Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Revisited: Sneak peek into dismantling the 1st Amendment under Obama

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Seeing this video of Anita Dunn and discussing it with the good folks over on our Facebook page reminded me of a post from October 2008:

From “Sneak peek into dismantling of 1st Amendment under Obama“:

It started with tight controls on the message. Anything that did not fit into the neat little package that was brand Obama was discredited, denied, distanced, destroyed.

When Obama or Biden said something that is clearly a negative for the brand, we were told that what we thought we heard, even though video evidence existed, wasn’t what we heard at all.

One by one, any association that could harm the brand was denied; when proof was given, it was spun; when spinning didn’t work, the messenger was destroyed, the association was abandoned, and the history was rewritten… what we saw wasn’t really what we saw.

As with any brand, building brand loyalty costs money or advertising. Brand Obama raised nearly a billion dollars to sell the brand directly to the public without challenge. When Obama did appear in “uncontrolled” environments, the vast majority of the appearances were with interviewers that could hardly contain themselves from humping his leg.

But controlling the message is a full time job, and sometimes the brand comes under some real scrutiny.

The lengths to which the campaign was willing to go to control the message started to become very clear when two local news programs were punished for asking questions deemed inappropriate. No more interviews for the remainder of the campaign and probably beyond.

Now, three major newspapers that have endorsed John McCain, the Washington Times, NY Post and Dallas Morning News, have been kicked off the Obama plane.

This is just the tip of the iceberg folks, trust me. The propaganda machine is evolving and is protecting the brand through any means possible, including a blatant attempt to influence a free press through a system of punishment and rewards.

On the plus side, good to see a member of team Obama confirm what we believed at the time.  On the down side… disappointing (and scary) to see that what we believed was true.

Add this to the attacks on Fox News and it is hard to believe the First Amendment is not under attack by team Obama.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

One year ago on Thinkin’Bout Stuff: The New “Evil Empire”

Monday, October 19th, 2009

Just before the 2008 election, Thinkin’Bout Stuff too a hypothetical peek into our future:  The New “Evil Empire”

With recent events, including the White House declaring war on Fox News, some of this is starting to feel a bit too real.

From AP:

On Sunday, Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff, said, “It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective.”

<snip>

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” senior Obama adviser David Axelrod said Fox News shouldn’t be treated as a news organization. “And the bigger thing is that other news organizations, like yours, ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way,” he said.

<snip>

“You know, I’m not concerned. Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money,” Axelrod said. “The only argument Anita was making is that they’re not really a news station. … It’s not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It’s really not news. It’s pushing a point of view.”

Fox News is pretty much the only news organization actually questioning President Obama’s policies, agenda and performance.  Clearly the administration is trying to marginalize, if not silence, their only critics.

The other news outlets should be embarrassed that team Obama doesn’t see them as any kind of threat, and we should all be concerned about this blatant attack on the First Amendment.

A few excerpts from the October 2008 article:

We have depended on the press in the United States to wield this power honorably, to follow standard principles of journalistic ethics that include truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability.

They have let us down.

The foundation of our hypothetical is that of free press openly supporting the candidacy of one party over another without any veil of objectivity or impartiality; doing so in a manner that leads many to believe that opinion is fact and interpretations are truths. With this powerful base of support, essentially unchecked, the road to a one-party government is well paved.

<snip>

But who will lead us down that path?

We already know that the leader will come from the party that is not in power, how else could we ensure the change that is so needed.

What if that leader, chosen through exceptional political skills and charisma, has ideas, ideals, and goals forged into a core set of values through years of exposure to far left principles that would normally be shunned by the vast majority of Americans, and yet are welcomed through him.

<snip>

And with this core set of values, a talent for weaving words into a cloak of hope that most eyes can not penetrate, and the absence of voices in opposition to his claims of a hopeless country waiting for a new direction, waiting to be lead from despair, he will be accepted as the one who will lead us down that path.

