• Do you have credits to spend? Why not pick up some VOD rentals? Find out how!

For those of you still deluded enough to believe that the media is impartial...

hedonis

I can set my own custom title!
I present to you this story, which just shows how much "vigorous debate" that this president, and our media, actually want these days. That would be none. I find this as sickening as I do the recently, quietly floated bill that would repeal or alter the 22nd amendment. You know the one- it limits presidents to two terms.

As a serious question (and I'm not trying to be insulting or snide), is this what voters on the left were hoping for? This is not liberalism. These are not liberal policies. This is shaping up to be statism, and it's frightening to me. To think that a guy like Barney Frank has been appointed as a "Compensation Czar", and is calling for GOVERNMENT control of salaries for executives of private companies, is frightening.

Apparently, everyone forgot that the old, original Czars? Not nice people. It's not a badge of honor to be called a Czar, and really all this appointing of Czars is because this administration cannot find people to appoint to regular cabinet posts- they don't survive the vetting process.

I do not understand how anyone on either side of the political spectrum is ok with the terrifying amount of power and control this administration is seizing domestically, while looking quite inexperienced and inept to the rest of the world- too much idealistic rhetoric in the face of danger.

Case in point? Obama calls for a peaceful solution between Israel and the Palestinians. He expects this magically to happen, and Israel says "Sure, how about a Palestinian state? We're cool with that." But just when you think peace is coming- Palestinians hate the idea, and are outraged.

Whether you're left or right of center, you should be free to make choices and decisions, and state your views and opinions. Complete governmental control over those choices is unfolding. Get mad. Wake up. But for now, read this story below, and tell me you still think the media is neutral:



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

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

Highlights on the agenda:

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

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

MORE

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

Dear Mr. Westin:

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

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

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

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

Developing...
 

Hot Mega

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
First of all, with respect to the 22nd Amendment, Reagan and Clinton also expressed thoughts that it should be changed. EVEN IF it is changed....that just means a POTUS is not limited to how many terms he can run for the office...just like before 1947. It doesn't automatically make him a king. Also, where is Obama's name attached to the bill??

Eisenhower, Reagan and Clinton have all believed it should be repealed. Harry Reid and Barney Frank have introduced the same bills in the past (that is to mean before Obama) and the bill died before they made it out of their respective committees. Obama has nothing to do with this so put away your wire triangle.

The POTUS has the right to call a town hall meeting and offer to have it covered by whatever media outlet he invites and not have it hijacked by those who are uninvited. The GOP leadership has the same right...and no, the POTUS doesn't have the right to barn-storm theirs.

Let's say Palin wants to give an interview with Fox and Hannity in a non election cycle. Do her political opponents in Alaska have the right to barn-storm her interview and claim Fox is not giving them equal time???

Just more nonsense.
 

bustybbwlover

I'm so great I'm jelous of myself.
i find it funny that people accuse some of the largest companies in the world (media conglomerates) of being left-wing fanatical. explain to me the benefit of a massive company supporting the higher taxes, higher level of regulation, and the non-free market economy i always hear that the left advocates. i think the truth of the matter is that right now the democrats clearly are top-dog politically and thus that's what's going to get the most attention and thus make the most money.
 

Facial_King

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Hedonis, where did you get this story? I'd really like to see the source. As it is, I get the feeling it's from some sort of GOP memo. Oh wait, I see - you just copied and pasted it from..... The Drudge Report! So, in a thread titled "For those of you still deluded enough to believe that the media is impartial..." you are using the internet equivalent of a Republican stenography machine, Drudge Report, as your source? Gotta say, that shows chutzpah! wow. Great, impartial, reliable source there!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drudge...tories.2C_errors_and_questions_about_sourcing

