ABC crosses an ethical line [Archive] - MediaLine's Open Line Forum

Jun 17th 2009, 04:39 AM

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

(ignore the source & focus on the content)

I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, this should be disturbing to everyone!

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

The Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform is Linda Douglass, who worked as a reporter for ABC News from 1998-2006.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Developing...

The Mockingbird

Jun 17th 2009, 04:42 AM

The coverage doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is that the health care plan might tax workers' existing health care benefits.

Angel's Hell

Jun 17th 2009, 04:43 AM

How on earth can we ignore the source and yet consider the content? The source and the content are inseparable DW, which you would know if you'd ever been in the news biz.

Jun 17th 2009, 04:47 AM

How on earth can we ignore the source and yet consider the content? The source and the content are inseparable DW, which you would know if you'd ever been in the news biz.

I've never been in the news business. I helped keep the juice flowing back in the day, so all those impressionable minds could see your lovely faces.

I'm trying to start discussion on the issue itself, and not that the article is from Drudge (which some folks will inevitably choose to focus on anyway).

Now go make me a sandwich.

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 04:47 AM

All the media is the same anyway (minus bucky's channel) might as well merge them all.

http://download.lardlad.com/framegrabs/2F15/118.jpg

writer2

Jun 17th 2009, 04:49 AM

(shrug) So ABC News has a big "get". The other nets will line up to do something similar. Oh wait, wasn't there something about Brian Williams recently? ;)

Charlie Gibson has no cred since he opined during a debate he was moderating that a teaching couple makes 250k a year and would be subject to Obama's tax proposal. The audience laughed at Charlie. Great moment in TV.

It's all about ratings.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 04:57 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxQhx4t1FmE

The Mockingbird

Jun 17th 2009, 05:03 AM

How on earth can we ignore the source and yet consider the content? The source and the content are inseparable DW, which you would know if you'd ever been in the news biz.

Angel's Hell once made five dollars an hour taking pictures for a newspaper with REAL PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT, so consider yourself told.

Jun 17th 2009, 05:04 AM

Angel's Hell once made five dollars an hour taking pictures for a newspaper with REAL PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT, so consider yourself told.

I got pwned. I sad. :(

PSUWx

Jun 17th 2009, 05:09 AM

Anyone want to take odds on what the straw-man treatment will be for the 'opposing views' during the Townhall?

My vote is a hayseed appearing man who asks Obama, "But, aren't you wanting to take over the country?"

...that should be enough framing to sufficiently handle both sides of the healthcare debate.

Jun 17th 2009, 05:10 AM

Sultanosurf

Jun 17th 2009, 05:57 AM

I tend to agree.

It's a curious move, even considering how empassioned people are over health care. After the heat Gibson took from the Palin interviews, you hope the net will be sure there's some objectivity.

As for crossing the line, after newspapers and magazines were hawking their 'Obama Makes History' special issues it's hard to know where the line's at anymore.

Now if Charlie goes to break with a special phone number for ABC limited edition Obama health care collector plates and coins....

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 05:58 AM

I think we just need to assume the worst, politically because it's better for our self esteem.

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 06:01 AM

I think we just need to assume the worst, politically because it's better for our self esteem.

The lower the self esteem the better you are at politics.

Diplomat

Jun 17th 2009, 06:03 AM

At the very least, it gives the appearance of having ceded time and content to the control of the White House.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 06:03 AM

Probably helps not to have too many skeletons in the closet or whatnot, too.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 06:04 AM

Actually it just gives the impression that ABC scored quite the locale for its news broadcast.

The Mockingbird

Jun 17th 2009, 06:05 AM

I don't see what the problem is. The Networks regularly give the President the airwaves for speeches and announcements.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 06:06 AM

Yeah, but this time we're supposed to be upset, because there was a link on Drudge or something. It's how we determine what's supposed to make us upset nowadays. :rockon:

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 06:09 AM

There's always the option of watching or doing something else.

Unless Obama is forcing us to watch ABC like a communist dictator does.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 06:26 AM

Don't you dare bring logic into this, Mister. We don't tolerate that kind of thing!

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:19 AM

I don't see what the problem is. The Networks regularly give the President the airwaves for speeches and announcements.