In our hypothetical, the press is unchecked, the House and Senate are controlled by one party with enough votes to suppress dissenters, the Supreme Court of our land will be stacked with far left justices because none can stand in the way of their confirmation, lower courts will be ideologically stacked for years to come, and the president has a view of the world that defines diplomacy in a way that acknowledges the wrongs committed against our enemies who could be our friends if only we reached out a helping hand…

In this world, an alliance with oil rich countries such as Iran, Venezuela and now potentially Cuba could be viewed as more valuable to our country than friendships with countries such as Israel.

<snip>

And who is going to stop this?

The press? Sorry… no more interviews for you if you ask tough questions or paint the administration in a bad light. in fact, we will have a “Fairness Doctrine” that will ensure the press is being “fair”.

Congress? Sorry, veto proof and filibuster proof for at least two years.

The Supreme Court? Sorry, too busy rewriting all the outdated parts of the Constitution.

The people? Sorry… new voting registration laws and immigrant fast tracking to citizenship has assured the Democrats of government control for generations to come.

Yeah, none of this could really happen. The United States will last forever. It would be impossible for one party to take over the entire government and lead us down a path of sweeping change that would alter the path of our great country forever, not as long as we have a free press warning us and protecting us from …

Ah, right.. the free press… oh well.

Folks… be careful what you believe. Do not believe what you hear, for they ARE only words. Words can be used to make you believe that which is not true. Truth lies in actions.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

CNN fact-checks SNL? Seriously?

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

CNN being a bit defensive about their guy here?

Hmmm… did CNN report on fact checking about the way SNL portrayed Sarah Palin?  George Bush? Any other political figure, Democrat or Republican?

Of course not.  It’s comedy.

Certainly SNL can influence the perception folks have about political figures (like Gerald Ford being portrayed as a klutz by Chevy Chase leading some folks to think Ford was a bumbling idiot), but is this a new trend, news organizations analyzing comedy for accuracy?

Probably not in general, only as it applies to Barack Obama because, as Chris Matthews pointed out, it is liberal media’s job to make sure Obama is successful:

The fact-checker CNN had as a guest, Bill Adair of PolitiFact.com, disagrees that Afghanistan has  gotten worse, saying SNL “glossed over a fair amount of progress by this administration” and that Obama has sent two brigades of reinforcements.

On their website they point to the presidential order signed on Feb. 17 to send the two brigades.  But have they been sent?  Is that enough? Have things gotten better or worse?

I thought the troops promised in February hadn’t been deployed yet, but I could be mistaken.  I could not find data either way… just the promise of troops.

Are two brigades enough?  According to the generals, no.

Have things gotten better or worse?  Again, according to the generals (and the news from the front), worse.

So… was SNL wrong when they said Afghanistan has gotten worse…  no.

By the way… is anyone fact checking these fact checkers?

On the PolitiFact website they checked all of the “facts” SNL listed “just for fun” and found mixed results.  You can check their results for  yourself, just for fun, here.

What you will find is that SNL is actually fairly accurate in their assessment of accomplishments to date.  PolitiFact is basing their assessment of SNLs assessment on the fact that the facts presented by SNL are not taking into account the fact that the assessment can not be a fair assessment of the facts since the fact is that the lack of accomplishments are due tot he fact that either a deadline has not been reached or was never established… so the plan was to not accomplish anything.

So… since there was no plan to accomplish anything… mission accomplished.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Wondering why polls have such different results…

Friday, September 25th, 2009

Was visiting RealClearPolitics today, checking out the latest polls, and wondering why the new CBS News/NY Times poll results are so far off all the other polls in the same timeframe:

Poll End Date Sample Apprv Disapprv Spread
RCP Average 9/23 52.5 40.7 +11.8
CBS/Times 9/23 1042 A 56 33 +23
Gallup 9/23 1547 A 51 42 +9
Rasmussen 9/23 1500 LV 51 48 +3

So, took a peek at the distribution of the CBS News/NY Times poll compared to the Rasmussen reports poll and the data was pretty much what you would expect to see (could not find similar breakout on the Gallup site):

Poll Dems Reps Inds
CBS News/NY Times 37% 22% 41%
Rasmussen Reports 37.7% 32.7% 29.6%

A significant slant in the poll in favor of Democrats.

