It also would remove some of the danger of eating real meat; no cow feces possibly contaminating the meat, no microscopic brain or bone bits spreading diseases.
You mean like artists and entertainers before copyright came along
Before copyright came along, it was very expensive to make copies of works anyway. As someone else already pointed out, copyright followed only a few years after the invention of the printing press.
From wikipedia: "[The] concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne (short title Copyright Act 1709...)
"A printing press is a mechanical device for applying pressure to an inked surface resting upon a medium (such as paper or cloth), thereby transferring an image. The mechanical systems involved were first assembled in Germany by the goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg around 1440..."
It's odd that people are so quick to point out the changing world when saying copyright should be abandoned, yet so slow to notice that the evidence they give for the viability of alternatives predates those same changes.
It's odd that people are quick to point out that artists would stop writing/performing/drawing if copyright were abolished, yet so slow to look at similar industries that thrive despite it: dance, cooking, fashion, sculpture...
current artists and entertainers whose works are not covered by copyright?
And who are they, and how much material do they produce and of what quality, relative to artists whose works are covered by copyright?
Quality is one debatable question. However the rights lost in the enforcement of that "quality" is the more important issue in my mind. As much as I love to see the great man-made monuments of the world, I don't declare that because we don't have the slave labor to build a great pyramid today that our current system is inferior and unworkable.
Personally, and this is speculative, I don't think abolishing copyright would change consumption and spending on entertainment that much. If people are willing to spend X dollars on entertainment a month they're going to spend it as long as you give them a good reason to.
Interesting bit is that some were already speculating that the Crunchpad was not real."
Internet claims unreleased product is vaporware. Not interesting.
Quoted link in TFS is referring to googlephone, not crunchpad FWIW.
Whether these claims of backstabbing to death a product just before release and if it is par for the course as some posters have claimed is what flips my interesting bit.
So I RTFA and read the source linked in TFA and something isn't matching up. He's inferring an awful lot from an awful little. Is there a (semi-reputable leaked)copy of the orig document floating around that he is basing some of these claims on? Because the EU Summary is very vague and doesn't necessarily lead to the harshness of the provisions he's outlining. I'm not saying his interpretation is in any way not sound, but it also seems to be the extreme end of things.
Is it worth catching corporate criminals at the cost of civil privacy?
No, absolutely not. Mostly because we DON'T have to wholly sacrifice one for the other. I'm all for a more streamlined and formalized(read accountability) process for getting some kind of "international warrant" for this data, but FULL ACCESS!?!?! F*** fishing expeditions.
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience... Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)
The problem is the cost of real journalism and the same duplicability you cite. If someone can summarize your well researched article and cite you as the source(which they should be able to do) then you don't have "original content" anymore. The internet has greatly reduced that time window of originality and the cost to republish.
Focusing on local news helps a bit, but you still need paying journalism for the major stories everyone's covering.
How was this modded interesting? Take the five seconds to look up "the club of rome", "Georgia Guidestone", and "Agenda 21" on wiki. This person needs help, not mod points.
I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here; these are seriously paranoid ramblings.
Denialists: Apparently, denying "climate change" is now a belief system and not founded on any real evidence.
Actually that's exactly the point. Climate scientists have looked at the data and using the scientific method have the theory that AGW is happening. So far, the "deniers" have not been using the scientific method and have merely been repeating debunked claims.
That makes entirely too much sense to be true. No, no, all the climate scientists got into it for "the money" and the rest are simply following peer pressure.
So we should have stuck to the African plains? Humans are not meant to go underwater/in space/in the air/over the ocean so we should never try? Your opinion is terrible.
Again, I would dispute that the Bush administration committed any shenanigans in connection with the Lackawana Six. These guys broke the law, and the FBI got warrants and arrested them. Possibly considering using the Army to arrest terrorists doesn't count as shenanigans in my book, especially when THEY DECIDED NOT TO and handled it as a by the book civilian law enforcement operation.
That's your opinion, mine is that it should have never been on the table.
Just because Bush had a few small achievements in the field of pissing you/lawpoop off doesn't make him a Palpatine-level dictator.
