View Full Version : White House admits: We control news media
As always, consider the source.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=113347
TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating
anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference
.
"Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
"One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe 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," said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama's chief campaign manager.
"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," Dunn said.
Check out the hot new best-seller -- "Muslim Mafia"
Continued Dunn: "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."
Video of Dunn's remarks at the conference can be seen below:
Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009, event focusing on Obama's media tactics and hosted by the Global Foundation for Democracy and Development, which seeks to promote collaboration between the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. The event was held in Santo Domingo and was attended by the country's president.
Dunn has been facing some criticism since she led a White House campaign last week against Fox News, slamming the top-rated network as an "arm of the Republican Party" and "opinion journalism masquerading as news."
Fox hit back this past Friday, releasing a video of Dunn speaking to high school students last June in which she lists her two "favorite political philosophers," including Communist Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung, whose draconian policies are blamed for the deaths of tens of millions of people.
Video of Dunn's speech, broadcast during a segment of Glenn Beck's evening show on the Fox News Channel, can be seen below:
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
No I'm not. :(
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!
No I'm not. :(
THIS!
rickrock305
10-18-09, 21:30
this is nothing new. hardly news.
SWATcop556
10-18-09, 21:47
Controlled so much that a teleprompter was used to deliver that message. :D
Don Robison
10-18-09, 22:40
No kidding, I never would have guessed.:rolleyes:
And it was the Bush Administration that taught them everything they know.
Apparently they don’t control FOX news.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/
Every administration, Republican or Democrat, does it's absolute best to control the media and put their own spin on things.
Nothing new, and been going on as long as we've had print media and administrations.....
Every administration, Republican or Democrat, does it's absolute best to control the media and put their own spin on things.
Nothing new, and been going on as long as we've had print media and administrations.....
Very true. I wonder, however, if the media has ever been so overtly thrilled to be "spun" as they seem to be with the Obama administration?
John_Wayne777
10-19-09, 07:12
Every presidential administration has tried to control the course of debate in the country and has tried to tightly control the message.
The central question, then, is whether or not the media cooperates with the administration in these efforts. They certainly didn't with the Bush administration. The media seems to be quite comfortable, however, carrying the current administration's water.
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 08:53
And it was the Bush Administration that taught them everything they know.
Seriously that's your response? Ok keep following that logic...in the age of TV and Internet the Clinton Administration (Emmanuel, Podesta, Carville, Begala) taught the Bushies everything they knew. The difference is that Clinton/Bush had the good sense to not rub it in our faces. More importantly the media challenged them on their bullshit. Instead we get the media acting as propagandists.
Instead of being outraged, the best you can do is "Bush did it so it's all ok"?
No wonder the Obama administration has no fear of admitting it. They've come to accept such dishonesty as normal and acceptable, not to mention desirable. Apparently so has the media.
Thank you for pointing out why we are getting the government we deserve.
Seriously that's your response? Ok keep following that logic...in the age of TV and Internet the Clinton Administration (Emmanuel, Podesta, Carville, Begala) taught the Bushies everything they knew. The difference is that Clinton/Bush had the good sense to not rub it in our faces. More importantly the media challenged them on their bullshit. Instead we get the media acting as propagandists.
Instead of being outraged, the best you can do is "Bush did it so it's all ok"?
No wonder the Obama administration has no fear of admitting it. They've come to accept such dishonesty as normal and acceptable, not to mention desirable. Apparently so has the media.
Thank you for pointing out why we are getting the government we deserve.
Concur with this and JW's post. The idea that an administration would try to control its own messaging is fine with me. What bothers me is the fact that in so many cases, the media is/was willing to pass on doing its homework.
rifleman2000
10-19-09, 11:11
And it was the Bush Administration that taught them everything they know.
This is certainly a false statement. The relationship between the media and Obama's camp compared to the relationship between the media and Bush's camp is radically different.
rickrock305
10-19-09, 11:41
The central question, then, is whether or not the media cooperates with the administration in these efforts. They certainly didn't with the Bush administration. The media seems to be quite comfortable, however, carrying the current administration's water.
Sure they did. The pre-Iraq war PR campaign comes to mind. Chemical belts around Baghdad, mushroom clouds, Hussein being a direct threat to our country, etc., were all allowed over the air without even questioning it. There were plenty of times Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, Powell, or others outright lied and weren't even so much as questioned about it. Or we could look at Katrina, which I believe the Bush admin got off extremely easy on. Hell, Bush had a member of the news media as his press corp guy!
Then there's the case of Armstrong Williams, billed as a conservative commentator, who reportedly accepted $240,000 from the U.S. Department of Education to promote the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on his syndicated television show. Public relations firm Ketchum, a unit of Omnicom Group, brokered the deal. Thats a direct example of the Bush administration using our tax dollars to promote policy in the media.
Ketchum was also involved in distributing video news reports to media outlets at the behest of the Bush Administration. These video news reports were aimed to appear as if they were real news reports, and Ketchum went so far as to use a former reporter in the clips. Television stations around the country aired reports that consumers thought were news but were nothing more than propaganda.
