PDA

View Full Version : Blatant Media Manipulation in the WH!


Diggin' Bear
Jun 24th 2009, 11:21 AM
Yeah, I posted this in Open Line...but it also belongs here.

For those of you who defended Barry's blatant purchase of ABC...check this out from the oh-so-fair Washington Post!

Stay Tuned for More of 'The Obama Show'

Daytime TV's newest star is good at staying on script.

By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

In his first daytime news conference yesterday, President Obama preempted "All My Children," "Days of Our Lives" and "The Young and the Restless." But the soap viewers shouldn't have been disappointed: The president had arranged some prepackaged entertainment for them.

After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

"The Obama Show" was the hottest ticket in town yesterday. Forty-five minutes before the start, there were no fewer than 107 people crammed into the narrow aisles, in addition to those in the room's 42 seats. Japanese and Italian could be heard coming from the tangle of elbows, cameras and compressed bodies: "You've got to move! . . . Oh, God, don't step on my foot!" Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. "As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.

Obama indulged the question from the studio audience. "I would say that I am 95 percent cured. But there are times where I mess up," he confessed. "Like folks who go to AA, you know, once you've gone down this path, then, you know, it's something you continually struggle with."

This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives.

As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

"I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

"The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

Pitney said the White House, though not aware of the question's wording, asked him to come up with a question about Iran proposed by an Iranian. And, as it turned out, he was not the only prearranged questioner at yesterday's show. Later, Obama passed over the usual suspects to call on Macarena Vidal of the Spanish-language EFE news agency. The White House called Vidal in advance to see whether she was coming and arranged for her to sit in a seat usually assigned to a financial trade publication. She asked about Chile and Colombia.

A couple of more questions and Obama called it a day. "Mr. President!" yelled Mike Allen of Politico. "May I ask about Afghanistan? No questions about Iraq or Afghanistan?"

Sorry: Those weren't prearranged.

The Mockingbird
Jun 24th 2009, 11:35 AM
http://www2.elkman.net/fark/asshat.jpg

http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?t=32554

And just like the last thread, I also presented you with an asshat here.

Kace
Jun 24th 2009, 11:58 AM
Political predisposition can create quality entertainment for me. This is no exception.

Diggin' Bear
Jun 24th 2009, 12:10 PM
http://www2.elkman.net/fark/asshat.jpg

http://openline.medialine.com/showthread.php?t=32554

And just like the last thread, I also presented you with an asshat here.

Thanks for the self-portrait. Your avatar's nice, too.

wx or not
Jun 25th 2009, 04:48 AM
Bear, this is no different from any other administration's usage of the media. Every president wants to be shown in a positive light, so each one takes advantage of the most "friendly" organization available. Obama just happens to be lucky that he has quite a few to choose from.

i'm in touch, so you be in touch
Jun 25th 2009, 05:55 AM
At least someone working for the Huffington Post can be considered more of a journalist than the gay male prostitute the Bush Administration hired to lob softballs at George W. Or the "reporter" they hired to push out VNRs to unsuspecting local news outlets.

Diplomat
Jun 25th 2009, 06:18 AM
At least someone working for the Huffington Post can be considered more of a journalist than the gay male prostitute the Bush Administration hired to lob softballs at George W. Or the "reporter" they hired to push out VNRs to unsuspecting local news outlets.

They're all PR people, just working for different clients.

Kace
Jun 25th 2009, 06:27 AM
Cool. Let's get rid of all of 'em. :rockon:

SamG
Jun 25th 2009, 07:22 AM
They're all PR people, just working for different clients.
So I'm wondering... did you (or Bear) complain about this during the Bush admin? Or are you just complaining now because it's a Dem in the WH?

The Mockingbird
Jun 25th 2009, 09:36 AM
Most of the time members of the media are PR for the Administration, regardless of who is in power.

Ralphie the buffalo
Jun 25th 2009, 09:41 AM
Most of the time members of the media are PR for the Administration, regardless of who is in power.

I think that may be the case, however in the past there was at least an appearence of randomness in who was called upon to ask questions.
Obama seems to be using reporters and questions that have been cleared in advance.

I am still stunned that not one question about North Korea was asked. That is remarkable.

The Mockingbird
Jun 25th 2009, 10:26 AM
Welcome to the White House Press Corps -- if you rock the boat too much, you might just fall out.

But let's keep in mind that in the previous administration, the President rarely answered questions from reporters at all.

wx or not
Jun 25th 2009, 10:40 AM
Welcome to the White House Press Corps -- if you rock the boat too much, you might just fall out.
And, you know where you stand if you're never invited aboard Air Force One.