The difference is that by broadcasting from this type of location, with an anchor present,it appears the administration has granted a huge favor in exchange (possibly, likely?) of favorable coverage. Even Kace's flippant remark about a 'great get' gives you the first condition: wow, ABC News is in the White House ahead of everybody else! You have to wonder what the quid pro was.

Even if you don't believe there's such a quid pro, the mere appearance raises questions.

Sort of like flawed jokes when one daughter appears and the joke is about another.

Jun 17th 2009, 07:21 AM

The difference is that by broadcasting from this type of location, with an anchor present,it appears the administration has granted a huge favor in exchange (possibly, likely?) of favorable coverage. Even Kace's flippant remark about a 'great get' gives you the first condition: wow, ABC News is in the White House ahead of everybody else! You have to wonder what the quid pro was.

Even if you don't believe there's such a quid pro, the mere appearance raises questions.

Sort of like flawed jokes when one daughter appears and the joke is about another.

Someone gets it.....

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 07:22 AM

Oh I get it too...that's why I have the choice to say "forget you" and continue to not watch ABC news ever again.

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 07:22 AM

I get that this ultimately means nothing.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:24 AM

There's always the option of watching or doing something else.

Unless Obama is forcing us to watch ABC like a communist dictator does.

You're absolutely right.

There's also a risk for ABC News: that is, they appear to join the trend toward the polarization of media that's all too apparent.

You know what I'm talking about: EVERYBODY (and I use that laughingly) KNOWS that Fox is Republican, MSNBC is blatantly liberal, CNN tries to go down the middle. So..now...what is ABC?

There's a real problem here if you're not taking a political positon. If you buy into the purist mode of journalism, and one hopes you do, you don't show favoritism to anybody.

So, sure..you can turn off ABC News. Or you can go to Fox, or whoever. But is the public served by all this polarization? Is the public served by ignoring a broadcast like you suggest, which seems to lead to NOT being an informed voter/citizen?

I don't think so.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:25 AM

Oh I get it too...that's why I have the choice to say "forget you" and continue to not watch ABC news ever again.

Who's served there?

Orwell (and others) have long said an uninformed public is just like a herd of sheep.

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 07:28 AM

Who's served there?

Orwell (and others) have long said an uninformed public is just like a herd of sheep.

I get my news through the internet...they do a better job of reporting than most news outlets.

Jun 17th 2009, 07:28 AM

Who's served there?

Orwell (and others) have long said an uninformed public is just like a herd of sheep.

But you have to take into account who is doing the "informing".....

cong

Jun 17th 2009, 07:29 AM

abc, as any other network, should have complete control over their content. why should they give the rnc input in their programs? mr. mckay is free to oppose the obama plan on the fox powerhouse.

i don't like coziness between the media and politicians (ex., the abominable white house correspondents dinner), but republicans should hold their criticism of abc until after the broadcast. i'm sure there'll be something. they can also air a ronald reagan hagiography to counter-program, followed by a newt ginrich hour listing why the obama plan is bad for america. i'm looking forward to watching both networks.

or as mr. kace and mr. tater said, watch something else. i think tvland is airing 'bewitched" with the original darren.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:31 AM

or as mr. kace and mr. tater said, watch something else. i think tvland is airing 'bewitched" with the original darren.
Oooh! There's a good thought! We dont NEED no stinkin' information!

Baaaaaaah.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:33 AM

I get my news through the internet...they do a better job of reporting than most news outlets.

And who be they?

What? Bloggers? Oh, there's a fine herd.

I know of an ex news guy who is blogging while trying to find a jog. Only one problem: he's taken such a partisan turn on his page, no news director in his right mind will hire him now.

Don't think that's a problem? Why not?

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 07:34 AM

So in your mind we should have everybody watch ABC as they present some form of Obama's health care in a good light and convince a bunch of sheep we need that type of health care.

It's just a propaganda tool, but in this country we have different outlets who call it out as a propaganda tool and you can choose accordingly to watch and believe it or not.

The Mockingbird

Jun 17th 2009, 07:40 AM

Can someone elaborate on what the unethical part is, exactly?

Tippster

Jun 17th 2009, 07:50 AM

Who's served there?