CBS News/NY Times is only including 22% Republicans in their sample!

Who is closer to right? Rasmussen at 32.7% or CBS News/NY Times at 22%?   I don’t have any definitive data to say who is right here, but 22% sure seems low.  Sure as heck explains why Obama’s approval ratings look so much better when viewed through the eyes of the folks conducting the CBS News/NY Times poll.

If nothing else, this should be a reminder to not just take polls at face value.  What does the sample look like?  How were the questions phrased? And perhaps most importantly…. does the sponsor of the poll have an agenda?

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

ACORN suing Fox? This should be fun!

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

Really?

ACORN is suing FoxNews?

I can not wait to watch this unfold as ACORN somehow tries to paint Fox News and filmmaker James O’Keefe as the bad guys here.

FoxNews – ACORN chief organizer Bertha Lewis issued a written statement Saturday saying that while she cannot defend the actions of the workers who were terminated, O’Keefe may have committed a “felony” with his operation. She also threatened legal action against FOX News, which aired the videos but did not produce them.

“It is clear that the videos are doctored, edited, and in no way the result of the fabricated story being portrayed by conservative activist ‘filmmaker’ O’Keefe and his partner in crime. And, in fact, a crime it was — our lawyers believe a felony — and we will be taking legal action against Fox and their co-conspirators,” she said.

Really?

ACORN can not defend the actions of their workers.  ACORN even fired the workers.  Why?  If the story is fabricated then what is wrong with the workers’ actions?  Seems like ACORN might be in a bit of hot water for firing workers who did absolutely nothing wrong if this story is fabricated.

I can not wait to hear what law was broken.  And I am very interested to see how ACORN will benefit from this.

If they haven’t gotten enough bad press already, now all the news organizations who have avoided this story just might be tempted to report on it with Fox News being sued.

This is going to be a hoot!

UPDATE 9/13: From The Washington Examiner Beltway Confidential:

“Baltimore, MD – September 11, 2009 – We have received inquiries from citizens and the media asking whether the Baltimore City State’s Attorneys Office would initiate a criminal investigation for acts allegedly committed at ACORN offices located in Baltimore. The only information received in reference to this alleged criminal behavior was a YouTube video. Upon review by this office, the video appears to be incomplete. In addition, the audio portion could possibly have been obtained in violation of Maryland Law, Annotated Code of Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article §10-402, which requires two party consent.

“If it is determined that the audio portion now being heard on YouTube was illegally obtained, it is also illegal under Maryland Law to willfully use or willfully disclose the content of said audio. The penalty for the unlawful interception, disclosure or use of it is a felony punishable up to five years.”

<snip>

An eagle-eyed Hot Air reader notes that Jessamy did nothing in recent years when two Baltimore media outlets used the same hidden camera technique to after stories that ultimately won professional plaudits from journalism colleagues. And in the same post, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey points to the substantial evidence of Jessamy’s intensely partisan approach to the duties of her office.

Guess we shouldn’t be surprised.  Wonder how many folks in Maryland have posted videos on YouTube where the audio contains voices of folks unaware they were being recorded, are they all violating Maryland law?

Never occurred to me this could actually be illegal considering it is a fairly common investigative journalism technique.

By the way,  seems like their may be more videos on the way…

Much more from Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Progressive assessment of prez approval: “Much Worse than Media Pretends”

Monday, August 31st, 2009

Of course that assessment was in 2001 and the president being portrayed as unpopular was George Bush.  Now that Obama’s numbers are worse than Bush’s numbers in the same time frame, guess it’s only fair to say that Obama is an unpopular president by the standard set by his base.

Steve Cobble, Kucinich Campaign Political Advisor and PDA Board member, wrote the following in August 2001:

Bush’s Polls Are Much Worse than the Media Pretends

The Conventional Wisdom for the past couple of weeks is that Resident-Select Bush has gotten a bump in the polls, and the media sent him off on his “working vacation” with lots of puff pieces about his recent victories in the House.

