WSB Forum » Politics

(118 posts)

Transparency of Propoganda,

  1. This weekend the DC Press Corp was basically told to stay away and shut up by the President and his staff. They should be getting used to this.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  2. the media drives so much rancor, misinformation. I don't really blame him. What is it you want to know, Rich? Pretty soon we'll even know his bathroom schedule..heaven forbid some White House stuff is not public knowledge. Must be a cover-up of some sort, huh...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  3. If you get past the sensationalist headline, this is a pretty interesting article.

    as i read it, the largest complaint that is leveled here is that instead of working through the print media to release news and shape public opinion
    the Obama White House has taken it's show on the road... bypassing them

    It would be too easy to blame that on the way the media has covered the top stories of his first term.. but i agree with them that it is more than that... this President is pretty much bypassing the White House beat to release what has passed as newsreporting.

    if the print media wants to retain it's viability, reporters are going to have to do more than camp out in the press room at the White House to get their stories..

    i don't necessarily see that as a bad thing

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  4. This complaint gets recycled with every new administration, going back at least to Reagan.

    So . . . the White House Press Corps doesn't like it when the mean old Pwezident won't hand them the story on a silver platter?

    Guess what, guys. Getting the news is supposed to be YOUR job. So quit bitchin' about the Internet and go out and get some.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  5. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Real reporters embed themselves with "unnamed" administration officials and act as their mouthpiece, right? I mean, Judith Miller's relentless, unapologetic front page screeds for Iraq WMD in that left wing rag NYT, showed the true power of journalistic integrity.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  6. So what are you saying, wake?

    That I'm defending Miller?

    That I'm defending the NYT?

    Hardly. I hold all news providers to the same standard of journalistic integrity. The NYT has a good reputation overall, but nobody is above criticism in my book. The hoodwinking of Judith Miller was merely a variation on the theme of political manipulation of "the news." The Times' reputation took a beating over that one, and rightly so.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  7. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Hey DBP, I wasn't implying any of that. I was just decrying the state of what passes for reportage these days.

    I don't LIKE that Obama's chosen to overfly the WH press corps, but I get why they think it's a reasonable idea to try. Although I wonder WHO is going to ask tough questions of the administration? On some level, that's a moot point since all administrations now rely on spin and double-speak as the cornerstone of all communication, but maybe it was ever thus...

    All I know is the fourth estate is a wreck. Unless you watch PBS and/or Democracy Now. :-)

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  8. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Oh, and if you think Judith Miller was hoodwinked, you have a different impression of her than me. I think she did what 95% of all "journalists" do now. Which is to sell your soul for access and dutifully report whatever you're fed. But she also took it a step further and Stockholm Syndromed it.

    Very much like Andrew Sorkin did with his pandering tome, "Too Big To Fail".

    These folks want to be rich and famous. "Journalism" is a means to an end.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  9. If the first question upon regaining access to the POTUS is "Did you beat Tiger?", then I am inclined to keep them at bay as long as possible.

    Gas prices?

    Who cares?!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  10. wakeflood: I stand corrected. You're right about Miller.

    You know who's the best journalist out there today? It's not even a journalist.

    Photo: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  11. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Hi Julian, what did your hosts offer you for breakfast today? A little sardines and tea? Petit Dejeuner?

    You know who is still a great journalist and works his butt off to dig out the dirt, regardless of who is implicated is Robert Scheer, once of LA Times, now of Truthdig. The guy's relentless and doesn't pander.

    He was ditched by the LA Times for the insufferable crime of being a journalist after they were bought by a conservative dude. Like that never happens. Looking at you Rupert...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  12. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Which brings me to a related point. Smitty, you're offended by stupid questions lobbed at politicians?

    Why do guys like Murdoch and other conservatives who buy media outlets (Clear Channel, etc.) always get rid of actual journalists and replace them with tv-friendly idiots or sycophants with tape recorders???

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  13. For (what feels like) the umpteenth time, I do not watch Fox. And no, I am offended that they cry foul when access is limited only to ask a stupid question when access it is opened back up. I don't care what their leanings are - Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, WaPo, NYT, etc.

    You could probably say the same for that liberal Turner and what he has done to CNN, no?