Orwell (and others) have long said an uninformed public is just like a herd of sheep.I haven't watched ABC News since Jennings left/died. I had no idea how ignorant I was... which I guess is the very definition thereof.

I also don't watch FNC. I might as well stop eating with knife & fork and stick to simply using a spoon.

:frustrated:

rootboyslim

Jun 17th 2009, 07:50 AM

It's not so much the show itself as much as the opposiing view asking to be there to point counterpoint and not being allowed. This is as bad as Hillary Clinton having a live Town Hall meeting on NBC Today Show and her opponent not given the opportunity. It is NOT good journalism.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:52 AM

It's just a propaganda tool.....

There's your problem! News outlets are NOT supposed to be carriers of propganda. I think that's why a lot of people have a problem with this idea.

Look, the administration, as ALL administrations do, has the power of the bully pulpit. The president is easily the loudest voice out of 300 million people. He can advocate all he wants and he'll get coverage.

That means a real journalism oriented organization wouldn't and shouldn't trade access in exchange for a favorable story.

Or, for that matter, have to deal with questions about the appearance of a quid pro.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 07:53 AM

I haven't watched ABC News since Jennings left/died. I had no idea how ignorant I was... which I guess is the very definition thereof.

I also don't watch FNC. I might as well stop eating with knife & fork and stick to simply using a spoon.

:frustrated:

I try to rotate what I watch. Usually some NBC, usually some ABC, a lot of the time on the web.

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 07:56 AM

I try to rotate what I watch. Usually some NBC, usually some ABC, a lot of the time on the web.

But you told me the web is a bad place to get news.

Diplomat

Jun 17th 2009, 07:57 AM

Actually it just gives the impression that ABC scored quite the locale for its news broadcast.

If the show is basically an infomercial for one side, it gives the impression that ABC is the agency and the White House is the client. And I don't care for government infomercials, whether they're done by ABC News or some agency that hired overbearing hacks like Maggie Gallagher. It's not smart.

Paper Trail

Jun 17th 2009, 08:00 AM

ABC promises Republicans health care coverage won't be Obama 'infomercial'
By Richard Huff
DAILY NEWS TV EDITOR (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2009/06/17/2009-06-17_abc_pledges_gop_a_healthy_debate.html)

ABC News officials Tuesday defended a planned White House-set special on health-care reform from charges by the Republican National Committee that it would be nothing more than a "glorified infomercial" to promote a Democratic agenda.

"Poppycock" is what ABC officials said, though in more official terms.

The dustup began when officials at the Republican National Committee got wind that ABC News would devote extensive coverage to the topic, including an interview with President Obama and the First Lady on "Good Morning America," a White House-set telecast of "World News" and a one-hour prime-time town-hall type discussion with the President on health care on June 24.

"I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue," RNC Chief of Staff Ken McKay wrote in a letter to ABC News President David Westin. The letter received prominent play Tuesday on the Drudge Report.

Not so fast, said ABC officials, who maintain all sides of the argument will be represented.

"In the end, no one watching, listening to, or reading ABC News will lack for an understanding of all sides of these important questions," ABC News Senior Vice President Kerry Smith said in a letter to the RNC.

ABC responded after it was suggested on the Drudge Web site that it had turned over control of the program to the Obama administration.

The audience and questions for the prime-time special will be selected by ABC and only ABC, according to a spokesman, and the goal is to have a balanced broadcast with various views.

"Our starting and ending point is to be informative and fair, thoughtful and thought-provoking," said an ABC News spokesman. "We will be picking the audience for the conversation. And the goal in picking an audience is not to come up with a roomful of people who agree with one another."

In his letter to McKay, the ABC exec said the RNC had set up "a number of false premises."

The RNC had no further statement, according to a spokeswoman.

The RNC's attack appears to be an example of how the party intends to fight the camera-friendly Obama administration, which just recently got two hours of prime-time coverage on NBC with Brian Williams, is now letting ABC into the White House, and is on television virtually every day with a presidential appearance.

Moreover, coverage of the First Lady as a style icon has all but reached the play-by-play level.

"I think it's pretty obvious politics," said Jay DeDapper, a veteran political reporter for WABC/Ch. 7 and WNBC/Ch. 4.