"On October 23, 2008, Drudge published an unconfirmed exclusive story regarding Ashley Todd, the 20-year old employee[99][100] of the College Republican National Committee (CRNC) and John McCain volunteer who had allegedly been attacked by a black male for having a McCain sticker on her car. Drudge reported the story without a link but as 'developing', titling the headline "SHOCK: McCAIN VOLUNTEER ATTACKED AND MUTILATED IN PITTSBURGH - "B" carved into 20 yr old Woman's Face"[101]. The story set off a "storm of media attention",[99] being quickly picked up by many conservative bloggers and right-wing talk radio show hosts, all citing the Drudge Report as their source. It was also reported in newspapers and TV both in the US and around the world.[102] The story was confirmed to be a hoax perpetrated by Todd and, according to Talking Points Memo, spread to reporters by McCain's Pennsylvania Communications Director."

(!!)

As for Franks and the concept of a "compensation czar" - as far as I know he will only have any authority over the pay of companies that have taken (usually because they begged for it) federal bailout (or similar) money. That seems fair enough, given that context. His authority would hold only until the companies have come out of bankruptcy or some similar kind of threshold.

The "czar" thing has been around for a while though. The first czar in American govt. was Energy Czar John Love, appointed by Nixon in '73. Keep in mind that preznits of both parties, and Congress too (1982, creating the drug czar position), have endowed people to be czars. One of the most notable was Bush I's Drug Czar, Bill Bennett. But I agree with the sentiment that the very notion of czars in democratic governments is problematic, although their actual, specified role needn't always be as autocratic and anti-democratic as the term implies.

"I do not understand how anyone on either side of the political spectrum is ok with the terrifying amount of power and control this administration is seizing domestically, while looking quite inexperienced and inept to the rest of the world..."

Whoa, now whose bias is showing? Don't tell me you are just NOW seeing an administration seizing a terrifying amount of power.

But don't think I'm some knee-jerk Obama fan. Hardly. And I never was. I don't look at crap like this as though it's a sporting event, with My Team versus The Other Guy.
My opinion of him has been on a steady decline - but amazingly, not because he's a "secret Muslim" or a "Communist" or a "terrorist" (etc, etc) - haha.

Nope, it's when he pulls shit like this (see link below), continuing AWFUL Bush/Cheney policies that he sorely disappoints me. I didn't necessarily expect much from the guy (little more than "not as awful as McCain and The Huntress"), but I expected a bit better than this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_white_house_secrecy
 

Facial_King

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
(dammit, I meant to highlight in that little excerpt about how Drudge was the start of that bogus Ashley Todd "exclusive" - how they used the word "developing" (oh, such dramatic urgency!) for that, too. We'll see what happens with this ABC scoop!)
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Hedonis, where did you get this story? I'd really like to see the source.

My sentiments exactly. I would be very interested to explore any references (impartial mind you! :1orglaugh) that back this up.

Hedonis? U have?

:confused::
 

Shindekudasai

If I had a my Freeones account, I would have just gotten 25 points!
Apparently, everyone forgot that the old, original Czars? Not nice people. It's not a badge of honor to be called a Czar, and really all this appointing of Czars is because this administration cannot find people to appoint to regular cabinet posts- they don't survive the vetting process.
I'm sorry, but, am I missing something here? Because I know the word "czar" only as a former title for Russian nobility. Is there another meaning for this word in American English that I'm not aware of?


Honestly, I don't see a problem in any of this. Then again, I'm not an American.
But why shouldn't Obama be allowed to launch an ABC program to advertise his policy or bills he's about to propose? Would you rather have anything passed along without even knowing what is passed along as it was under Bush for example? If you don't like the program, launch a counter program somewhere else. I don't get you Americans. When you're not being informed, you cry about being in a fascist dictatorship, but when the government occupies a program and informs you, you cry about statism or socialist centralization... don't you get tired of the ranting, exaggerating, polarizing?


