Waxman Wants A Media Bailout
Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009From Accuracy In Media’s Danny Glover:
The California Democrat, who chairs the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, didn’t say it quite so bluntly, but his point was clear. “Government’s going to have to be involved, in one way or the other,” to save journalism from an ongoing “market failure” that will only worsen without intervention, Waxman said.
He spoke at the second day of an FTC workshop on how journalism can survive in the Internet era.
Waxman bemoaned the demise of newspapers across the country, including in Denver and Seattle, and warned that the troubling media trends will continue. “This recent depression in the media sector is not cyclical,” Waxman said. “It is structural.”
“Congress can’t impose a solution” to that structural problem, he said. But the government should partner with the media industry to ensure a sound future for journalism. Waxman praised the record of “independent” reporting in U.S. history and said it has implications for democracy.
“There needs to be a consensus within the media industry and the larger community it serves” before the government acts, Waxman said. “We have to figure out together how to preserve that kind of reporting.”
How are all these bailouts not takeovers turning the country into a socialist state where even the newspapers are owned by the government?
Obama’s Desire To Control Fox News, The Media & Everything–UPDATED
Wednesday, October 21st, 2009Donald Sensing has a must-read piece about the Barack Obama strategy. I’ll quote one paragraph, but you must go read the whole thing:
And to think that George W. Bush was mocked for saying, “If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists.” The White House is laying a foundation of future media relations that does two things. First, they are identifying, and most importantly trying to get all the media to identify, good and bad media coverage, both terms defined by the White House. Second, they are nudging each reporter and news organization to move further toward the “good” side by trying to drive a wedge between them and Fox News.
What flashes to my mind is Scientology. Stay with me here. One of the very first precepts in their ideology is to take control–control everything. Another precept is to match tone. That is, if someone is combative, match the person’s tone.
And then what comes to mind is this: all cults have the same traits. Controlling the message, building a personality, stagecraft, etc. The Obama administration came to power by force of jingo. Now, tough decisions must be made, personnel choices committed to. The people watch and judge these decisions. The people don’t like what they see.
Since President Obama doesn’t want to bend his agenda or bring it to the center, his only choice is to control the medium, the filter through which the agenda is seen. Fox News is the only fly in the ointment. He figures the other members of the press are too stupid to question him.
The Obama administration is filled with Marxists, utopians, and workers with fluff resumés. It’s better if no one looks too closely. The president’s agenda is meeting with opposition from the American people. The only way to change that is to try to harm the messenger. Really, the only way to do that is to harm all messengers.
There is only one voice President Obama wants the American people to hear and it’s his own.
UPDATE:
The Politico has more:
All of the techniques are harnessed to a larger purpose: to marginalize not only the individual person or organization but also some of the most important policy and publicity allies of the national Republican Party.
Dunn said that in August, as the president’s aides planned for the fall, they made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.”
“It was a time for us to look at the extraordinary success we’ve had in terms of legislation but also to look at where we needed to be more aggressive in defining what the choices are, and in protecting and pushing forward our agenda,” she said.
The campaign underscores how deeply political the Obama White House is in its daily operations — with a strong focus on redrawing the electoral map and discrediting the personalities and ideas that have powered the conservative movement over the past 20 years.
A former national security adviser said that Robert Gibbs now sits in briefings with the military. So even the war in Afghanistan and Iraq is now politicized.
The idea is to control every thought and message out there. And were it not for a few rare exceptions, they would.
More at The Underground Conservative.
Obama’s Big War With Fox News Makes Him Look Small..And Reveals His Relationship With The Press
Tuesday, October 20th, 2009Ruth Marcus calls out President Obama (uh oh, no scoops for her):
Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC. “Opinion journalism masquerading as news,” White House communications director Anita Dunn declared of Fox. Certainly Fox tends to report its news with a conservative slant — but has anyone at the White House clicked over to MSNBC recently? Or is the only problem opinion journalism that doesn’t match its opinion?
The interesting thing here is that President Obama has received nothing short of fawning adoration and tenderly delivered, incurious questions from the rest of the press corps save a few notable examples. He probably gets less love from basketball team members. The press, unfamiliar with physical endeavors and the kinship of teams, takes loyalty to a whole new level. Obeisance thy name is modern journalism.
And then there’s Fox News.
Fox’s collective sin is not loving enough. Bill O’Reilly makes me throw up in mouth a little every time he opines about Obama’s bravery for coming on his show. Puhleeze. And all the round-tables have at least two Obama apologists for their “fair and balanced” coverage. And Shepherd Smith? When he’s not gazing into a mirror, I imagine him gazing at glossy, signed 8×10s of The One.