I don't think he was a bad president because he "pissed me off"; I think he was a bad president because he ignored the checks and balances in the system, consolidated power into the executive branch, and suspended some constitutional rights to boot. That, coupled with his philosophy of being "the decider", certainly has the potential to make a dictator.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the "The world will end in 2012" crowd? Because in December 2008, the probabilities were about the same.
Complete straw man, there's absolutely no logical consistency to "2012", that's not even the right date to be pedantic. Sorry if I forgo your expert analysis on the relative probabilities of events. Especially after you implied that the probability of an event occurring was always 0 (even before it happened) because it didn't happen. There's a reason people use the phrase "hindsight is 20-20".
You're right about lawpoop's reference to the Lackawanna Six, still doesn't invalidate my point about due process though.
I read the "shenanigans" as referring to the article he linked and you quoted, not TFA. As I said before, I don't think either adminstration was responisble for the "shenanigans" in TFA. The Bush Administration was responsible for the shenanigans in the linked article, and because that's what you quoted, that's what I thought you were referring to. It seems we were arguing different things.
And just because something didn't actually happen doesn't mean it wasn't valid to fear it before the events unfolded. Would you also have been "retarded" to not bet on Jimmie Johnson back before the race started? Of course not, you didn't know who would win, at it was likely someone else could win. Similarly lawpoop clearly stated it was a fear he had at the time and not that it actually happened in his first paragraph.
Fairbanks, AK's population according to wikipedia is 35,132. I grew up in a town that size without everyone owning a gun and also practically no violent crime.
Chicago has 2.8 million people in the city proper and over 9.5 million in the "metropolitan area".
I don't think your definition of martial law is the one Sherman was using. Turns out it was all hyperbole anyway.
That part of your original post wasn't just about martial law though:
During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill, did President Bush have any effect on the house leadership?
And he absolutely did. And as I stated above he also has the power to declare martial law. It is mostly irrelevant though because it appears that those threats weren't actually made.
WRT Due Process, the third poster's point was that The Bush Administration had trampled constitutional rights and had looked to go further. From that perspective a lot of people wondered how far they would go, so I hope that seems less "retarded" to you. You were the one that brought up the Lackawanna Six. That didn't address my original concern of why that administration was looking for ways around due process though.
And I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. Sure this[Genetech] "happened during the Obama Administration" (and according TFA "during the Bush Administration" as well). The other events we've been talking about were influenced, if not directly committed, by the Bush Administration. So when you referred to "shenanigans" I assumed you were talking about something comparable to those events since those were the ones you were disputing. If you were just referring to TFA I don't think there's any sort of comparison for the previous reasons.
>>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either
They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.
>>>Fox Entertainment News.
Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC.;-)
I don't watch TV news, so when I was talking about reporting I was referring to print articles. It's harder to add corrections to TV news later so it's good for headlines and quick reporting, but if you want to dig deeper I've not found it to be very useful.
WRT Fox Entertainment News, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Their objective is not journalism, but entertainment and as a result it's more of a tabloid than a news company. They take the barest glimmer of fact and distort it into unrecognizable headlines. I've no problem with a dissenting voice, but I'm not going to respect it if it does no factchecking and consistently uses logical fallacies.
Of course, I don't think that's a remotely valid reason to exclude it from any interviews. While I'm willing to chalk this up to an error, I'll be watching what happens next in this war of words between the WH and Fox.
FWIW I avoid HuffPost, Slate, DailyKos, the New York Post, and other ridiculously biased "sources" as much as I can as well. I'll read the headlines on aggregators and wait for the rest of the story to come out on politifact or factcheck. If I can I'll look for the primary source, as in this case.
I'm a liberal sure, but I try to be objective when looking at fact checking. The liberalism should come in the interpretation of the facts rather than the gathering and presentation. IMO that's where a lot of news sources fail these days.
I know! I hate how your government tells all large businesses where to build their operations and states can't compete for business interests with infrastructure, building costs, property tax, labor costs, and subsidies.
You should move to the U.S. though, states compete for business interests all the time there.
