QOTE

Filed in National by on September 1, 2009

Now that Obama is in office, is he and his admin going to use the media any differently than the prior administration?

About the Author ()

hiding in the open

Comments (23)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:
    September 1, 2009 at 7:46 pm

    I don’t see them outing any CIA agents via the media yet.

    I also don’t see them using the media to completely demonize the people who don’t agree with them (cf, Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, Joe Wilson).

    But beyond that, I’m wondering what your point is. If there is anything that we’ve learned since the Clinton Admin is that the media is pretty damned available to alot of manipulation. ALOT of manipulation. It seems to me that the manipulation stops when the target of said manipulation stops being suckered by it.

  2. Donviti says:
    September 1, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    it’s not a point. I’m asking because when I seem to be naive or off base about something I like to ask the question to find out.

    And you answered the question in your last paragraph.

  3. Delaware Republican says:
    September 1, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    If you can justify dragging in CIA agents and do the poltical shuffle on them when they were investigated before, were within the law and broke no laws, good luck.

    You ask about the previous administration and that question is the problem, Bush is not President and Obama has the “good war” in Afghanistan going real bad, huge unemployment and debt which is out of control.

    The more you talk about Bush the lower Obama sinks in the polls. Obama looks like he is in way over his head.

    Mike Protack

  4. Donviti says:
    September 1, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    your opinion means jack shit to me tea bag boy. Go spew your retarded logic over at a website that cares.

  5. nemski says:
    September 1, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    I said you were being naive because that’s freaking politics — politicians handle and use the media, just as much as the media handles and uses the politicians.

    What’s the Obama Administration suppose to do when Cheney comes out of the woodwork every three months to say that Obama is making America unsafe? Duck and cover.

    Geez . . .

  6. Unstable Isotope says:
    September 1, 2009 at 9:56 pm

    I think Obama wishes the media would be a deferential to him as they were to Bush. Did we ever see Al Gore or Bill Clinton on TV to talk about Bush’s policies? We never saw the anti-war protesters yet we see teabaggers on TV all the time.

  7. Geezer says:
    September 1, 2009 at 10:00 pm

    The answer to your question is “No.” And you can extend that to every presidential administration, ever, within the limits of its ability to do that in its day.

    The problem isn’t with politicians doing such things, it’s with the media allowing them to. The “exclusive” interview that frosted your shorts so badly — it’s ABC’s fault for not putting the guy’s feet to the fire, or for airing it if it was as content-free as you say (though I guess it was newsworthy if it taught you something).

  8. nemski says:
    September 1, 2009 at 10:18 pm

    Hey DV, why don’t you write a post that paraphrases Captain Renault from Casablana —- “I’m shocked, shocked to see their is politics going on inside Washington DC!”

  9. Donviti says:
    September 1, 2009 at 10:28 pm

    I get it it’s politics to respond to a liar with half lies and it’s even better when you use ABC to do it and they don’t question what you are saying and allow you to say it b/c if they challenge what you say, then the person giving the exclusive will go to the competition and shut out ABC.

    Is it Politics or using the media to distort the truth in order to look strong and fend off criticism.

  10. anonone says:
    September 1, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    It really depends if the White House Press corps gets enough cocktail weenies.

  11. nemski says:
    September 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Anyone know when the last time the Washington Press corps did any real reporting?

    I can think of three: IF Stone, Woodward/Bernstein and Seymour Hersh — but only Hersh was a bureau guy.

  12. Geezer says:
    September 2, 2009 at 12:02 am

    The normal response from most people is to just ignore it. Which is what many of us did when Bush did it, too. I get angry about the acts, not the lies. And yes, Obama supporters hoped for much, much more from this guy. Which still doesn’t make him or his administration as bad — yet — as the Bush Bunch.

  13. Dana says:
    September 2, 2009 at 5:05 am

    The only difference is that the media are a willing tool for the Obama Administration. Watch for punishments to be meted out when an outlet that is assumed to be on their side publishes something unfavorable to the President.

  14. Mark H says:
    September 2, 2009 at 5:44 am

    I believe we can now throw DV in the “disillusioned” category of Obama voters. Between the fact that we’re still in IRAQ, increasing our Afghanistan presence, and the utter mess that health care has become, I’m just a bit disillusioned too. Geezer’s right, we expected much more from Obama. Hopefully we’ll still see it. I’ll give him a bit of a pass on certain things as he was handed a pretty crappy hand from the previous administration. It is early in his term, so perhaps things can change, but I’m probably not going to hold my breath 🙂

  15. Geezer says:
    September 2, 2009 at 8:58 am

    Dana: You mean the way Fox got punished for criticizing Bush? Oh, wait…

  16. nemski says:
    September 2, 2009 at 9:09 am

    Geezer, all the freaking media outlets (tv and newspapers) were Bush’s lapdogs prior yo Iraq and enven a couple of years afterwards. Fox was the best lapdog, but they all rolled over on command.

  17. callerRick says:
    September 2, 2009 at 9:31 am

    Is Matthews still feeling that ‘tingling in his leg?’ He should see a doctor….or, a psychiatrist.

    (Where are the war protesters now?)

  18. Geezer says:
    September 2, 2009 at 9:33 am

    By the end, though, almost all the networks were calling BS. All except one, the one that called BS on Obama from the get-go. I expect the rest of them to start calling BS on Obama as soon as his favorability ratings dip below 50%.

    They say what they think will sell. From the first, the major networks got behind Obama because they saw dollar signs in his popularity, especially among minorities.

  19. anon says:
    September 2, 2009 at 9:37 am

    I expect the rest of them to start calling BS on Obama as soon as his favorability ratings dip below 50%.

    Bush waa at 28% and they NEVER called BS.

    Now he is out of office and they still aren’t calling BS on Bush.

  20. nemski says:
    September 2, 2009 at 9:42 am

    cR, what about the columnist that wrote about how he got sexually excited during Plalin’s speech.

  21. h. says:
    September 2, 2009 at 10:43 am

    That’s acceptable because it’s not gay.

  22. Geezer says:
    September 2, 2009 at 10:56 am

    “Now he is out of office and they still aren’t calling BS on Bush.”

    Really? I’m pretty sure the Scooter Libby trial ended that. The media weren’t too friendly to Bush after that point.

  23. callerRick says:
    September 2, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    cR, what about the columnist that wrote about how he got sexually excited during Plalin’s speech.

    Did his leg tingle? Or, maybe his pinky twitched.

«
»