"When NBC essentially did a version of [MTV's] 'Cribs' in the White House a few weeks back under the guise of news, the GOP said nothing, leaving it to Jon Stewart to point out the obvious - there was no news value at all - it was a promotional stunt by NBC News accommodated by a White House happy to use the network to advance the administration's political goals.

"In this case," DeDapper said, "the RNC is finally doing what it should, from the political point of view, have done then."

rhuff@nydailynews.com

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 08:02 AM

But you told me the web is a bad place to get news.

Well, I was wrong in some cases. For instance, you can ALWAYS trust Dyckerson's blog. He's very credible.

s'news

Jun 17th 2009, 08:37 AM

So at this point, it appears to me to be faux outrage.

Delta Dawn

Jun 17th 2009, 09:12 AM

Yes, it is.

Spike

Jun 17th 2009, 09:15 AM

Now go make me a sandwich.

Ew. You would let her touch your food?

The coverage doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is that the health care plan might tax workers' existing health care benefits.

It's difficult to imagine a bill getting passed with that tax in it. It would be like handing the next election to the Republicans. Can you imagine the campaign ads? "In tough economic times, Democrats voted to tax your health care." They'll end up making the Republicans look like the compassionate group.

News Is Broken

Jun 17th 2009, 09:23 AM

But you have to take into account who is doing the "informing".....

But remember, we should only "consider the source" when the source's info doesn't back up our own preconceived beliefs on the particular matter. In other words, Drudge's blatant rightwingedness is to be ignored but ABC's alleged quid pro to gain a favorable locale for their news program makes said program "propaganda".

;)

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 09:28 AM

You got to realize there is a "right" kind of propaganda and a "wrong" kind of propoganda.

Jun 17th 2009, 09:30 AM

Yes, it is.

**** off.

wx or not

Jun 17th 2009, 09:32 AM

Politics makes strange bedfellows, all right. Ethically, I see nothing wrong with ABC's coverage of this. What I DO see wrong is that this will forever perpetuate the notion that a "get" is the only way to report news anymore.

Angel's Hell

Jun 17th 2009, 09:33 AM

There's your problem! News outlets are NOT supposed to be carriers of propganda. I think that's why a lot of people have a problem with this idea.
.

In WWII there were close ties to the press corp and the White House, and many stories of that time tell of cooperation between govt. and media to get the job, beating the **** out of Hitler, done.

Jun 17th 2009, 09:36 AM

wx or not

Jun 17th 2009, 09:40 AM

In WWII there were close ties to the press corp and the White House, and many stories of that time tell of cooperation between govt. and media to get the job, beating the **** out of Hitler, done.
I'll play this one...Hitler was a megalomaniac with desires to eradicate all that wasn't in his vision. He was NEVER a benign dictator with ideas to promote the well-being of his people, just himself and his cronies. Despite some posters' rhetoric, and the fact that I did vote for McCain, I will not believe that Obama is that despotic.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 09:42 AM

Did you know you could get into BIG trouble posting schematics of missiles on teh interwebs???

Jun 17th 2009, 09:42 AM

Despite some posters' rhetoric, and the fact that I did vote for McCain, I will not believe that Obama is that despotic.

He's just black. :rockon:

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 09:43 AM

News Is Broken

Jun 17th 2009, 09:45 AM

In WWII there were close ties to the press corp and the White House, and many stories of that time tell of cooperation between govt. and media to get the job, beating the **** out of Hitler, done.

And there you have it folks. Angel's Hell invoked Godwin's law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) and just like that, the thread is over with DW declared the victor by default.

Sorry kid. That's the breaks. You can't double stamp a triple stamp and you can't use Hitler to win an online argument. Now you know.

http://palmgoon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/the_more_you_know2.jpg

Jun 17th 2009, 09:47 AM

Default? I pwned that beotch!

Reductio ad Hitlerum!

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 09:47 AM

Sorry kid. That's the breaks. You can't double stamp a triple stamp and you can't use Hitler to win an online argument. Now you know.

Making up rules as we go...sounds like Hitler to me.

And I anti-quitsy you're triple stamp. No erasies!

Jun 17th 2009, 09:50 AM

And I anti-quitsy you're triple stamp. No erasies!

Please go shower teh gayness off of yourself before you post again. kthxbai.

News Is Broken

Jun 17th 2009, 09:51 AM

Default? I pwned that beotch!