Regardless of how good or bad the TARP program is, or ever was, any parliamentary procedure that the House took to get it passed with a smaller majority than would otherwise be required (such as this martial law thing) would be something done the majority party, in this case the Democrats. In a criticism of Bush for coming to the brink of "declaring martial law," it should be pointed out that it would have had to have been the Democrats who "declared martial law."
You're right that only congress can allow martial law, but the president can declare it(as Lincoln did) and it would then require action by congress to stop it. This would require at least some Republican support in congress(as the bailout bill did) so it was not an empty threat by President Bush.
The option Bush chose for the arrest of the Lackawana Six was to have the FBI get warrants and arrest them. Since they "knew who did it," they got warrants, and then arrested them.
I think the terrorism military tribunals are more relevant to the abridgment of right of due process than the Lackawanna Six. Again why would any other options be considered? Especially when the accused are U.S. citizens.
The "during the Obama administration shenanigans" referred to by the original poster and then by myself is the story we're allegedly talking about. ("Shenanigans" is his word.) Apparently, the Genetech corporation has been writing press releases for members of congress to use during the national healthcare debate, which is taking place during the Obama administration. There's links to articles about it at the top of the page. There's no evidence Obama himself or his administration is tied to any of this. I called it "shenanigans that happened during the Obama administration" because BUSH certainly didn't have anything to do with it.
This is happening in Congress which is separate from the Obama Administration. It happened evenly on both sides of the aisle, and according to Genetech has been happening for years, including in the "Bush Administration", if you're going to insist the Congress is a part of the Executive administration.
If Fox Entertainment News was actually blocked I would agree with you, but they weren't.
The article you're quoting is outdated: here's the rest of the story:
The Treasury didn't have Fox Entertainment News listed on the original list of networks requesting an interview, this was claimed to be a Treasury staffer error by one source I read.
Subsequently, Fox News was not in the orig pooling of networks for the interview.
Fox Entertaiment News got a separate interview of the same length as the other networks.
Becuase this story is a month old, I guess the other news networks attributed the omission to error rather than malice.
It's really hard to find any news about this story except for random blogs and that one commentators outburst. The primary source I found was politico here.
After the White House tried keeping got involved with Treasury's decision whether or not to allow Fox News in a round robin of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the five networks bureau chiefs banded together until Fox was permitted in.
The joint action shows one of the difficulties if the administration tries to marginalize Fox, especially when that disrupts the network pool. (Fox's own report via Johnny Dollar).
UPDATE: From what I hear, the situation was more between Treasury and Fox after the networks decided to pool interviews with Feinberg that had been requested by some, but not all of the networks. The bureau chiefs agreed that all networks should be included in the pool, including Fox, which had been missing from Treasury's list of networks involved in the interviews. The White House was contacted by Treasury, but as a spokesperson points out, they did not keep Fox from interviewing Feinberg.
“The fact that Major Garrett conducted an interview with Ken Feinberg at a time when all the other networks did speaks for itself," deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest told POLITICO.
“This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox," Earnest added. "Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.”
Indeed, the White House conducted interviews recently between Obama and five Sunday show hosts without including Fox's Chris Wallace.
UPDATE 2: A Treasury official tells Mediaite: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."
So either Fox didn't request the interview or the Treasury didn't add it to the list and consequently they weren't in the orig pool.
Something to watch out for if it happens again, but I'm not going to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by error. However it looks like you're misrepresenting or unaware of the facts. It was the Treasury, not the WH, who didn't have Fox Entertainment News in the orig pool and the WH approved the additional interview for Fox Entertainment News.
Interesting that this story is a month old, I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either.
Slashdot Mirror
It also would remove some of the danger of eating real meat; no cow feces possibly contaminating the meat, no microscopic brain or bone bits spreading diseases.
Could it be contracted and expanded with electric shocks?
It's amazing that a vat full of electrified meat is more appetizing than current factory farms...
You mean like artists and entertainers before copyright came along
Before copyright came along, it was very expensive to make copies of works anyway. As someone else already pointed out, copyright followed only a few years after the invention of the printing press.
From wikipedia: "[The] concept of copyright originates with the Statute of Anne (short title Copyright Act 1709...)