The Public Relations Society of America, often quiet in times of turmoil, spoke up against the Williams-Ketchum alliance. “As public relations professionals, we are disheartened by this type of tactic,” Judith T. Phair, former president and chief executive officer of PRSOA, said in a statement.
from the NY Times (yea, I know)
http://www.globalissues.org/article/532/media-manipulation
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production.
... the administration’s efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations...
Some reports were produced to support the administration’s most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters... They often feature “interviews” with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.
Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation’s largest television markets... prepackaged segments [include] “suggested” lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of [news programming, feeds, web sites, etc.] only to emerge cleansed on the other side as “independent” journalism.
(This all actually started with the Clinton administration, and has increased tremendously in breadth and scope with the Bush administration. “The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first term on public relations contracts, nearly double what the last Clinton administration spent,” the Time also notes.)
the [US] Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper “covert propaganda” even if their origin is made clear to the television stations.
In an example, to mark the one year anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks on America, WHBQ, the Fox affiliate in Memphis had an uplifting report about Afghanistan and the improving situation for women. The report “seemed to corroborate, however modestly, a central argument of the Bush foreign policy, that forceful American intervention abroad was spreading freedom, improving lives and winning friends.”
Furthermore, what both the people of Memphis and the actual reporter from WHBQ herself were not told was that “interviews used by WHBQ were actually conducted by State Department contractors. The contractors also selected the quotes used from those interviews and shot the video that went with the narration. They also wrote the narration, much of which [the reporter] repeated with only minor changes.”
As another example, the Pentagon offers free satellite feeds. “The Pentagon Channel, available only inside the Defense Department last year, is now being offered to every cable and satellite operator in the United States.” A “good news” and positive image is being portrayed. “50 stories it filed last year were broadcast 236 times in all, reaching 41 million households in the United States.” Reporters, for example, are never identified by their military titles making it easier for local stations to run reports unedited. Few stations acknowledge the military’s role in the segments. Stories are also tailored for local broadcast by highlighting local soldiers to help increase positive feelings.
At the end of September 2005, as the New York Times reported, US Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush’s education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party. This was the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
In what the Times described as a “blistering report”, the Government Accountability Office confirmed their previous accusation, that the administration had indeed disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_Admin._spent_over_1.6_Billion_0213.html
Bush Admin. spent over $2.6 Billion on advertising and P.R. since 2003, GAO finds
Today Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. George Miller, Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, and other senior Democrats released a new Government Accountability Office report finding that the Bush Administration spent more than $2.6 billion in public relations and media contracts in a two and a half year span.
"The government is spending over a billion dollars per year on PR and advertising," said Rep. Waxman. "Careful oversight of this spending is essential given the track record of the Bush Administration, which has used taxpayer dollars to fund covert propaganda within the United States."
"No amount of money will successfully sell the Bush Administration's failed policies, from the war in Iraq, to its disastrous energy policy, to its confusing Medicare prescription drug benefits," said Democratic Leader Pelosi. "The American people know the Bush Administration is on the wrong track and the White House PR machine won't change that fact."
"The extent of the Bush Administration's propaganda effort is unprecedented and disturbing," said Rep. Miller. "The fact is that after all the spin, the American people are stuck with high prescription drug prices, high gas prices, and high college costs. This report raises serious questions about this Administration's priorities for the country and I would hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle would agree that changes need to be made to reign in the President's propaganda machine."
"It is unbelievable that the Administration, on several occasions, has used limited taxpayer dollars to secretly promote initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, while underfunding money for our schools, books, technology, and after school programs," said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings.
Democrats requested that GAO conduct the study after evidence emerged last year that the Bush Administration had commissioned "covert propaganda" from public relations firms. Several federal departments had hired firms to develop "video new releases" to promote department initiatives which appeared to television viewers to be independent newscasts. Other revelations that triggered the GAO report included the disclosure that the Department of Education paid conservative commentator Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind Act on the radio and in his columns.
To conduct its study, GAO obtained information from seven federal departments on all public relations, advertising, and media contracts during 2003, 2004, and the first two quarters of 2005. GAO found that during that time:
The Administration spent $2.6 billion on contracts with advertising agencies ($2.4 billion), public relations firms ($297 million), and media organizations and individual members of the media ($25 million).
The Department of Defense spent the most on media contracts, with contracts worth $2.1 billion. The Department of Health and Human Services spent more than $300 million on these contracts, the Department of Treasury spent $252 million, and the Department of Homeland Security spent $24 million during this period.
The Administration's public relations and advertising contracts spanned a wide range of issues, including Administration priorities like "marriage-related research initiatives," message development presenting "the Army's strategic perspective in the Global War on Terrorism," and an FDA contract to warn the public of the consequences and potential danger of importing prescription drugs from other nations.
The detailed list of contracts provided by the Air Force demonstrates the wide range of public relations and advertising contracting entered into by the federal government. This list included $279 million for a recruitment advertising campaign, more than $35,000 for promotional materials for a golf program, including "golf towel with embroidered design and golf tees with imprint," and $20, 212 for "prize giveaways, such as cruises to Mediterranean and to Canada/New England."