    I use to listen to Left, Right & Center all the time and absolutely adore Scheer. I have never listened to anyone more consistent and critical of both sides. One of my favorite progressives.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  14. I don't like it when journalists pretend that they DON'T have opinions. Come on, guys! Everyone's got opinions. Just admit it upfront and try to keep those opinions under control.

    Another thing I don't like: News outlets pretending like every opinion they air has to be balanced by an equal and opposite counter-opinion. That can be very misleading.

    Example: Let's say there's a huge public demonstration at Westlake against the war. Meanwhile, across the square is a tiny counter-demo in favor of the war. So in order to give listeners "both sides" of the story, the TV news anchors give 20 seconds of coverage to the anti-war side and 20 seconds to the pro-war side, implying that the two sides are of equal importance to "the story" of the demonstration.


    Posted 2 years ago #         
  15. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Smitty, I stand corrected on my misguided assumption regarding your media diet. Apologies.

    Thanks for the clarification. And let's get folks like Scheer as much play as we rank and file can figure out how to do.

    Sunlight's the best disinfectant...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  16. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    And yes, DBP, false equivalencies are now the defacto gold standard for journalistic balance.

    Which is why tv newsertainment no longer gets my eyetime.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  17. Don't get me wrong, I am a Conservative. I really do appreciate Scheer though.

    I miss Tony Blankley.....those two had some epic discussions on LR&C, one of the last civil debate programs I can find.

    They haven't found a decent sub for Tony yet, and it just hasn't been the same....

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  18. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    Smitty, you needn't qualify your political leanings. That much I caught. ;-)

    You know what old civil debate program I miss??

    Remember the roundtables on PBS hosted by Fred Friendly? Those should be required watching by every schoolkid. I mean that quite seriously. Almost every major topic of debate about our society and government was hashed out on that program - and virtually all of it relevant today. Everything from national security to health care, to religion, to money in elections.

    And it wasn't talking heads doing the answering, it was professionals and thoughtful, knowledgeable people involved in the issues at hand.

    Remember those shows? I'll look for them online again and see if they can be bought. I'd buy a copy for every high school I can afford to...
    ...after I rewatch them!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  19. When ABC covered the Democratic convention, they featured George Will front and center. They asked him what he thought Obama would say when he came on stage. George explain the origins of the term "mulligan" (a golf term for when the first tee is botched: you can declare a mulligan and start over). George thought Obama would declare his first four years a mulligan and ask to start over.

    How right was he? Well, Obama came out proclaimed the victories that were made during the first four years. At that point, ABC should've given Will his walking papers. He has deviated so far from reality that he can't even see straight.

    We don't need "political pundits", we need intelligent news reporters who can do the job. Access to the White House is not as critical as reporting the bills that get proposed.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  20. wakeflood
    Member Profile



    Here's some things that don't get talked about on newsertainment.

    Since Obama took office, there's been over 230 filibusters, 1-in-8 Federal Judgeships remain vacant and 190+ of Obama's appointees remain unconfirmed.

    But, you know, government is broked. Don't werk none. I seen it on teevee.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  21. George Will is a particularly useless appendage. This guy is just a third-rate hatchet-man posing as some kind of scholar.

    I don't get why anybody reads the editorial pages or listens to TV pundits anyway. Seriously: Do you really need some rich Harvard wonk telling you what your opinion should be? I sure as hell don't.


    Hey, since we're reminiscing, does anyone remember when the Nightly News Hour actually had news on it? I mean, you know, before Reagan started gutting public TV and everything. They had some good investigative reporting on there backinnaday, didn't they? They had people who would go out, scoop up some facts, and challenge the official story. It was great!

    If there was a US-sponsored dirty war going on somewhere, the News Hour would send reporters out to see what things looked like on the ground. (Pretty eff'd up, usually.)

    And now, today, what do they got for war coverage? Some talking heads from the freakin' State Department and the Rand Corporation!!!

    You want news? Go to Wikileaks.

    Or better yet, go out and dig some up yourself. That's what more people should be doing . . . right here on the Blog.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  22. The good news is that there are more outlets than ever to get news. Plus there are gems at each of the Networks that get stonewalled by the President and his staff.

