Thread: Omitting for Obama
#1 Omitting for Obama01-25-2010, 11:10 PM
How the Old Media Deliberately Censored New Media Scoops in 2009
The Obama administration was embarrassed by a series of revelations about its most radical actions, assumptions, and associations in 2009. While Fox News and the conservatives on talk radio and the Internet broke and developed these stories, Americans following only the "mainstream" media would never have heard these reports. Instead of acting as government watchdogs holding the people in power accountable, the nation’s broadcast news networks deliberately suppressed and de facto censored embarrassing scoops – at least until President Obama or Congress took action and made them impossible to ignore.
In many cases, this resistance to real news extended even to newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times, which are supposed to be more substantive and thorough than highly-paid TV news talking heads or unpaid bloggers. A Media Research Center study of four such stories highlighted by the New Media in 2009 that were damaging to the Obama "brand" found that the news was not only slow in arriving, it was fast in disappearing:
# Van Jones. On September 3, blogger Jim Hoft reported that Obama "green jobs" guru Van Jones had signed a petition in 2004 demanding a probe into charges the Bush administration "deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur." Fox News Channel jumped on the story. But it didn’t draw a single story on ABC or NBC until after Jones resigned his office at the very start of September 6. CBS filed one, and ABC five. NBC never devoted a single full story to Jones (just mentioned him as a distraction in eight pieces). They noticed a few outrageous Jones remarks like suggesting a black child would never shoot up a school, but never noticed Jones calling himself a communist. Even the newspapers were stubborn in their avoidance: the Washington Post failed to publish a story until the morning before Jones resigned, and the New York Times failed to publish a story until after he resigned.
# ACORN. On September 10, the website Big Government exposed with shocking hidden-camera footage how the leftist Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) in Baltimore advised a man and woman posing as a pimp and a prostitute how to shelter their illegal income from taxes, even as they claimed they were bringing in under-age girls from Latin America to be their sex workers. While the video aired heavily on Fox News, the broadcast network evening news shows stayed silent for five days until Congress moved to deny the group’s millions in federal funding. (ABC broke the network blackout on Saturday morning, September 12 to briefly note the Census Bureau cut off ties to the group.) While the journalists kept releasing videos from ACORN offices – in Washington D.C., Brooklyn, and San Diego – in the end, ABC and CBS aired only one full story, NBC three. As the rest of the country was laughing at Jay Leno ACORN skits, the networks didn’t find it a laughing proposition when President Obama claimed to George Stephanopoulos: "Frankly, it’s not something I've followed closely," adding he had not been aware that ACORN received much federal money. None noted the comment or Obama’s long relationship with the group in Chicago, working as an ACORN trainer and even as ACORN’s attorney in court.
# Obama’s Aide and Mao. After White House communications director Anita Dunn slammed Fox News Channel as either "the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party" in October, Glenn Beck’s FNC show unearthed video of her speaking at a 2009 graduation where she lightly declared that mass-murdering Chinese communist dictator Mao Zedong was "one of my favorite philosophers." This speech clip was completely ignored by ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the New York Times.
# Climategate. In late November, the New York Times reported that hacked e-mails from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia in England exposed how the scientific experts cited so often by the media on global warming called their opponents "idiots," proposed censoring them from scientific journals, and twisted scientific data to support their policy agenda. This would be a bombshell if the hacked e-mails came from an oil company manipulating data, calling their opponents idiots, and proposing they be censored. The scandal threatened to ruin President Obama’s campaign to push for drastic energy-reduction goals at a summit in Copenhagen. The networks ignored it for two entire weeks, and then when they decided to cover it, ABC, CBS, and NBC each only gave these revelations two full stories, which denigrated the scandal’s political or scientific importance. Compared to those six stories, the Big Three devoted 57 full stories and interviews during the same two weeks to the less substantive White House "gate crasher" scandal after the first Obama state dinner.
The report concludes that the Old Media are in danger of losing even more audience members as long as they refuse to acknowledge news until after Democrats in Congress or the White House decide it’s news. As much as the Old Media has suggested the New Media are guilty of a lack of credentials or professionalism, their performance in 2009 suggests that providing political protection for Obama means more than professionalism to the media establishment.
**THIS IS JUST THE SUMMARY - THE REAL MEAT OF THE ARTICLE IS AT THE LINK**
Last edited by PoliCon; 01-25-2010 at 11:21 PM.Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
01-25-2010, 11:18 PM
While I find it repulsive, I can't say I'm surprised by this. He's been one of the most dishonest presidents in memory...Obama-if you're being run out of town, get out in front and pretend that it's a parade!!!
01-26-2010, 12:55 AM
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
Considering the lack of "vetting" of Obama during the Presidential Campaign, including the shielding of Obama from his past mentors, cronies and acquaintences that could have proved to be a potential embarrassment during the campaign, why does ANY of this surprise you?
At least they have changed their tune recently.... used to be that any negative comments about His Royal Ineptness was termed "racist"... and THAT was emphatically THAT, in our overly PC indoctrinated society.
Now opponents to Obama's "agenda" are termed anti-Government, purveyors of hate speech and guilty of treasonous activities. I had feared that Obama and his tame Congress would make inroads in the stifling of Obama opponents through legislative efforts, "Fairness Doctrine", for one. Fortunately, recent election results seem to indicate that the general population is watching His Majesty's antics and are finding them wanting.
It may come to pass that most Americans will come to realize that it is better to be free than to number amongst the myriads of Governmentally Dependent.
Lesson to be learned here....... Politics might be a dirty business, but if one simply ignores it... it will NOT go away. A watchful citizenry is neccessary to a free citizenry. The Press MUST be the eyes and ears, they must not allow their politics to interfere with their investigative efforts. Nor must they be de facto propaganda arms of the Federal Government.
Hold their feet to the fire, lest they walk all over us.
LSThe first sign of impending serfdom is when you trade your self determination, your individual responsibility and your vote to the Government in return for subsistance. -LS-
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|