GAO's accounting of the Bush Administration's public relations and advertising contracts is limited. GAO surveyed only seven of the 15 cabinet-level departments, relied on self-reported information from the agencies, and did not include subcontracts, task orders on existing contracts, or public relations work done by government employees.
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2815
Bush Administration Spent $1.6B on ‘Propaganda’ Efforts
by Michelle Chen
Feb. 15, 2006 – The public-relations gloss that has long wrapped the Bush administration is fast becoming a blemish on the White House, according to lawmakers who have uncovered some $1.6 billion in federal funds spent on promoting various administration-sponsored programs.
A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s research and auditing body, tracks more than 340 contracts negotiated between several government departments and PR, advertising and media firms from 2003 through the first part of 2005.
The study, requested by the House of Representatives Democratic leadership, found that from 2003 to mid-2005, the administration racked up some $1.4 billion in contracts with advertising agencies to broadcast positive messages about its policies and initiatives. Another $200 million went to public-relations companies, and $15 million were spent building connections with media outlets. Individual members of the press received a total of $100,000 in promotional contracts.
Seizing on the study’s results as a chance to broach accountability issues in the administration, Representative Henry Waxman (D-California) said in a statement that the report showed the White House was spending taxpayer dollars on a self-serving "propaganda effort."
The study surveyed a total of seven departments, including Interior, Commerce, and Defense, and gathered information primarily through questionnaires sent to department personnel.
Though the exact nature of the expenditures is not always clear from brief project descriptions, the money apparently went to push an array of sometimes controversial White House programs, including efforts to research and promote the benefits of marriage, and campaigns to publicize the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act to seniors.
The bulk of the money went toward brightening the image of the military, with the Defense Department spending over $1 billion on media contracts. That chunk far outpaced the second-biggest spender, the Department of Health and Human Services, which doled out some $300 million. The Pentagon’s public-relations priorities included a contract worth over $1 million to fund public-outreach speakers to promote the Army, as well as the development of story ideas for reporters "in support of Soldiers in the Global War on Terror."
The Air Force budgeted a $179 million contract for a national and local "advertising partnership" to recruit new military members. The records of Air Force contracts are also peppered with smaller promotional perks, such as prize giveaways and T-shirts and hats displaying the Coca-Cola logo, which totaled tens of thousands of dollars.
The Department of Homeland Security spent approximately $24 million on contracts to market itself. This included no-bid contracts with ad agencies in 2004 and 2005, worth about $6.5 million, for the development of the "Ready Campaign" – which involved public service announcements "designed to educate and empower Americans about how to prepare for and respond to terrorist attacks."
The GAO acknowledged that the scope of the study was far from comprehensive, since the researchers did not independently review individual contracts, and the accuracy of the questionnaire responses could not be verified because "[t]here are no known accurate government-wide contract databases with which to compare" the findings. In the Defense Department in particular, different military branches reported contract expenditures with varying levels of detail.
According to a fact sheet issued in tandem with the GAO report, the top contractor hired by the White House was Leo Burnett USA, which received contracts worth $536 million over the study period. In addition to the government, Leo Burnett counts Philip Morris, Walt Disney, McDonald’s and Visa among its clients and controls advertising agencies in 82 countries. The company branded the "Army of One" ad campaign, though the Defense Department last December broke ties with the company by signing a deal with a new ad agency worth an estimated $1.35 billion over five years.
Several House members requested the GAO report last year, after information about the intricate White House public-relations "machine" began to surface in the news. Raising questions of government transparency and conflict of interest, media watchdog groups and some officials expressed outrage over reports that prominent columnist Armstrong Williams was bankrolled by the administration to write articles praising the No Child Left Behind education program.
A similar scandal over "covert propaganda" erupted in reaction to the administration’s "video news releases," or generic newscasts presenting a positive spin on government programs, which were then used verbatim by mainstream media outlets.
While many of the promotional projects listed in the study disclose the government as the source of the information, the report reveals several media contracts – one worth nearly $650,000 – to help create these non-attributed video news releases, giving unequivocally positive coverage to topics like tighter airport security regulations.
The Food and Drug Administration spent $20,000 in 2004 on the development and distribution of such news releases to warn consumers about the potential physical and legal problems of purchasing medical products on the Internet.
In the past, the GAO has challenged the legality of clandestine White House public-relations efforts. But the administration’s legal counsel has issued statements defending the practice, arguing that the non-sourced news releases were legitimate public-education tools since "there is no advocacy of a particular viewpoint."
But the findings of this most recent GAO study turn less on legal issues and more on the question of whether the White House can justify the public cost of its self-promotion.
Following the release of the report, the media reform group Free Press issued a statement calling for a deeper investigation and full exposure of the administration’s media operations. Spokesperson Craig Aaron said, "We must ensure that taxpayer money isn't being spent by the White House to secretly manipulate the American public."
And it was the Bush Administration that taught them everything they know.
So it's business as usual from an administration and Congress that promised change? Is that's what you're saying?
As much as I hate to quote him Submariner said it best; "there isn't a dimes difference between the two parties".
And it was the Bush Administration that taught them everything they know.
Sure they did. The pre-Iraq war PR campaign...