Reductio ad Hitlerum!

True, but it's not like that's really very hard to do or anything.

Jun 17th 2009, 09:51 AM

True, but it's not like that's really very hard to do or anything.

Fair enough.

Hitler.

News Is Broken

Jun 17th 2009, 09:52 AM

Making up rules as we go...sounds like Hitler to me.

And I anti-quitsy you're triple stamp. No erasies!

You can't anti quitsy no erasie a triple stamp! :(

Kace

Jun 17th 2009, 09:57 AM

If the show is basically an infomercial for one side...

Or if the show's just an elaborate ruse to distract us from the big nasty asteroid that's gonna kill us. If, of course.

tater

Jun 17th 2009, 10:04 AM

You can't anti quitsy no erasie a triple stamp! :(

[puts fingers in ears]

lalalalalalalalalalalalalala

Pro

Jun 17th 2009, 11:10 AM

Even Kace's flippant remark about a 'great get' gives you the first condition: wow, ABC News is in the White House ahead of everybody else! You have to wonder what the quid pro was.

Administrations have given networks "exclusives" inside the White House before. The only difference is that this is the first time a network has been alowed to broadcast its entire evening news broadcast from inside the White House.

ABC sayd there were no pre-conditions. I believe them. If you do not, fine.

The only problem I'd have is if, somewhere down the road, CBS wanted a similar "exclusive" and the Obama Administration said "no". NBC already got theirs with the two hour Brian Williams special.

Mighty Dyckerson

Jun 17th 2009, 11:18 AM

For instance, you can ALWAYS trust Dyckerson's blog. He's very credible.

Indeed I am, Friggin' Bore! Thanks for the plug!

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 12:28 PM

Indeed I am, Friggin' Bore! Thanks for the plug!

And once again sarcasm is wasted...on the wasted. Try again, dipsh*t.

The Mockingbird

Jun 17th 2009, 12:32 PM

And once again sarcasm is wasted...on the wasted. Try again, dipsh*t.

What if he was being sarcastic about your sarcasm? :eek:

What if I'm being sarcastic right now? :eek:

Diggin' Bear

Jun 17th 2009, 12:35 PM

What if he was being sarcastic about your sarcasm? :eek:

What if I'm being sarcastic right now? :eek:

Whoa. That's just too much existentialism for just one post.

Anyway, shut up, Dyckerson. (which one of you are you?)

Angel's Hell

Jun 17th 2009, 12:41 PM

Newsflash....war >>>>>>>>>>>>>> health care.

Newsflash number two lola! Not if you're paying for it now!

Jun 17th 2009, 12:48 PM

Newsflash number two lola! Not if you're paying for it now!

Λάμψη αριθμός δύο ειδήσεων lola! Όχι εάν you' επαν πληρωμή για τον τώρα!

http://babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_txt

Shine number of two news lola! No if you'? [epan] payment for now!

Fixed sorta.

Lazlo Toth

Jun 17th 2009, 01:09 PM

I find that in questions such as this, it is helpful to turn the situation around and ask yourself how you would feel. It helps to separate the principle from the politics.

If this were ABC (or Fox or anyone else) with the same arrangement with the Bush administration on the issue of Social Security reform, how would you feel aobut it?

I don't have a problem so long as the content is balanced. I would like to see any government plan, particularly one as massive and potentially expensive and pervasive as health care reform, receive a thorough examination and explanation. If they do that, they could broadcast from Joe Biden's bedroom and I don't think it would bother me.

After all, the White House is not Obama's House. (Or Bush's, Clinton's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's or Nixon's). It's our house. It's a publicly owned symbol of the government that belongs to all of us, not just to the party of its current occupant. So to have a network broadcast from thereshould not be seen as inherently partisan.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 18th 2009, 12:09 PM

I think this column handles the topic extremely well.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/06/obama_fox_news_attacking_healt.html

Diplomat

Jun 18th 2009, 12:43 PM

I think this column handles the topic extremely well.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2009/06/obama_fox_news_attacking_healt.html

Yes, it does.

Judging from some of the reader comments, he seems to have struck a nerve.