"A printing press is a mechanical device for applying pressure to an inked surface resting upon a medium (such as paper or cloth), thereby transferring an image. The mechanical systems involved were first assembled in Germany by the goldsmith Johannes Gutenberg around 1440..."
It's odd that people are so quick to point out the changing world when saying copyright should be abandoned, yet so slow to notice that the evidence they give for the viability of alternatives predates those same changes.
It's odd that people are quick to point out that artists would stop writing/performing/drawing if copyright were abolished, yet so slow to look at similar industries that thrive despite it: dance, cooking, fashion, sculpture...
current artists and entertainers whose works are not covered by copyright?
And who are they, and how much material do they produce and of what quality, relative to artists whose works are covered by copyright?
Quality is one debatable question. However the rights lost in the enforcement of that "quality" is the more important issue in my mind. As much as I love to see the great man-made monuments of the world, I don't declare that because we don't have the slave labor to build a great pyramid today that our current system is inferior and unworkable.
Personally, and this is speculative, I don't think abolishing copyright would change consumption and spending on entertainment that much. If people are willing to spend X dollars on entertainment a month they're going to spend it as long as you give them a good reason to.
Interesting bit is that some were already speculating that the Crunchpad was not real."
Internet claims unreleased product is vaporware. Not interesting.
Quoted link in TFS is referring to googlephone, not crunchpad FWIW.
Whether these claims of backstabbing to death a product just before release and if it is par for the course as some posters have claimed is what flips my interesting bit.
You mean like artists and entertainers before copyright came along and current artists and entertainers whose works are not covered by copyright?
So I RTFA and read the source linked in TFA and something isn't matching up. He's inferring an awful lot from an awful little. Is there a (semi-reputable leaked)copy of the orig document floating around that he is basing some of these claims on? Because the EU Summary is very vague and doesn't necessarily lead to the harshness of the provisions he's outlining. I'm not saying his interpretation is in any way not sound, but it also seems to be the extreme end of things.
Rachael Ray?
So you're proposing we call the weaponized form of this device a Rachael Ray? ;-)
Is it worth catching corporate criminals at the cost of civil privacy?
No, absolutely not. Mostly because we DON'T have to wholly sacrifice one for the other. I'm all for a more streamlined and formalized(read accountability) process for getting some kind of "international warrant" for this data, but FULL ACCESS!?!?! F*** fishing expeditions.
When I can read 8 different newspapers with the exact same AP story, the differential between the newspapers becomes the experience ... Create more original content (ie create content by hiring reporters)
The problem is the cost of real journalism and the same duplicability you cite. If someone can summarize your well researched article and cite you as the source(which they should be able to do) then you don't have "original content" anymore. The internet has greatly reduced that time window of originality and the cost to republish.
Focusing on local news helps a bit, but you still need paying journalism for the major stories everyone's covering.
How was this modded interesting? Take the five seconds to look up "the club of rome", "Georgia Guidestone", and "Agenda 21" on wiki. This person needs help, not mod points.
I'm not being sarcastic or patronizing here; these are seriously paranoid ramblings.
Neither of the things you referenced are nefarious. I think you're reading into them too much.
Denialists: Apparently, denying "climate change" is now a belief system and not founded on any real evidence.
Actually that's exactly the point. Climate scientists have looked at the data and using the scientific method have the theory that AGW is happening. So far, the "deniers" have not been using the scientific method and have merely been repeating debunked claims.
That makes entirely too much sense to be true. No, no, all the climate scientists got into it for "the money" and the rest are simply following peer pressure.
Says the guy advocating violence to "liberals" in his sig...
So does that mean we can use the saved money to fund feeder reactors that don't have the potential to produce weapons grade material?
Probably a pipe dream for a while still, but at least that's one less lobby pushing against building new-styled reactors.
So we should have stuck to the African plains? Humans are not meant to go underwater/in space/in the air/over the ocean so we should never try? Your opinion is terrible.
Again, I would dispute that the Bush administration committed any shenanigans in connection with the Lackawana Six. These guys broke the law, and the FBI got warrants and arrested them. Possibly considering using the Army to arrest terrorists doesn't count as shenanigans in my book, especially when THEY DECIDED NOT TO and handled it as a by the book civilian law enforcement operation.