So what you two are saying is not only is the Obama administration is falling right in line with what Bush and his republican administration did and that they really aren't about transparency or change after all?
You guys are probably really disappointed to find out that this administration isn't all that different from the last one huh? Bummer.
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 12:03
http://www.globalissues.org/article/532/media-manipulation
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Bush_Admin._spent_over_1.6_Billion_0213.html
http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/2815
I'm so tired of the "Bush did it too" canard.
I'm so tired of the "Bush did it too" canard.
I'm not. For eight years the left criticized Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. Now when Obama does something he promised not to do they pull that card out and every time they do the notion of change is flushed down the toilet. It must be a real let down for those that bought into the hype.
Belmont31R
10-19-09, 12:25
Don't forget a majority of dems in the Senate voted for the Iraq War Resolution....public sentiment was was, about 80% for going into Iraq?
Then go another year or two..the media and dems began their blame Bush for everything crap, and the media followed suit.
Just look at what the dems are saying/doing, and the likes the NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN will be on their heels lapping it up.
Fast forward to Obama, and now these same "news" agencies have their anchors saying on live TV that its their job to make the Obama administration a success and they get tingle's down their legs hearing Obama give a speech. The news may have gone along for a year or so with Iraq, and then it quickly went downhill. I can't recount the sheer fervor the media has with Obama to anything done with Bush. Surely not tingle's down their legs...and selling Obama merchandise in their buildings.
You are always going to get some pro-administration stuff no matter who is the president. Its the volume and intensity that distinguishes one from another. There have been many long time veteran reporters who have come out and said they have not seen anything like this in their careers.
rubberneck
10-19-09, 12:30
Every administration, Republican or Democrat, does it's absolute best to control the media and put their own spin on things.
Nothing new, and been going on as long as we've had print media and administrations.....
Very true but for the first time since the Kennedy era most major media outlets went willingly along for the ride. When President Bush and President Clinton, to a lesser degree, had tried similar tactics they had their feet held to the fire by those covering the White House. Other than Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, some of the British papers and a couple reporters at CNBC no one has thrown the BS flag on the One. Just about everything they say is covered uncritically.
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 12:39
never mind.
rubberneck
10-19-09, 12:53
You must have forgotten about Reagan or be too young to remember.
Yeah I am too young to remember Reagan.:rolleyes: If you are suggesting that the nature of the relationship between Reagan and the press was as amiable as it currently is between with the press and Obama than I respectfully submit that you weren't pay attention during the Reagan era, as he had more than his fair share of detractors in the media.
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 12:55
Yeah I am too young to remember Reagan.:rolleyes: If you are suggesting that the nature of the relationship between Reagan and the press was as amiable as it currently is between with the press and Obama than I respectfully submit that you weren't pay attention during the Reagan era, as he had more than his fair share of detractors in the media.
Agreed which is why I withdrew it.
The_War_Wagon
10-19-09, 13:08
I haven't watched the national news (aside from FOX) since KLIN-TON I was elected. :rolleyes: That's what the internet and gunboards are for. :D
Submariner
10-19-09, 13:14
So it's business as usual from an administration and Congress that promised change? Is that's what you're saying?
As much as I hate to quote him Submariner said it best; "there isn't a dimes difference between the two parties".
Truth prevails. Feel the love. Aw... :D
No, actually George Wallace said it and I quoted him.
And a dime is worth considerably less today than it was then...
He also said that the only four-letter words hippies did not know were w-o-r-k and s-o-a-p.
Before folks start dumping on Wallace, this from wiki:
Wallace became a born-again Christian in the late 1970s and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views. He said while he once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.[note 3] In 1979 when blacks began to vote in large numbers in Alabama, Wallace himself said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over and they ought to be over."[28] His term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to government positions.[29]
I haven't watched the national news (aside from FOX) since KLIN-TON I was elected. :rolleyes: That's what the internet and gunboards are for. :D
They don't seem to be controlling fox very well...they are just in it for the $$$ anyway.:D:rolleyes:
rickrock305
10-19-09, 15:33
So what you two are saying is not only is the Obama administration is falling right in line with what Bush and his republican administration did and that they really aren't about transparency or change after all?
first, don't lump me in with the other guy. his comment was ignorant and short sighted.
second, yes thats exactly what i'm saying. it started long before bush, obama, or clinton though.
You guys are probably really disappointed to find out that this administration isn't all that different from the last one huh? Bummer.
not really. its not even surprising to me. i'm sure Obama had the best of intentions with his campaign speeches and promises, but unfortunately thats just not the way washington works.
rickrock305
10-19-09, 15:35
I'm so tired of the "Bush did it too" canard.
that was not what i was saying at all. in fact if you look at my first post in this thread, i stated that this has been going on for a long time and is nothing new. all the way back to the old fireside chats.
i was responding to someone else's post about Bush not controlling the media. thats a completely false statement. quite the opposite is true, in fact he took media manipulation to a whole new level.
rickrock305
10-19-09, 15:37
Vno one has thrown the BS flag on the One. Just about everything they say is covered uncritically.
you can't be serious. everything the dude has done (or not done) has been criticized to the max. hell, he even won a Nobel Peace Prize and even that was criticized!
come on man, open your eyes.
rickrock305
10-19-09, 15:43
As much as I hate to quote him Submariner said it best; "there isn't a dimes difference between the two parties".
thats absolutely true. and our interests are not their concern at all.
i'm sure Obama had the best of intentions with his campaign speeches and promises, but unfortunately thats just not the way washington works.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: very transparent :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 15:56
[Q]uite the opposite is true, in fact he took media manipulation to a whole new level.
