Who controls the media....

[Calabrio]

Is it any wonder that the White House is investing so much into their attack on Fox News. They have no regard for the independent media and can not tolerate to have an outlet that is doing objective journalism asking them "why."

To quote the Mao-friendly Annita Dunn, White House director of communications speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009 event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development :

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.

One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe (Obama's chief campaign manager) videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters.

We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it

Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying."

YouTube - Movimiento por el Cambio Obama-DUNN-SELF-P8

 

[04SCTLS]

Oh,
And Bush didn't carefully stage his events and try to manipulate the media when he was president?
He had very few press conferences during his presidency.
With his garbled, made up words, childrens do learn speaking style he came across to many as somewhat of a dolt.(to put it mildly)
However in private meetings with his staff and cabinet he was much more lucid and straight speaking. Almost a different guy.
Must have been some stage fright that made him look wierd.
He prefered carefully staged events with loyal supporters and sycophants to cheer on and lavish over whatever dreg he was selling that day.
Any protestors, hecklers, or people with "bad" signs where quickly manhandled and hussled away lest the camera catch too much of them.

As elected leaders it is the White House's job to set and execute their agenda whether it's Bush or Obama in whatever fashion they deem will be most successful.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED!! to find this president and his staff manipulating the media to gain advantage.
Then again this is nothing new....

 

[Mick Jagger]

Is it any wonder that the White House is investing so much into their attack on Fox News. They have no regard for the independent media and can not tolerate to have an outlet that is doing objective journalism asking them "why."

To quote the Mao-friendly Annita Dunn, White House director of communications speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009 event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development :

"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control.

Dunn was discussing the Obama campaign's strategy for controlling the campaign's message, not the media; moreover, her comments were made before Obama had taken office and before she became communications director.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Is it any wonder that the White House is investing so much into their attack on Fox News.

Faux News should be criticized for pretending to be a news organization.

They have no regard for the independent media

Faux News is the only one being attacked, bro.

can not tolerate to have an outlet that is doing objective journalism asking them "why."

Faux News isn't doing objective journalism.

 

[Calabrio]

Must have been some stage fright that made (George W. Bush) look wierd.

No, in large part it had to do with the way the media focused and emphasized any errors or gaffes he made. Letterman had a nightly bit devoted just to doing that.

The perception becomes reality. I've had the opportunity to see Bush speak in person and he did not come across as deficient at all.
And for a President who is supposed to be such a horrible speaker, he certainly delivered some extremely powerful and effective speeches during his two terms.

The rest of you Bush hating, misguided diatribe is unrelated to this topic, so rather than yet another discussion about an ex-President, I'm just going to get back on topic....

Oh,And Bush didn't carefully stage his events and try to manipulate the media when he was president?

All politicians seek to control their message during a political campaign.
Some do it better than others. The Obama campaign further manipulated an already supportive press pool.

But do you see any indication that this administration has stopped this approach to the media? Not merely to "get their message out" but to actively control the media, limit access, and intimidate all who might prevent a challenge to them?

Annita Dunn made those comments at a forum held overseas.
But just this weekend did you hear what White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Obama's chief political advisor David Axlerod stated on the Sunday News shows?

Listen to what she says, look at what I used the bold print for:
"making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it"

He's not campaigning anymore. He's the President.
But they still are doing this. But controlling the message and discouraging the media from asking "WHY" is extremely troubling.

This administration NEVER answers the WHY question.
And if you do ask, they will try to destroy you.

If they have the opportunity, I am concerned they'll do more than just isolating and ridiculing any objective voices. The ones foxpaws would say need to be "targeted" and made to "pay the price."

Have you seen who this administration appointed to the FCC referred to as the diversity czar?
YouTube - Mark Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez
It's important to understand the role of the media during Chavez's seizure of power in Venezuela to fully understand how scary this clip is.
This is more worrisome when you see some of the proposals he's had to "diversify" the media.
YouTube - Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

Net neutrality is coming up this week.
And Obama has discussed support of a federal bail out of newspapers.

So, that would be government attacking fox news on TV, control of radio, control of the newpapers, and direct government control of the internet.
This administration is centralizing power right now. If all that power is centralized, what happens if a bad administration ever takes the reigns?

 

[Mick Jagger]

the White House is investing so much into their attack on Fox News.

Why has Faux News invested so much in attacking the White House, when it claims to be a news organization?

 

[Calabrio]

Why has Faux News invested so much in attacking the White House, when it claims to be a news organization?

Is objective journalism now considered attacking?
Isn't it the role of the media to ask the tough questions and operate as the watchdog of government?

The question is- why is Fox News the only network willing to do that?

And why isn't the White House simply answering the questions instead of launching an Alinsky styled campaign to isolate and ridicule the network, making it an example to intimidate any other network from getting too independent as well?

To quote White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel this weekend, "…The way the President looks at it, we look at it, it’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led and following Fox, as if that, what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization…”

So, I guess the only "perspective" that will be tolerated is the one demonstrated by MSNBC.
And if you follow the lead of Fox News by asking tough questions, the White House would like to discourage you from doing so, lest they go to war with you too.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Is objective journalism now considered attacking?

What we have all thought of as a conservative news organization has really morphed itself this year into a 24/7 political operation with a very specific goal. And that is to destroy this presidency, and destroy any sort of progressive policy agenda that the American people voted for in November.

--Media Matters president Eric Burns recently on Countdown with Keith Olbermann

 

[Calabrio]

You didn't answer my question.
You simply provided a quote from one political operative supporting the agenda of the White House parading as an objective source to another political voice supporting the agenda of the White House parading as an objective source.

As I stated before, this administration NEVER answers the WHY question.
And if you do ask, they will try to destroy you.

If they have the opportunity, I am concerned they'll do more than just isolating and ridiculing any objective voices. The ones foxpaws would say need to be "targeted" and made to "pay the price."

Have you seen who this administration appointed to the FCC referred to as the diversity czar?
YouTube - Mark Lloyd praises Hugo Chavez
It's important to understand the role of the media during Chavez's seizure of power in Venezuela to fully understand how scary this clip is.
This is more worrisome when you see some of the proposals he's had to "diversify" the media.
YouTube - Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

Net neutrality is coming up this week.
And Obama has discussed support of a federal bail out of newspapers.

So, that would be government attacking fox news on TV, control of radio, control of the newpapers, and direct government control of the internet.
This administration is centralizing power right now. If all that power is centralized, what happens if a bad administration ever takes the reigns?