That's your opinion, mine is that it should have never been on the table.
Just because Bush had a few small achievements in the field of pissing you/lawpoop off doesn't make him a Palpatine-level dictator.
I don't think he was a bad president because he "pissed me off"; I think he was a bad president because he ignored the checks and balances in the system, consolidated power into the executive branch, and suspended some constitutional rights to boot. That, coupled with his philosophy of being "the decider", certainly has the potential to make a dictator.
Out of curiosity, what do you think of the "The world will end in 2012" crowd? Because in December 2008, the probabilities were about the same.
Complete straw man, there's absolutely no logical consistency to "2012", that's not even the right date to be pedantic. Sorry if I forgo your expert analysis on the relative probabilities of events. Especially after you implied that the probability of an event occurring was always 0 (even before it happened) because it didn't happen. There's a reason people use the phrase "hindsight is 20-20".
You're right about lawpoop's reference to the Lackawanna Six, still doesn't invalidate my point about due process though.
I read the "shenanigans" as referring to the article he linked and you quoted, not TFA. As I said before, I don't think either adminstration was responisble for the "shenanigans" in TFA. The Bush Administration was responsible for the shenanigans in the linked article, and because that's what you quoted, that's what I thought you were referring to. It seems we were arguing different things.
And just because something didn't actually happen doesn't mean it wasn't valid to fear it before the events unfolded. Would you also have been "retarded" to not bet on Jimmie Johnson back before the race started? Of course not, you didn't know who would win, at it was likely someone else could win. Similarly lawpoop clearly stated it was a fear he had at the time and not that it actually happened in his first paragraph.
Fairbanks, AK's population according to wikipedia is 35,132. I grew up in a town that size without everyone owning a gun and also practically no violent crime.
Chicago has 2.8 million people in the city proper and over 9.5 million in the "metropolitan area".
That part of your original post wasn't just about martial law though:
During the congressional debates on the bank bailout bill, did President Bush have any effect on the house leadership?
And he absolutely did. And as I stated above he also has the power to declare martial law. It is mostly irrelevant though because it appears that those threats weren't actually made.
WRT Due Process, the third poster's point was that The Bush Administration had trampled constitutional rights and had looked to go further. From that perspective a lot of people wondered how far they would go, so I hope that seems less "retarded" to you. You were the one that brought up the Lackawanna Six. That didn't address my original concern of why that administration was looking for ways around due process though.
And I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. Sure this[Genetech] "happened during the Obama Administration" (and according TFA "during the Bush Administration" as well). The other events we've been talking about were influenced, if not directly committed, by the Bush Administration. So when you referred to "shenanigans" I assumed you were talking about something comparable to those events since those were the ones you were disputing. If you were just referring to TFA I don't think there's any sort of comparison for the previous reasons.
>>>I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either
They all reported on it. ABC, CBS, and CNN all talked about the White House's decision to exclude FOX, and that they told the White House, "Either FOX is included in the interview, or we're not participating." I don't know if NBC reacted or not. Don't remember.
>>>Fox Entertainment News.
Well I'm glad I'm talking to a non-biased person. I guess you're too busy listening to DNC-NBC. ;-)
I don't watch TV news, so when I was talking about reporting I was referring to print articles. It's harder to add corrections to TV news later so it's good for headlines and quick reporting, but if you want to dig deeper I've not found it to be very useful.
WRT Fox Entertainment News, I think it's important to call a spade a spade. Their objective is not journalism, but entertainment and as a result it's more of a tabloid than a news company. They take the barest glimmer of fact and distort it into unrecognizable headlines. I've no problem with a dissenting voice, but I'm not going to respect it if it does no factchecking and consistently uses logical fallacies.
Of course, I don't think that's a remotely valid reason to exclude it from any interviews. While I'm willing to chalk this up to an error, I'll be watching what happens next in this war of words between the WH and Fox.
FWIW I avoid HuffPost, Slate, DailyKos, the New York Post, and other ridiculously biased "sources" as much as I can as well. I'll read the headlines on aggregators and wait for the rest of the story to come out on politifact or factcheck. If I can I'll look for the primary source, as in this case.