That's a bit of a stretch.
I don't think anyone would say that Bush enjoyed "fawning" media coverage. I have a lot of criticism for Bush but if the Bush Administration engaged in media manipulation, I think we can judge it by its abysmal failure more than its cynicism.
Bill Clinton makes both Bush and Obama look like pikers. The difference is that in the case of Obama the media has willingly suspended disbelief, something even Clinton in his profound cynicism, never thought could ever happen...yet here we are.
And the band played on...
rubberneck
10-19-09, 16:06
you can't be serious. everything the dude has done (or not done) has been criticized to the max. hell, he even won a Nobel Peace Prize and even that was criticized!
come on man, open your eyes.
What planet are you living on? Have you watched MSNBC, CNN lately or the nightly news on any of the big three networks? Have you read the Time, Newsweek, NY Times, Washington Post or LA Times at any point during the past 10 months? This President, to this point in his administration, has not received the type of media scrutiny that any President (from both parties) has in my life time, and it isn't even close. Don't worry about the speck in my eye, worry about the timber sticking out of yours.
rickrock305
10-19-09, 16:26
That's a bit of a stretch.
I don't think anyone would say that Bush enjoyed "fawning" media coverage. I have a lot of criticism for Bush but if the Bush Administration engaged in media manipulation, I think we can judge it by its abysmal failure more than its cynicism.
Bill Clinton makes both Bush and Obama look like pikers. The difference is that in the case of Obama the media has willingly suspended disbelief, something even Clinton in his profound cynicism, never thought could ever happen...yet here we are.
And the band played on...
Did you read the information I posted? The bush administration spent over a billion dollars on covert propoganda. the GAO said laws were even broken.
It's all there, read it for yourself. Without question Bush took media manipulation to a whole new level.
rickrock: Quit using multiple posts 1 min apart. Just do it all in one.
Gutshot John
10-19-09, 16:42
Did you read the information I posted? The bush administration spent over a billion dollars on covert propoganda. the GAO said laws were even broken.
It's all there, read it for yourself. Without question Bush took media manipulation to a whole new level.
I read enough to know that what you posted was overbaked.
The GAO referred to one incident that "may" have been illegal but not necessarily criminal. It was a statutory ban. The incident involved $240,000, not "billions."
Was it creepy, yes, but hardly a "whole new level." No one is giving Bush a pass but he's no longer President.
Again the main creepiness is not that Presidents try and manipulate the media, but that this time the media is complicit in its own manipulation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/
The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.
Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.
But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview last Sunday.
White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."
"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."
Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, "I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits."
But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn's comments.
So far, none of the four other major networks has given any indication that they wish to disinvite Fox News from the White House pool -- the rotation through which the networks share the costs and duties of White House coverage and the most significant interaction among the news channels.
The White House stopped providing guests to "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace fact-checked controversial assertions made by Tammy Duckworth, assistant secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in August.
Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do."
"She criticized 'Fox News Sunday' last week for fact-checking -- fact-checking -- an administration official," Wallace said Sunday. "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."
"Let's fact-check Anita Dunn, because last Sunday she said that Fox ignores Republican scandals, and she specifically mentioned the scandal involving Nevada senator John Ensign," Wallace added. "A number of Fox News shows have run stories about Senator Ensign. Anita Dunn's facts were just plain wrong."
Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente said: "Surprisingly, the White House continues to declare war on a news organization instead of focusing on the critical issues that Americans are concerned about like jobs, health care and two wars. The door remains open and we welcome a discussion about the facts behind the issues."
Observers on both sides of the political aisle questioned the White House's decision to continue waging war on a news organization, saying the move carried significant political risks.
Democratic strategist Donna Brazile said on CNN: "I don't always agree with the White House. And on this one here I would disagree."
David Gergen, who has worked for Democratic and Republican presidents, said: "I totally agree with Donna Brazile." Gergen added that White House officials have "gotten themselves into a fight they don't necessarily want to be in. I don't think it's in their best interest."
"The faster they can get this behind them, the more they can treat Fox like one other organization, the easier they can get back to governing, and then put some people out on Fox," Gergen said on CNN. "I mean, for goodness sakes, you know, you engage in the debate.
"What Americans want is a robust competition of ideas, and they ought to be willing to go out there and mix it up with some strong conservatives on Fox, just as there are strong conservatives on CNN like Bill Bennett."
Bennett expressed outrage that Dunn told an audience of high school students this year that Mao Zedong, the founder of communist China, was one of "my favorite political philosophers."
