time, or NYT?

If he/she starts asking questions that are even potentially “embarrassing” to the President what chance might there be of that person, or that paper even, being represented at future Press Conferences? Fairly slim I would guess.

Following that, what might happen to the circulation of a newspaper that was not able to report (in any manner at all) direct from the President’s Press Conferences? From national flag to neighbourhood rag overnight would be my guess. Not a good outcome for an Editor.

Now, none of that might be of concern to you. To me, the potential for political manipulation of the press does impact upon the “freedom of speech”, and the converse “right to the truth”.

That is why, in my mind, “stretching the boundaries” is a diversion, a bagatelle that needs careful examination to justify the motives behind it.

Personally, I see as much satirical merit in the SP episode as I did in the Mohammet cartoons; in other words very little to none. I saw no merit in the publication of the Mohammet cartoons, I see no greater merit in the SP episode.

We agree, in photonegative. I found satirical merit in both, and merit in beating the bounds of free speech just to make sure it still exists.

Has the “Bleeding Virgin� episode been shown in the US as yet? I know that Isaac Hayes “left the show� because of it… If it has NOT been shown, why not? You should demand that it is…

You’re asking the wrong guy. I don’t watch TV. The Wikipedia entry on “South Park” suggests it was. It also mentions the NZ controversy. As for Hayes, the supposed dispute he has with the show is over another satire of another religion — Scientology.

A part of my Anglican community folds.

I don’t find that trivial.

C4 DID show the South Park “Bleeding Virgin” episode.

What I wrote about is that subsequently C4 have resiled their “protection of the right to publish” position in the face of criticism from the Catholic Church. They have issued an apology to the Church and given the undertaking that there will be closer consideration of future similar programmes.

My point, in that post, was to highlight the hypocrisy of supporting the publication of the Mohammet cartoons (and the Catholic Church down hereaways did NOTHING to prevent that publication or to support the local Islam) against getting almightily upset when a lampoon of the Virgin Mary was shown on tv.

As for “the public’s perspective” in NZ, the general feeling (from comment in the letters to the Editor and talkback radio) was that SP should never have been shown.

Personally, I see as much satirical merit in the SP episode as I did in the Mohammet cartoons; in other words very little to none. I saw no merit in the publication of the Mohammet cartoons, I see no greater merit in the SP episode.

I suspect that C4 may well have achieved one objective of showing the SP episode. It shows that religious hypocrisy is alive and well in NZ.

Has the “Bleeding Virgin” episode been shown in the US as yet? I know that Isaac Hayes “left the show” because of it… If it has NOT been shown, why not? You should demand that it is…