Talk:State of America with Kate Bolduan

Carl Higbie.
This section is still lacking in context. From whom did Higbie demand the source? The relationship between the source and the Kislyak incident are not at all clear. Most importantly, what is the significance of the incident -- why is it worthy of inclusion, and a whole section? An obscure political operative is salty at a minor TV journalists That strikes me as not terribly remarkable. Make a case as to why it isn't. PaulCHebert (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Higbie demanded the White House source who talked about the incident that Donald Trump initiated by disclosing information to Ambassador Kisliak which could, maybe has given Russians the possibility to conclude, who in their ranks gave that information to the Trump WH.

I do not find that part of the story very interesting, too. DJTrump is a 100% fool and a very bad man, who has before and after disclosed secret information to anyone. He warned the Syrians via tweet before shooting that famous 60 tomahawks at them for example. I can't stand him but I did not wrote that to attack Trump or his followers.

Higbie demanded the source from CNN/Bolduan/The liberal snowflakes/the Democrats/all enemies of his idea of the American way. Explicitly he pressured Kate Bolduan. You can see that in the video I put in as a reference. The reason why I always make a larger bow when I explain those events is that I try to describe the context in which that specific event took place, because after a half year nobody knows anymore.

This is important, because it is exemplary for the actions of Trump followers and also right wing connected people. They act like this everywhere, Germany, UK, France, USA, where ever. The freedom of press is one of those people's worst enemy. Since Higbie directly attacked the host of the show, which was and is Kate Bolduan, he broke all rules of political discussion, freedom of speech and also her show.

She put's emphasis in the neutrality of her role. I know her (from watching and thinking), she does not like that partisanship he provokes. She always invited republicans and also Trump republicans. They often abused (before and after) their speech time for filibustering.

She protected that principle of freedom of speech/press and the journalists privilege not to disclose that source. She got very ugly comments in all forms in social media for that from sexual to physical violence. This is disgusting. I describe what happened.

You maybe want to nail me on my sympathies for her. Well ok, but you must admit that I have at least an argument, doesn't I?Tlwm (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to do anything besides help build a good encyclopedia. I've never heard of this person and am thus completely ambivalent about her. My "wants" have nothing to do with her or you.
 * Most of what I see here is you blogging about your political views and your own conclusions about the significance of the event, based on something you think "they" do "everywhere." That's not really much of an argument for notability. PaulCHebert (talk) 02:19, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What I write about is not my opinion or political views, the shield laws were put in place to protect the Reporter's privilege: a journalist defending her source against a direct attack by a accomplice of one of the story's subjects (to cover the actions of that subject). What I wrote about are facts. Tlwm (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Not all facts are encyclopedic in nature. PaulCHebert (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2018 (UTC)