I'm a liberal sure, but I try to be objective when looking at fact checking. The liberalism should come in the interpretation of the facts rather than the gathering and presentation. IMO that's where a lot of news sources fail these days.
I know! I hate how your government tells all large businesses where to build their operations and states can't compete for business interests with infrastructure, building costs, property tax, labor costs, and subsidies.
You should move to the U.S. though, states compete for business interests all the time there.
Regardless of how good or bad the TARP program is, or ever was, any parliamentary procedure that the House took to get it passed with a smaller majority than would otherwise be required (such as this martial law thing) would be something done the majority party, in this case the Democrats. In a criticism of Bush for coming to the brink of "declaring martial law," it should be pointed out that it would have had to have been the Democrats who "declared martial law."
You're right that only congress can allow martial law, but the president can declare it(as Lincoln did) and it would then require action by congress to stop it. This would require at least some Republican support in congress(as the bailout bill did) so it was not an empty threat by President Bush.
The option Bush chose for the arrest of the Lackawana Six was to have the FBI get warrants and arrest them. Since they "knew who did it," they got warrants, and then arrested them.
I think the terrorism military tribunals are more relevant to the abridgment of right of due process than the Lackawanna Six. Again why would any other options be considered? Especially when the accused are U.S. citizens.
The "during the Obama administration shenanigans" referred to by the original poster and then by myself is the story we're allegedly talking about. ("Shenanigans" is his word.) Apparently, the Genetech corporation has been writing press releases for members of congress to use during the national healthcare debate, which is taking place during the Obama administration. There's links to articles about it at the top of the page. There's no evidence Obama himself or his administration is tied to any of this. I called it "shenanigans that happened during the Obama administration" because BUSH certainly didn't have anything to do with it.
This is happening in Congress which is separate from the Obama Administration. It happened evenly on both sides of the aisle, and according to Genetech has been happening for years, including in the "Bush Administration", if you're going to insist the Congress is a part of the Executive administration.
If Fox Entertainment News was actually blocked I would agree with you, but they weren't.
The article you're quoting is outdated: here's the rest of the story:
The Treasury didn't have Fox Entertainment News listed on the original list of networks requesting an interview, this was claimed to be a Treasury staffer error by one source I read.
Subsequently, Fox News was not in the orig pooling of networks for the interview.
Fox Entertaiment News got a separate interview of the same length as the other networks.
Becuase this story is a month old, I guess the other news networks attributed the omission to error rather than malice.
After the White House tried keeping got involved with Treasury's decision whether or not to allow Fox News in a round robin of interviews with "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg, the five networks bureau chiefs banded together until Fox was permitted in. The joint action shows one of the difficulties if the administration tries to marginalize Fox, especially when that disrupts the network pool. (Fox's own report via Johnny Dollar). UPDATE: From what I hear, the situation was more between Treasury and Fox after the networks decided to pool interviews with Feinberg that had been requested by some, but not all of the networks. The bureau chiefs agreed that all networks should be included in the pool, including Fox, which had been missing from Treasury's list of networks involved in the interviews. The White House was contacted by Treasury, but as a spokesperson points out, they did not keep Fox from interviewing Feinberg. “The fact that Major Garrett conducted an interview with Ken Feinberg at a time when all the other networks did speaks for itself," deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest told POLITICO. “This White House has demonstrated our willingness to do a round of interviews with a range of networks but not Fox," Earnest added. "Clearly, that didn’t happen yesterday.” Indeed, the White House conducted interviews recently between Obama and five Sunday show hosts without including Fox's Chris Wallace. UPDATE 2: A Treasury official tells Mediaite: "There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did. Much ado about absolutely nothing."
So either Fox didn't request the interview or the Treasury didn't add it to the list and consequently they weren't in the orig pool.
Something to watch out for if it happens again, but I'm not going to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by error. However it looks like you're misrepresenting or unaware of the facts. It was the Treasury, not the WH, who didn't have Fox Entertainment News in the orig pool and the WH approved the additional interview for Fox Entertainment News.
Interesting that this story is a month old, I guess all of the other networks didn't attribute the omission to malice either.