And yet, it’s just not enough.
Barack Obama makes himself look like a silly man fighting Fox. People who actually watch all the networks know that a roomful of Depression-affected hookers couldn’t give the President more attention than the current press corps. So his quibbling rings hollow.
And why do the rest of the press care about this cat fight? Well, it reveals their own bias, for one. By obsessing over Fox News, President Obama, by default acknowledges the rest of the press serves him and serves him well. While that’s the truth, the Press would prefer that it not be so overtly acknowledged. It’s embarrassing. Still, he does love us….sigh.
The press should be more embarrassed. So should the President of the United States. But they’re not. They’re just a little piqued that other people are seeing the love affair so obviously. They thought they were keeping a secret! Turns out, the joke’s on both of them. Everyone sees the “special relationship” between the press and Obama. Everyone.
People seek a bit of fairness. That’s why Fox News is doing so well.
H/T Memeorandum
More On Rush & Race
Saturday, October 17th, 2009Rush defended himself, as expected, handily in his Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday. Here’s a bit:
The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?
The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.
When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media’s coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL’s “high standard.” High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.
The double-standard, the lies, and the collusion of the media should cause all fair-minded to pause.
A fellow blogger here this weekend said to me, “Why are people still watching the news? They lie.” Well, it is difficult for people to believe that all the networks shape the narrative, push a point of view and outright deceive their viewers. Even when people poll noting the bias, it’s another thing to fully believe it.
Rush is just one very visible American who got slammed by the new power brokers. It’s not much of a stretch that any average American could be next.
Shocker: Conservatives Not Racist
Friday, October 16th, 2009Gather a bunch of white good-old Georgia boys in a room and ask them questions. Wait how long it takes til they bring up race and blame black people.
It won’t happen. Even if James Carville really, really, really hopes it would happen:
Instead of focusing on these intense ideological divisions, the press and elites continue to look for a racial element that drives these voters’ beliefs – but they need to get over it. Conducted on the heels of Joe Wilson’s incendiary comments at the president’s joint session address, we gave these groups of older, white Republican base voters in Georgia full opportunity to bring race into their discussion – but it did not ever become a central element, and indeed, was almost beside the point.
So, will the media let it go? Doubtful.
President Obam Changed Speech To Schoolkids And The Press Helped Him
Wednesday, September 16th, 2009Ace is talking about the buried lede from the Washington Post:
When critics lashed out at President Obama for scheduling a speech to public school students this month, accusing him of wanting to indoctrinate children to his politics, his advisers quickly scrubbed his planned comments for potentially problematic wording. They then reached out to progressive Web sites such as the Huffington Post, liberal bloggers and Democratic pundits to make their case to a friendly audience.
So, what is more troublesome? The scrubbing? No, that’s good. The speech was rife with b.s. as it was…it could have been worse. No, it’s the cozy relationship the White House has with the press–like the Washington Post.
Please. Using Huffington Post and bloggers and pundits as a shield. Really, now. Why doesn’t the Washington Post just come out with it and explain why they were so helpful to the President during the Education talk debate?
Slasher Flicks, Horrifying 9/12 Numbers, & Actual Terrorism
Tuesday, September 15th, 2009This podcast we hit everything from slasher films affect on the culture to the historic 9/12 march (interviewing the woman behind the 2 million rumor) to rules of engagement with Afghanistan, Iran’s nuclear time table and a trade war with China.
My guests include Tabitha Hale, John Hawkins, Lorie Byrd and Steve Schippert of Threatswatch. It’s a fun podcast–full of information you won’t get anywhere else.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Press: Give Up The Pretense, Wait You Kinda Have…
Monday, September 14th, 2009I’m waiting for the public announcement by CNN saying that they want to clarify their editorial perspective and that they’re biased to the left. Wouldn’t that be freeing for everyone? Stop the pretending to be objective and just clearly state a bias. It’s not like they’re even attempting to report unfavorable Obama news.
Imagine biased press conferences. On the one side, the conservative press people. On the other side, the liberal. The President could go back and forth between the sides and people could see the difference between the questions. They could decide who to listen to. They could decide who is fair.
They would also see 80% of the press line up on one side which is why the press has numbers like what Don Surber reports: Only 19% of people believe the press is fair.
So, they’re already considered biased. Why not make the covert overt and be done with it?
Surprise! New York Time’s Kidnapped Journalist A Moron Who Cost A Soldier And Friend Their Lives–UPDATED
Thursday, September 10th, 2009The paper of record will probably not report the flaming ignorance of their own reporter, Stephen Farrell, but the British press is less inclined to cover for him. Remember the NYT reporter who got abducted and subsequently rescued? Remember how good the NYT was with keeping that secret, you know a secret that mattered when lives were at stake?