Diplomat
Jun 26th 2009, 06:15 AM
So I'm wondering... did you (or Bear) complain about this during the Bush admin? Or are you just complaining now because it's a Dem in the WH?

I was referring to those particular bloggers. And yes, I did say something about the Gannon/Gallagher business.

We know you didn't like the latter. Does it bother you that the White House office let people know in advance they'd be called on and that there was at least some collusion on the questions that would be asked?

SamG
Jun 26th 2009, 06:37 AM
We know you didn't like the latter. Does it bother you that the White House office let people know in advance they'd be called on and that there was at least some collusion on the questions that would be asked?Actually I didn't have much of a problem with Bush until the Iraq war. THAT'S when I lost respect for him and his decisions. As far as it bothering me the WH telling journalists they're going to be called on and what to ask... not so much, AS LONG AS others get to ask the questions they want. I've got absolutely nothing to back it up, but I'm guessing this practice has been going on for DECADES, both Rep & Dem. So why is it such a big deal now?

wx or not
Jun 26th 2009, 06:44 AM
but I'm guessing this practice has been going on for DECADES, both Rep & Dem. So why is it such a big deal now?
Because Helen Thomas isn't leading off the questions anymore?

s'news
Jun 26th 2009, 04:41 PM
As far as it bothering me the WH telling journalists they're going to be called on and what to ask...

Most versions say the WH learned the reporter was soliciting questions from Iranians. The reporter was invited to come and ask one of those questions. But they didn't know in advance exactly what the question would be. That's according to the WH and the reporter.

And one supposes that if the reporter in question had gone and asked about something else, there wouldn't be anything the WH could do about it.

Diplomat
Jun 26th 2009, 05:01 PM
Because Helen Thomas isn't leading off the questions anymore?

If a WH press secretary flashed a Star of David before Helen Thomas, she'd melt. :)

Most of the questions are not too bad, from what I have watched over the years.

s'news
Jun 26th 2009, 07:14 PM
Hey Sam, it's possible you were suckered by a previous poster that you quoted. I wouldn't have seen it unless you quoted it, because I have that poster on ignore.

But the poster you quoted referred to "collusion" between the WH and the reporter. That's accurate for reasons previously stated, but inaccurate because it implies that something nefarious happened.

Please don't quote this. That other poster says I'm on ignore, which is fine by me. If you don't quote me, the other poster has no reason to reply. And I have no interest in what that other poster has to say. It's so often wrong that I don't care to waste my time.

Produce man
Jun 27th 2009, 04:59 AM
Welcome to the time of "the Messiah."

Diplomat
Jun 27th 2009, 09:30 AM
Actually I didn't have much of a problem with Bush until the Iraq war. THAT'S when I lost respect for him and his decisions. As far as it bothering me the WH telling journalists they're going to be called on and what to ask... not so much, AS LONG AS others get to ask the questions they want. I've got absolutely nothing to back it up, but I'm guessing this practice has been going on for DECADES, both Rep & Dem. So why is it such a big deal now?

Nobody should be doing it. Period. That's my take.

SamG
Jun 28th 2009, 02:44 AM
Nobody should be doing it. Period. That's my take.
I'd like to know what you said about previous administrations doing it, because I'm sure they did. I know you said you complained at the time, but I tried searching and couldn't find one complaint out of you. So I'm calling :bs:. It's easy to say "I don't like anyone doing it", but you only complained about the Obama WH until pressed.

Diplomat
Jun 28th 2009, 05:30 AM
I'd like to know what you said about previous administrations doing it, because I'm sure they did. I know you said you complained at the time, but I tried searching and couldn't find one complaint out of you. So I'm calling :bs:. It's easy to say "I don't like anyone doing it", but you only complained about the Obama WH until pressed.

Call BS all you want. It doesn't change the truth, which you are not telling. I did say something on this board about that Gannon or whatever his name was, and also Maggie Gallagher. Perhaps your searching skills are the problem.

I'm calling BS on your claim to have searched it.

SamG
Jun 28th 2009, 11:45 AM
Call BS all you want. It doesn't change the truth, which you are not telling. I did say something on this board about that Gannon or whatever his name was, and also Maggie Gallagher. Perhaps your searching skills are the problem.

I'm calling BS on your claim to have searched it.
So you think I'm a liar because nothing came up in a search? I'll admit maybe I didn't search the right keywords. So, prove me wrong. You have no problem insulting me. Your searching skills must be better than mine. So go ahead, find the quote where you criticized the WH for "planting questions" under a Republican administration. I'll wait.:whistle:

PS. sorry s'news

Diplomat
Jun 28th 2009, 12:56 PM
So you think I'm a liar because nothing came up in a search? I'll admit maybe I didn't search the right keywords. So, prove me wrong. You have no problem insulting me. Your searching skills must be better than mine. So go ahead, find the quote where you criticized the WH for "planting questions" under a Republican administration. I'll wait.:whistle:

PS. sorry s'news

Please don't mention that phony self-aggrandizer's name in a post with me. His penchant for distortions, untruths and inaccuracy led me to put him on ignore long ago.