"Having the spokesman do this, attack Fox, who says that Mao Zedong is one of the most influential figures in her life, was not...a small thing; it's a big thing," Bennett said on CNN. "When she stands up, in a speech to high school kids, says she's deeply influenced by Mao Zedong, that -- I mean, that is crazy."
Fox News contributor Karl Rove, who was the top political strategist to former President George W. Bush, said: "This is an administration that's getting very arrogant and slippery in its dealings with people. And if you dare to oppose them, they're going to come hard at you and they're going to cut your legs off."
"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list. And it's unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States to so do," Rove added. "That is over- the-top language. We heard that before from Richard Nixon."
Media columnist David Carr of The New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."
"While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence," Carr wrote over the weekend. "So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year."
He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."
Media columnist David Carr of The New York Times warned that the White House war on Fox "may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling."
He added: "The administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight."
yeah, but that's not the way washington works.:rolleyes:
knife to a gunfight...love it!!
I just have to say it again...
CHANGE
rickrock305
10-19-09, 17:31
I read enough to know that what you posted was overbaked.
right. you willfully admit to forming an opinion without even reading the information present.
The GAO referred to one incident that "may" have been illegal but not necessarily criminal. It was a statutory ban. The incident involved $240,000, not "billions."
That was the Armstrong Williams incident. Using our tax dollars to promote policy on conservative airwaves. Nothing more than propoganda.
US Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush’s education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party. This was the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.
the Government Accountability Office confirmed their previous accusation, that the administration had indeed disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.
you must not have made it this far...
a new Government Accountability Office report finding that the Bush Administration spent more than $2.6 billion in public relations and media contracts in a two and a half year span.
The Administration spent $2.6 billion on contracts with advertising agencies ($2.4 billion), public relations firms ($297 million), and media organizations and individual members of the media ($25 million).
yet...
GAO's accounting of the Bush Administration's public relations and advertising contracts is limited. GAO surveyed only seven of the 15 cabinet-level departments, relied on self-reported information from the agencies, and did not include subcontracts, task orders on existing contracts, or public relations work done by government employees.
Was it creepy, yes, but hardly a "whole new level." No one is giving Bush a pass but he's no longer President.
“The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first term on public relations contracts, nearly double what the last Clinton administration spent"
double constitutes a whole new level in my book.
from 2003 to mid-2005, the administration racked up some $1.4 billion in contracts with advertising agencies to broadcast positive messages about its policies and initiatives. Another $200 million went to public-relations companies, and $15 million were spent building connections with media outlets. Individual members of the press received a total of $100,000 in promotional contracts.
this is unprecedented.
Again the main creepiness is not that Presidents try and manipulate the media, but that this time the media is complicit in its own manipulation.
just this time? they've always been complicit in towing the line for whoever or whatever they choose to support at the time. and its been proven that the people doing the stories have very little to do with what slant their network takes.
You guys are talking past each other and no one's opinion will be changed with this thread.
Agree to disagree and move on.
Just goes to show how dense this administration really is. "Lets worry about Fox News instead of the domestic and international problems these days." Obama and his cronies sound like a bunch of 5 year olds whining that someone is calling them names. :rolleyes:
Just goes to show how dense this administration really is. "Lets worry about Fox News instead of the domestic and international problems these days." Obama and his cronies sound like a bunch of 5 year olds whining that someone is calling them names. :rolleyes:
In all seriousness I look at all the problems we're facing today; high umemployement, overspending, out of control banks, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and I wonder why on earth they're spending their time going after a new channel?
What purpose does it serve? Where's the transparency? It was all a crock of poop.
In all seriousness I look at all the problems we're facing today; high umemployement, overspending, out of control banks, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc and I wonder why on earth they're spending their time going after a new channel?
What purpose does it serve? Where's the transparency? It was all a crock of poop.
Probably because they can't live up to the hype (which they created), and Fox News is the only news outlet calling them out on it.
You guys are talking past each other and no one's opinion will be changed with this thread.
Agree to disagree and move on.
I hear what you are saying...I guess the thing that bugs me most is when something critical comes up, is that I have to be spoon fed something similar of a previous admin. wth??
Did you hear the potus talk about the mop & having to clean up the old mess...and we're not allowed to complain about how he's cleaning?? Good grief!! I never heard Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush always complain about the previous admin's issues. The guy keeps digging his own hole and it's sooo clear what his agenda is.
I'll bow out...
Did you hear the potus talk about the mop & having to clean up the old mess...and we're not allowed to complain about how he's cleaning?? Good grief!! I never heard Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush always complain about the previous admin's issues. The guy keeps digging his own hole and it's sooo clear what his agenda is.
Two years from now, if Obama is still blaming the Bush admin for all of HIS problems, it won't surprise me one bit.
Two years from now, if Obama is still blaming the Bush admin for all of HIS problems, it won't surprise me one bit.
I predict this will become the political norm. When a Republican is elected to replace the Kenyan or his successor, he'll likely blame much of his problems on the previous administration for months/years.