    Sharyl Attkisson from CBS is my favorite mainstream journalist. I like Jake Tapper too from ABC. Obviously I gravitate towards the few right leaning TV stations and the numerous talk radio hosts, but you probably have figured that out too. I have not watched FOX News for two years. I would if I had it, but I don't.

    That said, It shouldn't matter if the reporters or organizations are right or left. They should be holding Obama, Boehner, Reid, etc accountable. They should get their information as best as they can and not be fed from the Ministry of Propaganda from any administration. And for a President to attack media organizations, that is just below the office.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  23. HMCRich

    you need to read the article dude..
    there was no attack
    just sour grapes

    name the President that the media has not complained about...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  24. Lindsey
    Member Profile


    I read this article about Politico this weekend and found it quite interesting.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  25. Smitty, Rich, you gonna make me gobble up this low-hanging fruit all by myself?

    Do you really need some rich Harvard wonk telling you what your opinion should be?

    The country answered yes to that question two elections in a row.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  26. "The country answered yes to that question two elections in a row."

    Four, to be honest!

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  27. JoB, I should have added more to the part you are questioning me on.

    True, the article did not reference an attack by the President. What I should have said is that in past years the current President called out Hannity and Fox News. That is what I was referring to. I knew he was a wuss when he did that.

    And Clinton called out Rush and conservative radio after Oklahoma City.

    Neither was necessary. If W or his Dad or Ronnie ever lashed out at specific press operations, I would like to have it presented. That's all. I could be wrong and if I am, let me know.

    Smitty, you are right. But some want to forget that W was elected twice. (Then they will argue it should have been Gore... )

    Interestingly enough, I have always felt if Bill Clinton had stepped aside for lying to the prosecutor, Al Gore would have easily won the next election. I don't believe the battleground states would have come into play as much. We will never know.

    I am not trying to pick a fight about that election, but I always have wondered what would have transpired.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  28. Andy, I don't read or listen to George Will very often. Half the time I disagree with his points.

    I prefer the analysis from other sources. With the RINO's and Tea Party squaring off right now, I am thinking I prefer the Ted Cruz, Rand Paul arm of the Republican party. Yes, they are drinking the TEA I like.

    The Republicans have put up establishment RINO's and only W won. The others have failed. I do not want Karl Rove's picks.

    The mid-terms are going to be very interesting for the Republican party. Democrats are going to muck things up as best as they can, and basically Obama is not being Bi-Partisan. They are trying to damage the GOP, and why not?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  29. See,,here's a problem're referring to Hannity and Fox News as "press"...that's pretty much a falsehood ;-)

    Rich...Ted Cruz, among other things, has stated that Chuck Hagel possibly took money from places like North Korea. Do you agree with that line of thinking?

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  30. HMCRich

    I called out Hannity and Fox News
    does that make me a wus?

    i don't know where this idea that we have to respect misleading and incorrect statements because everyone is entitled to an opinion came from...

    but i am relieved to have a president who calls that kind of propaganda.. yes, that is propaganda.. out.

    there is a difference between an informed opinion and an opinion based on misleading or false information.

    When the press distributes opinions based on misleading or false information as fact.. someone needs to call them out... no matter which side of the political spectrum that misinformation comes from.

    the basis of our democracy is an informed public.. not a misinformed public.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  31. yeah, i know...
    too bad they don't start any productive rumors

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  32. waynster
    Member Profile

  33. JoB,then you are very misinformed because the mainstream press generally coddles this president and you know it. Every American has the right to speak out. You can call out Hannity and FOX all you want personally. I am OK with that. Did Bush call out Chris Mathews? Rachel Maddow? Helen Thomas? No. But poor Barry....

    MSNBC must be a bastion of unbiased news. A true fallacy. I am fine with different viewpoints from different news organizations but the truth is Leftists like Obama do not want to hear dissenting opinions. He and his ilk would rather have them banned or have a fairness doctrine in place. Notice the article that lead to this thread. He runs from the press that will hold him accountable. Whereas I don't really care if the organization chooses to be right or left or centrist. That is the difference. I say let them publish what they want, but at least be honest and don't pretend to be unbiased.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  34. you know, it's MY personal view about Hannity and Fox News...not Barry, as you call him.
    His ilk? Seriously? What is that "ilk" Rich?