A soldier lost his life to save this, what’s the Van Jones word?, that’s right, a**hole. Here’s what happened:
Afghan police and intelligence officers repeatedly warned journalists including Mr Farrell that it was too dangerous to go to the site. Kunduz is a notorious Taliban northern stronghold and was one of the last holdouts of the regime when it was toppled in 2001.
While Mr Farrell, who was kidnapped in iraq five years ago, and Mr Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing an elderly man warned them to leave as the Taliban were on their way.
But they stayed and shortly afterwards gunshots rang out and they were taken into captivity. Mr Munadi was working as a freelance during a break from his university studies in Germany.
The dramatic rescue operation came in the early hours of Wednesday when a troop of Special Boat Service commandos supported by a company from the Special Forces Support Group left an American base in US helicopters. But the young British soldier died in the battle to the distress of his commanders.One senior Army source said: “When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life. In the future special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”
Another military source said: “This reporter went to this area against the advice of the Afghan police. So thanks very much Stephen Farrell, your irresponsible act has led to the death of one of our boys.”
Was his life saving? No. He knew the risks in his job. No doubt, his friends and family members are relieved to have him back in one piece. But there are other people, a British soldier, his interpreter, a woman and a child now dead because he ignored the advice of those who knew better.
And the New York Times? The paper couldn’t be bother with Van Jones or John Edwards, or, most of all, their own idiot reporter.
UPDATED:
The reporter a Brit, tells his story. He concludes:
It was over. Sultan was dead. He had died trying to help me, right up to the very last seconds of his life.
There were some celebrations among the mainly British soldiers on the aircraft home, which soon fell silent. It later emerged that one of the rescue party was also dead, mortally wounded during the raid. His blood-soaked helmet was in front of me throughout the flight. I thanked everyone who was still alive to thank. It wasn’t, and never will be, enough.
The soldier’s name. What is his name? At this point, the reporter’s “ordeal” means little. The man who died for him does.
If NYT … WSJ, CNN, Fox, assorted freelancers, the lot of them … stopped taking risks, we would have very little information about what happens in bad places. I don’t believe that most of them do it lightly, though I’ve known a few who do it irresponsibly and have been lucky they didn’t end up in this situation. A lot of them now have considerable time incountry, experience with these issues, and receive professional training and advice. A lot of them have also died, been injured, or spent time in captivity. It often comes down to judgment calls about what level of risk to take. Here’s an easy call to make in the aftermath: It looks like Farrell made a bad one. Harder to say about the military, which also had the option of standing off and exercised its own judgment in the moment.
I guess what makes me so angry is the way the newspapers so easily trash the very same who would save their sorry hides. The military is treated with contempt by the Western media. As a citizen (recognizing that all parties involved were British), I don’t feel inclined using vast resources and potentially putting solider in harms way for a risk-taking fool who works for an organization working in opposition to their own country’s interests.
The newspapers have no trouble putting soldiers in harms way with irresponsible reporting–remember the flushed Koran? How many false stories have put American and allied soldiers at risk? And now, a soldier’s family must live with the idea that their son, brother, father died for an agent who often indirectly colluded with the enemy.
I’m upset at the gross injustice in this. Over at Jawa, the reporter is described as a “self-indulgent asshole”. That’s being kind.
White House Pentagon Profiling Reporters
Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.”
Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Well, it doesn’t look like the Pentagon was telling journalists what to write, they just did ops research on the journalists to chart and graph what they write and predict future favorable/unfavorable behavior.
I’ve had mixed feelings about embedding reporters. However, with Al Qaeda and the Taliban as enemies, getting reporting would be nigh to impossible because they like killing reporters [Daniel Pearl]. So, it seemed like a possible necessity.
Anyway, the White House has “profiled reporters” too, I’d guess. No one more masterfully manipulates them individually and collectively than Barack Obama. So, he’s either got an internal computer deciding who to call on when, or he’s got an Axelrod with a bulging file filled with research on individual reporters–who to use for which story, when to allow a certain person to ask a question, etc. Nothing is left to chance with these people.
Only Helen Thomas has had the sense thus far to see how she’s been managed and manipulated, but she has a very long history to draw upon.
As to the Pentagon. It would seem to me, that doing background checks on reporters would seem wise. And then, one thing leads to another. As long as reporters weren’t told, at gunpoint, what to write, it seems like no big deal. Besides, reporters are independent-minded and above these sorts of head games, right? These are the people, who with straight faces, claim to be objective. So any sort of influence by the military would be negligible, right?
I mean, they’re not influenced by President Obama.