And what's wrong with abolishing this stupid limitation? Why shouldn't a president be allowed to be in office longer than two terms. One of the most important presidents in the history of the US, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (who brought America out of the Great Depression, gave the whole country a stable and reliable power line/power grid (or whatever it's called in English), steered it through World War II, introduced an american foreign intelligence agency (todays CIA), supported and advanced the development of nuclear power and weaponry and re-invented the office of the president of the US and shaped it to what it is today (administration, oval office etc.), etc., in short: the arguably most influencal crucial president next to Lincoln) was elected four times. And every time the result of the elections was clear and unambiguous (472 out of 531 electors, 523 out of 531 electors, 449 out of 531 electors and 432 out of 531 electors). Why shouldn't that be allowed, especially if the voters would want it that way like with Roosevelt? We have no limitation like that and look at us. We're one of the strongest democracies in the world. No fascism or socialism in sight, no monarch, no emperor....
Besides, most major developments that impact a nation (like cyclical economical patterns or the effects of major bills concerning social affairs like health insurance or a war and its effects for example) take more than one or even two terms to sink in. Maybe you should contemplate that. Because, quite frankly, you Americans are becoming experts at blaming your government for everything bad that happens, even though it often results from actions the previous government took (but that you already kicked out of the white house). I can't wait to hear the next generation of Americans in ten years blaming Jefferson Obama for the effects of something, that Hank W. Bush (son of George W. Bush) did in reaction to what Obama does now.
 

Facial_King

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.

TITS KING

I'm so great I'm jelous of myself.
I never believed media as impartial. Media all over the world is partial one way or another way.......:D:D
 

coolindigio

Why was my picture deleted?
Impartial? How about objective? The media are a corporate monopoly, knowing that, how could any enlightened individual entertain the notion of the media being impartial or objective?
 

24788

☼LEGIT☼
I do believe a company should stay away from being one sided on the government, but the employees should be allowed to state their own opinions. I don't believe in silencing a company for it though.

I love the first amendment and wouldn't want anyone to tell me what I can't say because they don't believe the same way.
 

sproing99

I'm so great I'm jelous of myself.
Even if a company presents a programme which is partial in one respect, they could maintain their impartiality by giving equal airtime to the oppoiste position. That's the way it's supposed to work on the BBC (whether it does is a different matter).

It never ceases to amaze me how everyone thinks the media is biased against them. I often listen to BBC phone-ins where they are accused of being left and right biased or pro-anti goverment in the same show.

In terms of print media, in England there is a right wing bias:

Right:
- Daily Telegraph/Sunday Telegraph
- Daily Mail/Mail on Sunday (also own most regional titles)
- Daily Express/Sunday Express
- Sun/News of the World (are mostly interested in tits though)

Centre:
- Independent/Independent on Sunday
- Daily Sport (no political leaning or reporting - they are only interested in tits)
- Times/Sunday Times (though as a Murdoch paper, perhaps right leaning)

Left:
- Guardian/Observer
- Mirror/Sunday Mirror
 

USNinc

Why are you reading this?
Off topic but has anyone seen the movies Alex Jones has made?
I watched The Obama Deception and another one...can't recall the name now.
Oh, and one about 9/11 and how the government did it.

They were interesting but I just didn't really believe them. He comes off as a guy who believes he is going to be killed for telling the secrets to how our government really works.

Anyways...sorry.
Back to your regularly scheduled thread.
 

Facial_King

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
My sentiments exactly. I would be very interested to explore any references (impartial mind you! :1orglaugh) that back this up.

Hedonis? U have?

:confused::

Hey, where'd Hedonis go??? :dunno:

Any substantiation yet that Obama & Co. are actually deciding what ABCNews is going to say or cover?

Here's more on this silliness (and some bonus points for this: "Drudge is making a big pee-pee dance about this"):

http://crooksandliars.com/node/28986
 

Facial_King

I'm too lazy to set a usertitle.
Hedonis hasn't returned?

Anyway, here's some fun video, showing how bogus the claim is that this is "unprecedented." Did Hedonis post any "for those of you deluded enough to believe that the media is impartial" threads back THEN? I'm guessing he didn't.

http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001852/
 
Top