Ah yes, this brings back fond memories of the good folks on the left supporting our president and wishing him much success.  Don’t suppose they begrudge the current president his vacation after a long 6 months on the job taking over auto companies and banks and trying his darnedest to take over health care in this country…

(Question: if what Bush is doing now is a working vacation, does that make the napping/exercising/goofing off he does in D.C. “work vacating”?

As always with the Shrub, however, there were some interesting, and largely overlooked items in those polls.

” The shrub”… that’s hilarious.. the shrub… get it…

For instance, the same 7/30 ABC/Washington Post poll that gave Bush a 59% job approval rating, also showed him with a 38% disapproval rating–a 15% gain in disapproval since his 55-23% ratings in late February.

LOL!!!!  So Bush’s approval goes UP 4% but since his disapproval also goes up 15%, his presidency was tanking.

Hmmm… OK, let’s accept that premise.  Obama has gone from 62.3% in Feb to 51.2% approval in the same time frame; a DROP of 11%.  At the same time, his disapproval has climbed from 28.5% to 42.4%, nearly 14%, and higher than Bush’s disapproval rating.

So, it is reasonable to conclude that Obama’s approval/disapproval rating is lower than Bush’s at the same point in time.  Since Bush was unpopular, Obama must be really unpopular…  can’t tell based upon the press coverage.  More from Cobble:

USA Today/CNN/Gallup ran a poll earlier in July that gave Bush a 57-35% job approval rating. What was not reported, however, were the answers they got to a couple of questions they asked, which readers of www.democrats.com will find interesting:

* 48% of the respondents agreed that Bush had won “fair and square”; but 50% (fully half) did not! 33% of those polled felt that Bush had won “on a technicality”, and 17% (1 out of every 6 Americans) were willing to tell pollsters that they believe that Bush “stole the election”!

* 73% told the pollsters that they accept Bush as a legitimate president; 15% said that they do not accept him as legitimate, but might in the future; meanwhile, 11% responded that they will never accept Bush as legitimate!

That’s the atmosphere the Bush was operating in from day one, as opposed to Obama’s ascension to the throne and media crowning.

Sure makes it even more amazing that Bush was more popular than Obama…  <snicker>

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share
 

Just more evidence that journalism is dead in the network “news” rooms

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Remember back in 2004 when someone at CBS, whether it was Dan Rather, Mary Mapes or some other “journalist”, was so anxious to torpedo the re-election of George Bush that they reported a story about Bush’s military career using false documents as evidence?

Take a look at what Bernie Goldberg found yesterday:

Until now, the controversy over the Rather/Mapes story has centered almost entirely on one issue: the legitimacy of the documents – a very important issue, indeed. But it turns out that there was another very important issue, one that goes to the very heart of what the story was about – and one that has gone virtually unnoticed. This is it: Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.

Who says? The outside panel CBS brought into to get to the bottom of the so-called “Rathergate” mess says. I recently re-examined the panel’s report after a source, Deep Throat style, told me to “Go to page 130.” When I did, here’s the startling piece of information I found:

Mapes had information prior to the airing of the September 8 [2004] Segment that President Bush, while in the TexANG [Texas Air National Guard] did volunteer for service in Vietnam but was turned down in favor of more experienced pilots. For example, a flight instructor who served in the TexANG with Lieutenant Bush advised Mapes in 1999 that Lieutenant Bush “did want to go to Vietnam but others went first.” Similarly, several others advised Mapes in 1999, and again in 2004 before September 8, that Lieutenant Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam but did not have enough flight hours to qualify.

And yet, how surprising is this really?  Is it so hard to believe that someone who would knowingly present an erroneous story based upon false documents to purposefully try to swing the election would also bury facts that would contradict this false story?

The only thing that still amazes me is the number of Americans who are so easily fooled by talking heads who know little more than what is written on their teleprompter… and that includes our reader in chief.

Add to Del.cio.us RSS Feed Add to Technorati Favorites Stumble It!

Share