White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Originally posted by wanderingwaldo

Originally posted by Hack28
wouldnt someone who is sick of these threads not comment on them, but im glad ive got the opinion of some random guy. That really makes a difference, thanks for adding absolutly nothing!!

Well it is a thread on nothing so I think I made a valid contribution to the mental void.

Well ill give ya its an interesting theory seeing as you and I are definatly not discussing what the thread was about.

And how exactly is this conspiracy stuff? Any political figure with a PR team will try to control what the media writes about them - that's the job of the PR guys! It's what they're paid for.
Maybe this isn't how politics should ideally work but it's the way it DOES work, on both sides.

And I think that everyone agrees that this time the Obama team ran a much tighter and better controlled campaign with regards to the media than the Mcain/Palin team. That campaign was a complete disaster

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Sorry to burst this my friend but she is not lying, and for the media been controlled this started to happen many years ago when the independent media was bought and monopolized.

This one of the ways that the elite in nation can manipulate the masses and bring only what they deem important, still we got the internet to do the research but many fail to even take the time to find the truth.





[edit on 19-10-2009 by marg6043]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
It seems to me that people want bad government and will defend government’s ability to be dishonest and disingenuous, manipulative and abusive at all costs.

I want a government that represents the people. I want news agencies that are independent. This isn't about that.

This thread is about being flabberghasted that the White House controls it's press releases. I said it before NO DUH. Seriously how would you even make a press release without "controlling" what was on it? Flopping around on a keyboard like an epileptic?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I DID the work and I HEARD exactly what she said and I KNOW exactly what she means - the same as what the OP posted! Now, BH, if this had been Perrino or McClellan would you be saying the same thing??? Would you!? Careful your unabashed partisanship is showing and frankly, it's becoming a little embarassing, don't you think?

reply to post by wanderingwaldo


Well based on your own arguments it would seem you do have a government that represents the majority of the people.

Since the majority of the people like to make excuses for taking no personal responsibility for bad government. They have a bad government so therefore they must be happy.

What is actually being said is that "Two way interaction is being denied" that only selected information is being released and opportunities for the press to interact and ask poignant, intelligent and probing questions are being avoided.

How you see that as a good thing is frankly beyond me. As I have said though people who want bad government and defend bad government certainly have a bad government.

As I have pointed out based on many people's comments people seem to want a bad government.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
One indeed might be inclined to wonder when people defend the inexcusable and abusive as being tolerable because of the long standing pervasive nature of the abuse.

It is almost as if people really are saying, “Well we have been lied to and abused before, why change it now”.

Huh? What? Who is talking about defending the "inexcusable and abusive"?

This thread is about a woman explaining the media tactics of the Obama campaign - it's not about the administrations effort as a whole.

I think a lot of people here agree that there is too much spin & manipulation in politics & the mainstream media, but guess what? We here at ATS are guilty of that too. This thread is a perfect example.

reply to post by MrVertigo


As I said, and you display, people advocate for bad and manipulative government and make excuses for it and defend it all cost.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

Originally posted by MrVertigo
reply to post by Erasurehead

 

Fox News a "rogue media outlet"?

Please for your own sake and that of your country, go and Google "Rupert Murdoch" or for that matter just try and remember more than a year and a half back.

Fox News are NOT rogue and they are certainly NOT on the side of the people, although they are very good at being populist and making it seem like they are in there with the "grass roots" (Astroturf)

If people continue believing that it's "the liberal media" versus "the conservative media" or whatever you want to call it, then America is truly screwed...

Yes, rogue. Meaning they are not getting in line with the Obama administration. I know all about Fox News and all the rest. None of them are on the side of the people. They are all corporate shills.

Anita Dunn is NOT saying they "control" the media as your headline tries to insinuate. She unequivocally stated they sought to keep the media from snipping their message down to a sound bite or twisting their statement around to change it's meaning, as we all know the media will do. Case in point, your headline!!! There is another post above that also points out how Bush did this very well, as did other presidents. So don't try to make out like this is an Obama tactic. It is a political tactic that is used all the time.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


Actually what she said is press access is restricted so questions can't be asked about what is being said and why.

That's an entirely different thing than you are contending.

It is a deliberate attempt to keep the press from bringing up questions that might undermine the validity or veracity of the message being proferred.

The fact that it has been taking place far too long hardly seems like an excuse for condoning the practice.

"Sams been beating his wife for twenty years, his wife doesn't mind, why should the neighbors?"

Same logic, if you can call it that.

In all seriousness this site is about exposing the secret things that are not obvious. If you wanted to expose the PR industry on the whole talk about Edward Bernays, his book "Propoganda", how Goebbels used his techniques, ect.

"Exposing" the current administration for using a PR machine is not news. Its crap. It's howling at the moon for lack of cheese.

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


Yes, with this I completely agree - this is an oft used politcal tactic. That being said, the whole premise is sickening. The Press Secretary shall be henceforth known as the Minister of Propaganda.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by MrVertigo

 

As I said, and you display, people advocate for bad and manipulative government and make excuses for it and defend it all cost.

Thanks for demonstrating my point.

A) She is talking about the campaign not the government

B) I'm not advocating anything other than using a bit of common sense and discernment.

C) I'm not making excuses for or defending anything, I'm just stating that this is standard operating procedure in politics and has been for decades, arguably centuries. I'm not saying it's the right way or the best way, I'm just a bit baffled by people going: "OMG! Obama is aware of the media!"

D) Your welcome!

Originally posted by wanderingwaldo
In all seriousness this site is about exposing the secret things that are not obvious. If you wanted to expose the PR industry on the whole talk about Edward Bernays, his book "Propoganda", how Goebbels used his techniques, ect.

"Exposing" the current administration for using a PR machine is not news. Its crap. It's howling at the moon for lack of cheese.

Well Waldo we are all breathlessly waiting for you to start exposing some of these secret things! Got any?

The site is about a broad range of subjects and perspectives, check out the Board I think the variety of forums speaks for itself.

I personally find it shocking the boastful way this government employee is disclosing this to a foreign media source.

I am very interested in this topic!

Duplicate thread.
second line.

reply to post by MrVertigo


Well if you are advocating for common sense and as you yourself admitt this is probably not the most honest or sensible approach then...???

It would seem you are advocating for not using common sense in urging people to accept this dishonest and disengenuous practice.

Common sense would dictate when someone smugly confides how they defeat the press from asking questions that ought to be frowned upon.

She is talking about the campaign but obviously she has the same position now as an official in the Administration and once again common sense would dictate that the same disengenuous tactic is being used.

reply to post by Erasurehead


Ok, but how can a corporate shill be rogue? That is a really big contradiction of terms to me.

Originally posted by maybereal11
Duplicate thread.
second line.

Nor was it "Breaking News."

Dunn was speaking at a Jan. 12, 2009

Our government has been controlling the media for decades now. Barak Obama doing it is nothing new. Get used to it.