Murphy Brown 2003

Jun 18th 2009, 01:08 PM

I don't have a problem with what ABC did. Obama is the POTUS and healthcare is a significant issue with a lot of Americans, so I think it's great that they're allowing him the time to tell us what his plans are.

I don't remember defecting Democrats providing the counterpoint right then and there when President Bush made his speech announcing we were going to war in Iraq.

Mighty Dyckerson

Jun 18th 2009, 01:16 PM

What if he was being sarcastic about your sarcasm? :eek:

Indeed I was, but of course that went right over Friggin' Bore's pea-sized brain. No surprise there.

Clever Login Name

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:12 AM

Some good analysis from Investor's Business Daily:

ABC Self-Nationalizes For Obama
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Media Bias: As much of the U.S. private sector, including health care providers, resists government takeovers, what a sorry sight to see ABC News leap forward to make itself a propaganda arm of the government.

But that's the story as ABC crosses the line from journalism to advocacy in turning its coverage of health care over to the White House.

This Wednesday, on every show from "Good Morning America" (kicking things off with an interview with the president) to "World News Tonight" (broadcast from the Blue Room) to a prime-time special called "Prescription for America" (and emanating from the East Room), the network will puff the Obama administration's trillion-dollar plan to nationalize U.S. health care.

The all-day, White House-based coverage itself amounts to a nationalization — this one of a major media outlet in support of an administration that will return the favor for access at the cost of objectivity and the public's right to know.

Don't think it isn't. This isn't your grandfather's propaganda. Forget public service announcements. Just as some newspaper ads trick themselves up to look like news stories to enhance their credibility, making a partisan program indistinguishable from the nightly "news" is a propaganda tool in the same vein.

Nobody has figured this out better than Barack Obama's political operation, which has manipulated almost all the mainstream media since he began running for the presidency.

Under the cover of news, ABC can present the president's side of the health reform issue as "factual" and leave out the real costs and concerns about government control and rationing of health care. Personal stories that tug at the heartstrings will be featured prominently, as will unchallenged canards about the wonders of socialized medicine.

Long and repetitive coverage will numb the public into thinking all sides have been explored. A token few seconds of time given over to a critic or two will enable ABC to call its coverage "fair." But expect the opposition to be portrayed as heartless or wacko.

The only thing such propaganda can't do is admit its real aims.

ABC insists it will present a balanced picture — as balanced, we suppose, as the political contributions of ABC News employees who gave 80 times more to Obama's campaign ($124,421 to $1,550) as they did to his opponent, John McCain.

With numbers like that, it doesn't take a genius to know what ABC's political atmosphere is like. In any case, ABC's output speaks for itself. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute has shown that in the first half of 2009, ABC sources quoted in health care stories shilled for ObamaCare 55 times to its opponents' 18 — a 3-to-1 margin.

The best proof that the public is getting propaganda is that ABC is refusing to take ads from critics who are offering to pay for them. Among those turned away: the Republican National Committee and a group called Conservatives for Patients' Rights.

"Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint, and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people," said Rick Scott, group spokesman.

This is a disgrace. Much of the U.S. private sector, from banks to automakers to hospitals, have resisted a government takeover, seeking to maintain their independence. Only the media, which should be the most independent of all, haven't.

ABC's capitulation contrasts sharply with the efforts of other broadcasters such as radio's Rush Limbaugh and TV's Fox News to defend themselves against the so-called Fairness Doctrine and personal attacks from White House staff bidding to silence them.

It also contrasts with brave media outlets overseas, including Globovision, Venezuela's last remaining independent TV station, which is defying Hugo Chavez's goons, or Iran's Twitterers and Facebookers defying the mullahs.

It all amounts to a sad corruption of American journalism. Once upon a time, people would go into journalism to expose the seamy underbelly of American politics. Today, ABC News, in its abject submission to the Obama administration on health care, has decided to become the seamy underbelly.

wx or not

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:34 AM

It all amounts to a sad corruption of American journalism. Once upon a time, people would go into journalism to expose the seamy underbelly of American politics. Today, ABC News, in its abject submission to the Obama administration on health care, has decided to become the seamy underbelly.

It's all about the numbers anymore. Ratings rule, integrity's the fool.

Pro

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:36 AM

Investor's Business Daily is no fan of Democrats, especially this particular Admimistration.

s'news

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:50 AM

I think that story makes a great number of assumptions about what will be covered and how ABC will do it.