    Your opinion is that things are unbiased, or a fallacy, or whatever. It's tiresome hearing it, when a good portion of the citizens of this country support "Barry" more than any Republican out there. Yes, your is just an opinion.

    Now, my opinion? They're ALL biased...the ones on the tube, that you turn into every night. No one ever said they weren't. Some of us can decipher things for ourselves, even us "libs". about holding those Repub members of Congress accountable.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  35. Hi JanS, Hagel's financial disclosure was crap. His answers were not sufficient. Cruz is being accused of being McCarthy already. I expect most of you to malign him.

    We need more like Cruz. This is our country. No more career politicians. Term Limits are needed for Congressmen and Senators.

    I have to say. I find it extraordinary that President Obama is getting away with lying on the Sequester. It was his idea. Granted, most Republicans agreed with it, but he signed it. Then he promised to veto any type of legislation that would weaken it. But now he is against it and is blaming Republicans. Fact is, he wants the sequester to try and as he views it, blame the Republicans and hurt the GOP in the eyes of the voters.

    The Republicans since the fiscal cliff was averted in 2011 have tried to change the sequester at least five times. Obama and the Senate keep effing it up.

    Obama, would you make up your mind and quit blaming the GOP for your flip flop.

    Nobody wants the sequester.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  36. He's lying? How so? You really don't hold the Repubs accountable, do you? This is just wasted even responding here. The sequester is days away, and they're what? Taking time off? Oh, please....

    the Repubs have already hurt themselves, for goodness sake. If you can't see that, I feel bad for you....

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  37. I';m sick of the blame game. I want solid ideas on both sides. I want them all to do their jobs and get it done. That's not too much to ask. But this back and forth, it's his fault, no it's his faulty, no, it's theirs, ..blame, blame,'s sickening !

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  38. JanS, I have a right wing bias view. I don't deny that. You can be as liberal as you want. Fine with me. I just get tired of hearing how mainstream certain aspects of the progressive outlook is being reported.

    Why is it that some of the lame stream press is not designating Jesse Jackson Jr. as a Democrat? If it is a Republican in trouble, it is one of the first words printed.

    I have my biased view. But at least I can see the center and objectively look at what a leftist wants too.

    Do I generally post screw ups by left wing information and news outlets? No, but you guys do.

    Hell, I expect to be attacked because politically, I am a minority in this bastion of progressive thought.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  39. All I've seen designates him as Dem...where are you reading? It's common knowledge...Geez, Rich, how nit picky can you get? Jackson is no longer in politics...he is not representing anyone, and wasn't when this came out. Why designate him as anything? He's a felon, bipolar, has an acknowledged spending problem (a sympton of Bi-polar). We all know he's a Dem, for goodness sake.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  40. To be honest, I did like the thread pointing out that the editors or story that came from Breitbart was wrong. I don't want misleading news either. I also want solutions.

    I would prefer the solutions and not a constant back and forth, but just like the sequester, the hypocrisy has to stop. He can't have it both ways. I am sick of the misinformation and propaganda.

    Just like Benghazi for Obama and Tillman for Bush. The truth never came out like it should have. And we suffer. I dislike most of our elected officials policies. Until they start living like us and not have special and seperate benefits, we cannot expect them to really work for us.

    And that is why we need the press to hold their feet to the fire. Daily, Hourly, and not be dictated too regardless of Dem or GOP.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  41. Regarding Jackson, there are many people who are not in tune to politics. They don't pay attention to it. They don't know. So I disagree with you. You are correct that people who do watch news regularly know this. But many don't.
    Here is a link from an admittedly conservative news media watchdog. It compares D versus R in reporting by ABC, CBS, and NBC,

    I should think news organizations would want to be consistent, but they are not.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  42. JanS, I appreciate the NYT article. And it proves my point. They did say Mr. Jackson was a Democrat. They, however, did not say the Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich was a democrat.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  43. JanS, please don't get me wrong. I know my party is having a war within itself. I appreciate all the good people and the actions many people take each day. I received a letter from Maria Cantwell today. She nicely told me Thank You for my input and she is working hard for all of her constituents. At least the form letter was nice, but it is part of the process. Letting our elected reps know what we think will not usually change their minds but once in awhile it has an effect. There is political theory and political practice. I will argue the abstract theories more so than reality at times. It is healthy for me to hear the other side. And to think about what many of you support.

