Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Politics and the media

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Politics and the media

    [YOUTUBE]TLR5jHlytRg[/YOUTUBE]

    An interesting clip of Anita Dunn discussing the Obama campaign strategy pre-election for dealing with the media and getting the Obama message out.

    An argument here is that by bypassing the media, controlling everything the American people saw, the Obama campaign avoided the scrutiny that is supposed to come with media attention.

    It's an interesting question. Right now, I don't quite buy the above argument; the media can do its own research and digging to find the story. Newspapers and TV news reporters are not dependent on others to do their work for them.

  • #2
    Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
    [YOUTUBE]TLR5jHlytRg[/YOUTUBE]

    An interesting clip of Anita Dunn discussing the Obama campaign strategy pre-election for dealing with the media and getting the Obama message out.

    An argument here is that by bypassing the media, controlling everything the American people saw, the Obama campaign avoided the scrutiny that is supposed to come with media attention.

    It's an interesting question. Right now, I don't quite buy the above argument; the media can do its own research and digging to find the story. Newspapers and TV news reporters are not dependent on others to do their work for them.

    Here is the Obama Administration's chief media strategist saying that the key
    to their handling of the media in the campaign is that they simply refused to talk to reporters. They used campaign videos and public appearances to get out the specific message they wanted to, and refused to talk directly to reporters. And the media LOVE them for it. Josef Goebbels would be proud.

    We currently have a very scary and very real alliance between the "independent" media and the ruling administration. They are using that alliance to pass sweeping legislation that the VAST majority of Americans would be opposed to, if they actually understood what was happening. The Senate's health care reform bill is even BIGGER than the House bill (1500 pages v 1300), and no one in the media care that they're not going to be told what's actually in it before the vote. And since the media don't care, neither do most Americans.

    Unfortunately there's going to be no way to hold any of the media accountable for their actions. In a saner time, people would be PISSED by such underhanded and undemocratic actions...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by statman View Post
      Josef Goebbels would be proud.
      aaand scene. That was quick.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by statman View Post
        Here is the Obama Administration's chief media strategist saying that the key
        to their handling of the media in the campaign is that they simply refused to talk to reporters. They used campaign videos and public appearances to get out the specific message they wanted to, and refused to talk directly to reporters. And the media LOVE them for it. Josef Goebbels would be proud.

        We currently have a very scary and very real alliance between the "independent" media and the ruling administration. They are using that alliance to pass sweeping legislation that the VAST majority of Americans would be opposed to, if they actually understood what was happening. The Senate's health care reform bill is even BIGGER than the House bill (1500 pages v 1300), and no one in the media care that they're not going to be told what's actually in it before the vote. And since the media don't care, neither do most Americans.

        Unfortunately there's going to be no way to hold any of the media accountable for their actions. In a saner time, people would be PISSED by such underhanded and undemocratic actions...
        It must be nice for Obama to know that the media will protect him from anyone who disagrees with him and will say anything he wants them to say in order for him to force his agenda down our throats.

        Journalists are no longer around. Just lap dogs. What a shame.
        "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


        "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by il Padrino Ute View Post
          It must be nice for Obama to know that the media will protect him from anyone who disagrees with him and will say anything he wants them to say in order for him to force his agenda down our throats.

          Journalists are no longer around. Just lap dogs. What a shame.
          These were the exact same arguments folks on the left were making under Bush, in particular in the days leading up to the war. Journalism is extremely broken in this country. It only reports the news that is cheap to report. There is a lack of investigation, a lack of research, and a lack of fact checking. It is broken for both the left and the right. Of course there is no shortage of opinions coming out of the media, because opinions are cheap.

          Comment


          • #6
            These were the exact same arguments folks on the left were making under Bush, in particular in the days leading up to the war. Journalism is extremely broken in this country. It only reports the news that is cheap to report. There is a lack of investigation, a lack of research, and a lack of fact checking. It is broken for both the left and the right. Of course there is no shortage of opinions coming out of the media, because opinions are cheap.
            I concur wholeheartedly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by il Padrino Ute View Post
              It must be nice for Obama to know that the media will protect him from anyone who disagrees with him and will say anything he wants them to say in order for him to force his agenda down our throats.

              Journalists are no longer around. Just lap dogs. What a shame.
              The thing that's been killing me for the past week or so is the incessant insistence by Team Obama that the CBO has 'verified that the Senate Bill is "revenue neutral"'

              The CBO has done no such thing - and they have said so clearly and plainly - repeatedly.

              The CBo is there to be independent. They generally review bills for what thye actually say, make assumptions based on known circumstances, and say what they think the bill will do. For this bill, Senate Finance sent them a "bill" in CONCEPTUAL LANGUAGE - not in the form that it will be voted on, but rather, the general impacts that Senate Finance leaders say it will have. In such circumstances, the Finance Committee sets the assumptions that CBO must make - CBO doesn't actually know what the bill looks like, so they can't actually set the assumptions themselves.