Kace

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:54 AM

Only the best analysis are the ones that agree with what I already feel.

buckpasser

Jun 22nd 2009, 10:55 AM

Investor's Business Daily is no fan of Democrats, especially this particular Admimistration.

Investor's Business Daily's Op-Eds make the WSJ's Op-Eds seem rational.

It's the print version of Hannity's television show, or Michelle Malkin's website. Lots and lots of crying, whining, and pouting about Obama, with no real defense of anything conservative. Republicans are rarely discussed, and never defended.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 22nd 2009, 12:06 PM

wx or not

Jun 22nd 2009, 12:08 PM

Diplomat

Jun 22nd 2009, 12:56 PM

And yet, strangely enough, nobody here is willing to contest or explain why ABC is turning away paid advertising proposals from people who oppose Obama's plan. If that ain't goin' in the tank, then there must be a new definition.

Good point!

It's naive to think that if you let the White House (or any other political apparatus) control the content of the show, they would allow opposing viewpoints.

News Is Broken

Jun 22nd 2009, 01:05 PM

And yet, strangely enough, nobody here is willing to contest or explain why ABC is turning away paid advertising proposals from people who oppose Obama's plan. If that ain't goin' in the tank, then there must be a new definition.

Oh boy I sure would love to watch me some Republican National Committee and Conservatives for Patients' Rights commercials. That's some real must see TV right there.

:rolleyes:

Give me a break. They're not giving these guys ad buys because they don't want the pissed off and disgusted American people who ousted these nitwits last November to change the channel when these tools come on.

/thread.

writer2

Jun 22nd 2009, 01:06 PM

I'm almost tempted to watch, because as far as I know, President Obama doesn't have
a plan. What he has is at least five different congressional entities pulling in five different directions. If Mister Obama makes one flat statement about what specifically is needed to achieve health care reform, I hope it makes headlines on Thursday.

Diggin' Bear

Jun 22nd 2009, 02:04 PM

Oh boy I sure would love to watch me some Republican National Committee and Conservatives for Patients' Rights commercials. That's some real must see TV right there.
When the alternative is any ED or urinary disfunction ad, I'm gonna go for the policy wonk stuff!

Not to go too far OT here, but DAMN! have we heard enough about women's functions and oversized prostates already? It's almost like Tiny Dyckerson is in charge of commercial sales right now.

The more poop or pee content, the better!

Oh, and on topic: show me any network, local affiliate or newspaper that's willing to part with ad dollars willingly in this environment. It's further proof ABC is pwned.

News Is Broken

Jun 22nd 2009, 02:14 PM

Oh, and on topic: show me any network, local affiliate or newspaper that's willing to part with ad dollars willingly in this environment. It's further proof ABC is pwned.

I still find the claim suspect. It's no different then Godaddy whining that they spent a bunch of money on an ad featuring the go daddy girls having a naked pillowfight and then the big bad network said "no" and refused to air the ad during the superbowl. What was in these "ads"? That's the piece of the puzzle we're missing here. Maybe before we start claiming ABC's in the tank for Obama (which they may very well be, but just the same) let's make sure we understand all the facts.

Diplomat

Jun 22nd 2009, 02:20 PM

I hope Charles Gibson doesn't bow at the end. One news anchor doing that is enough. :)

Pro

Jun 22nd 2009, 02:39 PM

The President told a joke on himself at the Radio-TV Corresondant's Dinner this past Saturday:

"I was worried the other night about what I'd say tonight. I laid awake, tossing and turning.....then I rolled over and asked Brian Williams....." :D

Roy Hobbs

Jun 22nd 2009, 07:20 PM

At the very least, it gives the appearance of having ceded time and content to the control of the White House.

Sometimes the cede would fall on Rocky ground.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/31/nyregion/31rocky.1_600x353.jpg

Produce man

Jun 23rd 2009, 01:29 AM

I've never been in the news business.

.**sigh**

Clever Login Name

Jun 23rd 2009, 04:56 AM

From chicagoboyz.net blog ...