I've said it before, most Americans (people in general) are ****ing stupid. The larger the electorate gets, the dumber it becomes.
obama is a child as well has his cronies.. I'm not sure the attack on foxnews is going to benefit this admin or not. It's hard to say, as redman says, most Americans are fing stupid. I seriously don't think the people in this country are going to collectively wake up til it's too late. Pending a major revolution I'm guessing the policies and socialization of our republic set within the next year shoved down our throats whether we like it or not will change this country into a state that's deviated 180 degrees from what our forefathers established. Much probably irreversible.
obama is a child as well has his cronies.. I'm not sure the attack on foxnews is going to benefit this admin or not. It's hard to say, as redman says, most Americans are fing stupid. I seriously don't think the people in this country are going to collectively wake up til it's too late. Pending a major revolution I'm guessing the policies and socialization of our republic set within the next year shoved down our throats whether we like it or not will change this country into a state that's deviated 180 degrees from what our forefathers established. Much probably irreversible.
good post
rickrock305
10-20-09, 17:54
good ole Fox news. ;)
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/714.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/pewtv.GIF
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 18:08
good ole Fox news.
How is this germane to the discussion?
Even still, so what?
rickrock305
10-20-09, 18:10
How is this germane to the discussion?
well the OP posted a link from Fox news, about Fox news.
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 18:13
well the OP posted a link from Fox news, about Fox news.
Once again how is that germane to the discussion?
Why should I care what "thinkprogress.org" thinks they know?
rickrock305
10-20-09, 18:21
Once again how is that germane to the discussion?
Why should I care what "thinkprogress.org" thinks they know?
so did you not read the link, or do you have reading comprehension problems?
seriously, this is starting to become a trend with you.
the very first sentence of the thinkprogress link... A new study by the Pew Research Study
which i'm sure will be countered with some response about how liberal Pew is, which may or may not be the truth. so i'll include this link to, which echoes the findings.
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
The researchers stated, “The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions.” Fox News viewers were “three times more likely than the next nearest network to hold all three misperceptions.”
sorry, i think that link is dead.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brus
rubberneck
10-20-09, 18:27
so did you not read the link, or do you have reading comprehension problems?
seriously, this is starting to become a trend with you.
the very first sentence of the thinkprogress link... A new study by the Pew Research Study
which i'm sure will be countered with some response about how liberal Pew is, which may or may not be the truth. so i'll include this link to, which echoes the findings.
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
To support your position you cite a post on a liberal website about a study from a liberal think tank. And yes Pew is one of the most solidly liberal think tanks. Maybe I can cite a Heritage foundation report that was posted on National Review dealing with the bias at MSNBC and the treatment that this president has received from them. You'd probably scream like a stuck pig.
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 18:28
so did you not read the link, or do you have reading comprehension problems?
seriously, this is starting to become a trend with you.
the very first sentence of the thinkprogress link... A new study by the Pew Research Study
which i'm sure will be countered with some response about how liberal Pew is, which may or may not be the truth. so i'll include this link to, which echoes the findings.
http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
One more time, since you're obviously having trouble reading. You do know what "relevance" and "germane" mean right?
How is this germane to the discussion? It's a straightforward question that you keep dancing around.
Ok you got a study that shows that most Americans are stupid, no matter what news source they use. Duh, tell me something I don't know.
So what?
rickrock305
10-20-09, 18:31
To support your position you cite a post on a liberal website about a study from a liberal think tank. And yes Pew is one of the most solidly liberal think tanks.
so because they are liberal, that automatically makes them wrong?
Maybe I can cite a Heritage foundation report that was posted on National Review dealing with the bias at MSNBC and the treatment that this president has received from them. You'd probably scream like a stuck pig.
no, i wouldn't. it wouldn't be any surprise at all. i think its pretty obvious MSNBC is to the left what Fox is to the right and I won't defend them in the least on that.
rickrock305
10-20-09, 18:34
One more time, since you're obviously having trouble reading. You do know what "relevance" and "germane" mean right?
How is this germane to the discussion? It's a straightforward question that you keep dancing around.
no, i answered it plainly the first time you asked.
the OP posted a link from Fox news, about Fox news. so posting information about Fox news and its viewers is highly relevant.
Ok you got a study that shows that most Americans are stupid, no matter what news source they use. Duh, tell me something I don't know.
So what?
no, i have multiple studies that show Fox viewers are practically the lowest on the list when it comes to knowledge of politics and international issues and that they are the highest on the list of misconceptions.
i believe that is highly relevant to the discussion about Fox news, especially when we're getting this information from Fox news.
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 18:39
no, i answered it plainly the first time you asked.
No you didn't, but I suppose if you engage in meaningless sophistry it becomes hard to know when you did and did not answer a question.
the OP posted a link from Fox news, about Fox news. so posting information about Fox news and its viewers is highly relevant.
Even if such insipid logic worked, you didn't read far enough, any variance between Fox viewers and CNN viewers or bloggers is statistically meaningless. Moreover O'Reilly viewers were amongst the most educated. So it kind of blows holes in whatever conclusion you're trying to draw. Cherry picking meaningless stats adds nothing to the discussion even if you had shown how it's relevant.
no, i have multiple studies that show Fox viewers are practically the lowest on the list when it comes to knowledge of politics and international issues and that they are the highest on the list of misconceptions.