YOU insulted me, Sam. I only responded in kind. Didn't realize only you had the right to do that. I remember saying I had never heard of the Gannon guy and didn't think he ought to be doing that, and said more about Maggie Gallagher, as I was familiar with her work and antics. Maybe it's in the old forum. I will look again using different words. I know I said stuff about them because I was asked.

Also, keep in mind that not everything you or I say to people in this business or about this business is posted here.

SamG
Jun 28th 2009, 02:49 PM
It's very easy on an message board to say "I said that" or "I believe this". If you are going to say you complained off the board, I can't argue with you. But your statement And yes, I did say something about the Gannon/Gallagher business. I read as you did complain on the board. I'd just like to know you're not as partisan as you appear to be.

Diplomat
Jun 28th 2009, 04:00 PM
It's very easy on an message board to say "I said that" or "I believe this". If you are going to say you complained off the board, I can't argue with you. But your statement I read as you did complain on the board. I'd just like to know you're not as partisan as you appear to be.

Sam, I have my views and opinions, just as you have yours. And that is a good thing. However, there are certain things that should not be done in the world of journalism, and a White House press office colluding with reporters in advance of a press conference is one of them.

Anyone who knows me knows I haven't a lot of use for Maggie Gallagher or her enabler at National Review, John O'Sullivan. Thankfully, both are no longer affiliated with what was a great publication during the days of William F. Buckley Jr.

Consider This
Jun 28th 2009, 06:25 PM
I'd just like to know you're not as partisan as you appear to be.

That was pretty funny, right there.

s'news
Jun 28th 2009, 06:40 PM
It's very easy on an message board to say "I said that" or "I believe this". If you are going to say you complained off the board, I can't argue with you. But your statement I read as you did complain on the board. I'd just like to know you're not as partisan as you appear to be.

SamG, Diplomat went on and on back when about Gannon. I remember it well. D roasted the Bush administration in post after post. And the gay stuff was too damned crazy, D posted. That the administration would give credentials to the guy for so long was demented, D said. D used the word "despicable" numerous time. And the word "ilk." And sometimes D made an emphasis with those that disagreed by using some word in CAPITAL letters. D Photoshopped a picture of Gannon and put President Bush's face on it. D called Cheney a "crazy man." D said Rove was "off his rocker."

Yes, I'm being satirical. If anything, D more likely posted that this Gannon thing wasn't right. And then D probably launched into an attack on Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi, The New York Times and others. So D did say "something" and is accurate and inaccurate at the same time, as was the case previously in this thread.

Again, please don't quote me.

Won't you consider not quoting Diplomat? It's what D wants. D wants attention. You're feeding a troll.

The Mockingbird
Jun 29th 2009, 04:40 AM
Sam, I have my views and opinions, just as you have yours. And that is a good thing. However, there are certain things that should not be done in the world of journalism, and a White House press office colluding with reporters in advance of a press conference is one of them.

Anyone who knows me knows I haven't a lot of use for Maggie Gallagher or her enabler at National Review, John O'Sullivan. Thankfully, both are no longer affiliated with what was a great publication during the days of William F. Buckley Jr.

I don't know if I would go so far as colluding. Looks more like the White House traded access for air time, essentially. I don't think less of the network for saying yes, since the White House isn't going to write the news coverage.

I do think a little less of the Obama Administration for playing a card from the sketchier side of the deck. Why not just have a speech in prime-time on all the networks? Although, it's possible that he asked all the nets for time, and they turned him down.

The Mockingbird
Jun 29th 2009, 04:41 AM
Sam, I have my views and opinions, just as you have yours. And that is a good thing. However, there are certain things that should not be done in the world of journalism, and a White House press office colluding with reporters in advance of a press conference is one of them.

Anyone who knows me knows I haven't a lot of use for Maggie Gallagher or her enabler at National Review, John O'Sullivan. Thankfully, both are no longer affiliated with what was a great publication during the days of William F. Buckley Jr.

I don't know if I would go so far as colluding. Looks more like the White House traded access for air time, essentially. I don't think less of the network for saying yes, since the White House isn't going to write the news coverage.

I do think a little less of the Obama Administration for playing a card from the sketchier side of the deck. Why not just have a speech in prime-time on all the networks? Although, it's possible that he asked all the nets for time, and they turned down the President, I guess.