              So, given the assumptions that the Finance Committee constrained the CBO with - and no actual bill - the CBO said "yeah, what they're given us is 'revenue neutral'" It's a complete and utter impossibility that things will come to pass with the assumptions that the Senate gave CBO (and the CBO has acknowledged this), but the media simply don't want the American public to know that they're ramming a horrible bill down our throats, and have not and will not challenge Senate leaders on the crap they're spewing...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                These were the exact same arguments folks on the left were making under Bush, in particular in the days leading up to the war. Journalism is extremely broken in this country. It only reports the news that is cheap to report. There is a lack of investigation, a lack of research, and a lack of fact checking. It is broken for both the left and the right. Of course there is no shortage of opinions coming out of the media, because opinions are cheap.
                Although in this case, the Obama administration is making moves like they want to shut down Fox News. I can't recall Bush talking about wanting to get rid of the NY Times or CBS or whoever.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Am I the only one who thinks Anita Dunn sounds like Sylvester the Cat?
                  "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


                  "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
                    Although in this case, the Obama administration is making moves like they want to shut down Fox News. I can't recall Bush talking about wanting to get rid of the NY Times or CBS or whoever.
                    They haven't done anything to 'shut it down,' and you won't find any Obama quotes talking about 'getting rid of' Fox News. This is exactly the stupid kind of correction that makes debating you such a painful experience. Thanks for reminding me before I got into it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by RobinFinderson View Post
                      They haven't done anything to 'shut it down,' and you won't find any Obama quotes talking about 'getting rid of' Fox News. This is exactly the stupid kind of correction that makes debating you such a painful experience. Thanks for reminding me before I got into it.
                      "Whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

                      Fox is “not really a news station,” said David Axelrod.

                      Fox, said Rahm Emmanuel, “is is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

                      "Let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is. The reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological… what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party."

                      -Anita Dunn

                      Speaking of media magnate Rupert Murdoch's Fox, Dunn told the Times in an interview published Monday: "We're going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent."
                      And this is from two Google links. There's a lot more.

                      Sounds like the Obama team wants to be rid of Fox. You may interpret it differently.

                      At Commentary today, Peter Wehner writes “The White House’s effort to target a news organization like Fox is vaguely Nixonian.”

                      "It is one thing to set the record straight when specific false charges are made by individual reporters and commentators. But the tactic of a blanket attack against a network like Fox will, I think, end up damaging Barack Obama. The public generally wants its president to act as an adult, mature and relatively high-minded, focused on the problems of the day rather than on targeting media outlets. And it is more evidence of the fictional claim by Obama that he would 'resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long'; that 'the times are too serious, the stakes are too high' for the same old political-attack tricks; and that he alone would elevate public discourse and serve as a unifying figure for America. Barack Obama is, in fact, turning into one of our most divisive political figures in memory – and he’s become that in less than nine months.

                      "This whole anti-Fox gambit will come across to a lot of people as misguided and petty, the product of a White House that is unusually thin-skinned and somewhat paranoid – and, perhaps, as one that can’t be trusted with power."
                      It's not only conservatives who find this a bit unsettling. I'm not off-base here, Robin. Your snide remark was unnecessary.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Poor Obama. Poor, poor, Obama. What's a Marxist to do?
                        "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill


                        "I only know what I hear on the news." - Dear Leader

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by JohnnyLingo View Post
                          It's not only conservatives who find this a bit unsettling. I'm not off-base here, Robin. Your snide remark was unnecessary.
                          Thanks JL. I'm going to assume that you presented a pile of quotes and analysis in which there is never a mention of 'shutting down' Fox News, or anything like unto it, because you agree with my point. Your magnanimity makes me feel bad for making my snide remark. In the future you needn't make my case for me. You can just say, "You were right Robin. I looked at the statements and I misinterpreted the administration's adversarial treatment of Fox to mean that they want to shut them down. You win the point."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This chart is pretty interesting, and in my opinion, after having read something within most of these sources at one time or another, pretty accurate. In that partisan test someone posted here a while back I tested right down the middle, so I'm thinking this is pretty much looking at this from that perspective.

                            By the way, they update this chart over time. Fox News' sliding down to Uncle Ted's neighborhood in propaganda/nonsense corner happened with Trump getting into office. They used to be mainstream news on the conservative side in previous versions of this. I wonder how many of its viewers who consume no other sources noticed the slide? Those who occasionally read something even as milquetoast as USA Today possibly do.

                            http://www.allgeneralizationsarefals...ermark-min.jpg
                            Last edited by BlueK; 03-14-2018, 10:14 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Another interesting piece from The Atlantic on the history of conservative talk radio and how it eventually completely transformed the Republican Party (and helped set the table for Trumpism).

                              I think the conclusion is exactly right:

                              "The new political landscape has hamstrung the ability of Republican leaders to legislate, leading to constant brinkmanship epitomized by the longest government shutdown in history in the winter of 2018–19, when President Donald Trump heeded the calls of Limbaugh and others to fight, even though there really wasn’t a viable path to victory.

                              This episode has unfortunately illustrated the new reality for the Republican Party: Over three decades, the titans of talk have remade the party in their own image, with elected Republicans now sounding more like commentators on the AM dial—or its cable equivalent, the Fox News Channel, where Hannity has hosted a show since 1996—than what used to be heard in the halls of Congress. While this made for gripping radio and TV, it left a more and more extreme party, with little capacity to govern and little appeal in the suburbs or with young and nonwhite voters.

                              Trump’s presidency is the ultimate testament to the power of talk-radio conservatism. In one week last month, the president not only called in to Hannity’s show, but on a separate night tweeted, “Oh well, we still have the great @seanhannity who I hear has a really strong show tonight. 9:00 P.M.” He reportedly talks regularly with Hannity as well. And last winter, when Trump reversed course after the uprising on the right, it was Limbaugh to whom the president pledged that he would shut the government down if he didn’t get enough funds for his border wall.

                              The power of these hosts would’ve been unthinkable when Limbaugh took the national airwaves by storm in 1988. But over three decades, hosts have used the special bond they’ve forged with their audiences to reshape the Republican Party in their image. For millions of listeners, the change has been electrifying. For excommunicated moderates, this show hasn’t been entertaining in the least. "

                              https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...-party/596380/
                              Last edited by BlueK; 08-21-2019, 01:26 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X