You need to re-read your poll. A stats class wouldn't hurt either.
i believe that is highly relevant to the discussion about Fox news, especially when we're getting this information from Fox news.
I'm sure you believe it, you've yet to explain how.
rubberneck
10-20-09, 18:53
so because they are liberal, that automatically makes them wrong?
No it makes their claims about others bias questionable especially when that other party is on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
rickrock305
10-20-09, 20:14
No you didn't, but I suppose if you engage in meaningless sophistry it becomes hard to know when you did and did not answer a question.
i answered it. sorry you didn't like my answer, but i answered the first time you asked.
Even if such insipid logic worked, you didn't read far enough, any variance between Fox viewers and CNN viewers or bloggers is statistically meaningless.
please explain. because as i'm looking at the actual study, Fox viewers were leading the pack by a good 10% in multiple categories, including frequency of misperception, average rate per misperception, and number of misperceptions per respondent.
Ten percentage points is hardly meaningless.
Moreover O'Reilly viewers were amongst the most educated.
very true. but a moot point being that they didn't compare Olbermann viewers.
So it kind of blows holes in whatever conclusion you're trying to draw.
I'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm pointing to a study done that draws these conclusions. And I fail to see how you've blown holes in anything. You've yet to provide a shred of evidence to prove the study is wrong.
Cherry picking meaningless stats adds nothing to the discussion even if you had shown how it's relevant.
its relevant because it seems most folks here get their news from Fox, at least thats the majority of links i see.
You need to re-read your poll. A stats class wouldn't hurt either.
i read it. i understand it. do you? do you understand that there have been multiple studies that show the same thing? thats called empirical evidence, something you have yet to provide to counter anything i've said.
A stats class wouldn't hurt either.
projecting?
this coming from the guy who says that 10 percentage points are statistically meaningless? :rolleyes:
I'm sure you believe it, you've yet to explain how.
In a thread started with a link from Fox news, about Fox news, you don't see the relevance in posting information that shows Fox tends to mislead its viewers?
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 20:20
You're not even paying attention, you're more concerned with being clever than actually making an effort to understand or think critically.
What's the methodology of the poll? What's the sample size? What's the MOE? You haven't even read the original poll and yet you're relying on thinkprogress.org to do your thinking for you. In short you're exactly the type of individual that you decry. 10 percentage points? Check again, you clearly can't read. Moreover without sample size and MOE 10 percentage points can indeed be statistically meaningless, but since you don't even understand how stats work you failed to include MOE and other things that might have clarified things you reveal your ignorance on both statistics and how to draw relevant conclusions from that information.
You're drawing dubious conclusions without presenting any relevant interpretation nor even understanding what the data actually shows. In so doing your argument is full of fatal flaws.
You presented evidence without offering any germane interpretation that might have actually said something in favor of being far too clever by half.
Rickrock: I'm probably the one that posts the most news links here. I could be wrong, but I think this is my first fox news link ever.
rickrock305
10-20-09, 20:39
What's the methodology of the poll? What's the sample size? What's the MOE? You haven't even read the original poll and yet you're relying on thinkprogress.org to do your thinking for you. In short you're exactly the type of individual that you decry. 10 percentage points? Check again, you clearly can't read. Moreover without sample size and MOE 10 percentage points can indeed be statistically meaningless, but since you don't even understand how stats work you failed to include MOE and other things that might have clarified things you reveal your ignorance on both statistics and how to draw relevant conclusions from that information.
Nice assumption. I actually have read the entire study, here it is...
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf
Sample size? MOE? Methodology? All there for you to read about.
I guess I gave you too much credit thinking you would click on the link on that page that would take you to the actual study. Far be it from me to assume you would think for yourself in lieu of rushing to attack me personall. So here I am to hold your hand through it. Doesn't it chap your ass to be so completely wrong? :D
Sorry, the only one who revealed their ignorance is you with your backwards assumptions.
You're drawing dubious conclusions without presenting any relevant interpretation nor even understanding what the data actually shows. In so doing your argument is full of fatal flaws.
You presented evidence without offering any germane interpretation that might have actually said something in favor of being far too clever by half.
I see you're far more interested in attacking me than you are actually looking at the data i presented. :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
10-20-09, 20:46
You betcha. :rolleyes:
I found this documentary on Fox interesting http://www.outfoxed.org/. It's also available on Netflix if you'd like to watch it and have the service.
dang...do you people not realize that BOTH political parties are corrupt as hell and each is bent on trashing the rights of our forefathers??? it's the ****ing politicians that are turning this country into a shit mess...they are all dirty, left or right, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal...ALL of them are scumbags!!! these people only want to make laws that WE have to live by, they don't give a sack of crap as to who you are, what you believe in, what demographic you are, what you eat, etc...their ONLY concern is getting that "vote", if that is what you want to call it, getting them into office...
I think we're about done here.
I said this earlier, and I had hoped it might have made an impact.
You guys are talking past each other and no one's opinion will be changed with this thread.
Agree to disagree and move on.
There are plenty of sites that people can argue about politics. This is NOT one of those sites, this is a forum dedicated to armed professionals and defense minded civilians, not a political forum.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.