Let the FTC Regulate Where It Would Do Some Good
Posted by Shannon Love on June 22nd, 2009 (All posts by Shannon Love)

So, the bright bulbs at Obama’s Federal Trade Commission have decided to regulate blogs based on the premise that undisclosed financial relationships between bloggers and businesses could lead bloggers to deceive their readers as to the value of products they blog about.

If we’re going to regulate speech based on inducements to bias why stop with mere financial relationships? I think we should require all media sources to reveal all possible sources of bias starting with the political affiliations of the publishers and reporters. After all, the media sells stories they advertise as accurate and objective. Shouldn’t consumers have ready access to the information they need to decide if those claims are true?

Politics is more important than money. If you buy a toaster based on a biased recommendation, you’re only out the cost of a toaster. If you vote based on a biased political recommendation, you could lose your freedom. If the government has both the duty and the ability to protect you against bias in product recommendations on blogs, why doesn’t it have the same duty and ability to protect you against biased reporting on political matters?

Political beliefs matter. Soldiers fight and die for their political beliefs, not their paltry pay. Our political beliefs are closely tied to our moral sense of right and wrong and our sense of the just order of society. Political beliefs influence us on an unconscious level. Political beliefs do, without doubt, bias people even more strongly than money does.

This Wednesday, ABC is turning an entire day of news programing over to the Democrats’ health care plan. Wouldn’t viewers alter their judgment of the accuracy and objectivity of ABC’s reporting on the subject if they knew that the ABC employees donated to Democrats 80 times as much as they did to Republicans? Certainly, I can’t help but note that if the circumstances were reversed, most people who see nothing wrong in ABC’s actions now would suddenly see ABC’s donations as profoundly undermining the integrity of ABC’s reporting.

(For that matter, shouldn’t Deborah Yao have to reveal that she has an economic stake in suppressing blogs as competitors with traditional media?)

Revealing bias in matters of politics is even more important than revealing bias in commercial matters. If you buy a bad toaster on biased advice, you can easily tell because the toaster is crap and you can easily get another toaster. In politics, the media is often our only source of political information and we can’t easily tell which particular political policies are working and which are not. Worse, when we vote, we’re stuck with whomever we elect until the next election. For most political reporting, knowledge of the reporter’s bias is the only means of judging the accuracy and objectivity of a news story.

I’m not suggesting that the government regulate the truth or falsehood of political reporting the same way the government appoints itself the arbiter of truth in business matters. I am simply suggesting that the government should require that anyone legally defined as a journalist or publisher (such as for shield laws, broadcast licenses, etc.) be required to reveal their history of political affiliations in terms of political donations, membership in political parties and membership in political activist organizations. They would need to do so prominently in every product they sell, such as on a newspaper’s banner or at the head of every newscast. The cost of doing so would be minor but the benefit to consumers would be significant.

As I’ve noted before, leftists are strong advocates of the free market as the sole corrective mechanism when it comes to the economic freedom of articulate intellectuals. It’s high time they learned what it is like to live under Big Brother’s benevolent eye. If FTC regulation is good enough for everyone else, it’s good enough for the media.

Kace

Jun 23rd 2009, 05:58 AM

Everytime I hear or see, "leftists," I keep thinking someone's talking about left handed people.

Clever Login Name

Jun 25th 2009, 12:21 PM

Well, well ... from thrfeed:

June 25, 2009
ABC's White House special struggled for viewers

President Obama's town hall meeting on health care delivered a sickly rating Wednesday evening.

The one-hour ABC News special "Primetime: Questions for the President: Prescription for America" (4.7 million viewers, 1.1 preliminary adults 18-49 rating) had the fewest viewers in the 10 p.m. hour (against NBC's "The Philanthropist" debut and a repeat of "CSI: NY" on CBS). The special tied some 8 p.m. comedy repeats as the lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.

The special was shot at the White House and featured the president answering questions about his health care plan. The president's primary message was that those who like their current insurance will be able to keep it and that taking no action will result in higher health care costs.

The special drew fire from Republican leadership after refusing to allow an official opposition response, or even a paid ad. ABC also interviewed Obama on "Good Morning America" to help promote the special.

UPDATE: ABC points out that "Questions for the President" continued into late night during "Nightline" (4.3 million) and helped boost the news program to pull more viewers than CBS' "Late Show" and NBC's "Tonight Show."