    For me I like to think in terms of the Federal Constitution and to a lesser degree our state constitution. Is what people are proposing constitutional? That is the basis of most of my arguments.

    When it comes to the press, I have worked in the field and bump into it more than I care to. I don't believe a lot of television reporting because the producers are unseen. Some are very young and don't know what they are doing. Others are fantastic, but many are just doing a job and trying to get ratings. The writers are not seen. There is no arbiter of balance in these businesses. The anchors read but do they really know what they are talking about.

    Tracy can fill you in much better than I on this. But having seen what I have seen, I am surprised news looks and sounds as good as it does sometimes.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  44. HMCRich

    you think the mainstream press coddles this President?
    Have you actually compared the treatment this president gets from the press as compared to that accorded say to our last president?

    Mr he could do no wrong lets hold a press conference on the deck of an aircraft carrier to declare the end of a war that ultimately stands to bankrupt us without criticism?

    Sorry Rich.. this one simply doesn't pass the sniff test

    nor this

    "Leftists like Obama do not want to hear dissenting opinions. He and his ilk would rather have them banned or have a fairness doctrine in place."

    Do you think it's possible that mindset colors how you see the world?

    the basis of actual conversation is recognizing the difference between an informed opinion and an uniformed opinion..

    an informed opinion is that which can be supported by actual facts.. not rumors, innuendos or misdirection.

    the ultimate filter is logic
    or as grandpa used to say.. good old common sense

    applying that filter to your first statement...
    a President who was coddled by the press would have every incentive to allow them unfettered access.
    However a president who was not coddled by the press would not.
    thus, if this president is denying access it is not likely that he does so because he has been coddled by the press

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  45. HMCRich

    "Cruz is being accused of being McCarthy already. I expect most of you to malign him.

    We need more like Cruz."

    No Rich.. we need more people who base their opinions on actual facts, not on rumors as Mr Cruz does.

    It's funny you mention McCarthy because that era was prime example of what happens when rumor trumps basic civil rights.

    I am sorry your guy Cruz got caught with his pants down... as an educated man, he knows better.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  46. HMCRich

    "I have to say. I find it extraordinary that President Obama is getting away with lying on the Sequester. It was his idea. Granted, most Republicans agreed with it, but he signed it. Then he promised to veto any type of legislation that would weaken it. But now he is against it and is blaming Republicans. Fact is, he wants the sequester to try and as he views it, blame the Republicans and hurt the GOP in the eyes of the voters.

    The Republicans since the fiscal cliff was averted in 2011 have tried to change the sequester at least five times. Obama and the Senate keep effing it up.

    Obama, would you make up your mind and quit blaming the GOP for your flip flop.

    Nobody wants the sequester."

    LOL Rich...

    Mr Boehner was so pleased with his deal that he walked out of it boasting that he got 98% of what he wanted from it...

    who is flip flopping?

    and for the New York Times.. straight questions and answers..

    political perception is not everything.
    when you rely on the facts, this kind of posturing simply doesn't hold up.

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  47. Rich..

    the most important fact about Jesse Jackson Jr is not that he is Democrat.

    it's that he betrayed the public trust and has been prosecuted for doing so...

    in spite of being the favored son of Jesse Jackson and a democrat...

    Posted 2 years ago #         
  48. wakeflood
    Member Profile


    HMCR, you had me at "Cruz". Anyone who thinks that his behavior is either laudable or what this country needs more of, has officially lost their capacity for critical thought, IMHO.

    Even Lindsay Graham, who somehow passes for a moderate in this bizarro world, thinks Cruz went way over the line.


    And as for Hagel, this is just further reinforcement that the current configuration of the GOP has lost its mind. Here's a decorated war veteran, ex-GOP Senator, who simply because he wants to look at our defense posture with a critical eye, is being torpedoed by his own party. In what world does that make sense?

    Lost. Their. Minds.

    Posted 2 years ago #         

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.

All contents copyright 2005-2015, A Drink of Water and a Story Interactive. Here's how to contact us.
Entries and comments feeds. ^Top^