Fox Network Refuses to Air Obama News Conference

[rdowns]

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090427/ap_on_en_tv/us_tv_obama;_ylt=AqnTrTvFzs8zE.11RDulwnms0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJkdjIyZHFhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNDI3L3VzX3R2X 29iYW1hBGNwb3MDOQRwb3MDMTgEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDZm94dHVybnNkb3du)


NEW YORK – The Fox network is sticking with its regular schedule over President Barack Obama this week.

The network is turning down the president's request to show his prime-time news conference on Wednesday. The news conference marks Obama's 100th day in office. Instead of the president, Fox viewers will see an episode of the Tim Roth drama "Lie to Me."

It's the first time a broadcast network has refused Obama's request. This will be the third prime-time news conference in Obama's presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC are airing it.

This is the Fox network, not Fox News.

[NT1440]

interesting. Ive always loved the fox network, especially when it makes fun of its moronic cousin news network.

I wonder if this is significant at all.

[steveza]

I guess they are within their rights to show whatever they like or that they think will bring in the most advertising revenue. I seem to remember that they tend to back the other side as it were so maybe they've been told . . .

[MacNut]

I have never understood why every network has to air it, I would rather 1 network is picked to run it and if people really want to watch they can find it. I don't see the point in having 15 networks showing the same coverage. I wonder how many people tune out when a press conference is on.

[mactastic]

Who cares? Let them air whatever they want in that time slot...

[MacNut]

We will see how FOX's ratings are the day after and then know if they made the right decision or not. It could be a smart move, the only network to show prime time programing for people that want something to watch.

[mactastic]

Im sure we can all imagine the reaction from the Limbaugh types if NBC had decided not to air a major Bush presser though...

[MacNut]

Im sure we can all imagine the reaction from the Limbaugh types if NBC had decided not to air a major Bush presser though...What is NBC going to show that is any better.:p A press conference is probably the best ratings they will get in a month.

The fact is there are a lot more places to see press conferences now than 20 years ago, we don't need all the networks showing them anymore.

[mactastic]

What is NBC going to show that is any better.:p A press conference is probably the best ratings they will get in a month.

The fact is there are a lot more places to see press conferences now than 20 years ago, we don't need all the networks showing them anymore.
Of course. But it would have been spun as "theliberalmedia being unpatriotic and hating Bush".

[Iscariot]

Watch Lie to Me and then on commercial breaks flip to the press conference and apply what you've learned :3

[iPhoneNYC]

Fox is shallow, Obama is not. Watch somewhere else.

[Dany M]

"Watch Lie to Me and then on commercial breaks flip to the press conference and apply what you've learned :3"


HA!:D

That was good!

[Eanair]

Of course. But it would have been spun as "theliberalelitemedia being unpatriotic and hating Bush".

Fixed it for ya. ;)

[Rodimus Prime]

I will say it is about damn time some network said enough is enough.

Obama has made a lot of new conferences in just a few short months. I can not think of any other president who went a crazy doing it. If you pull out 9/11 and the standard ones that every president makes. It almost seems like Obama has made more than any other president and if not he is quickly on his way to setting a new record.

People already are starting to get tried of hearing Obama on TV. All these news conferences on prime time only add to his image of being a talking head in an empty suit.

I having a feeling this will pay off well for fox and you can bet that the other companies will start following suite and turning Obama down for prime time request. He has made a lot and it boarding on too many. He has cried wolf to many times so to speak.

[aethelbert]

Fox is shallow, Obama is not. Watch somewhere else.
Like anyone that wanted to watch had a choice?

[Rodimus Prime]

Im sure we can all imagine the reaction from the Limbaugh types if NBC had decided not to air a major Bush presser though...

I might like to point out that this seems very much like Fox and not politicaly movtivated.

From the artical

Executives at Fox, owned by News Corp., would not comment on the decision Monday. It's not without precedent for the network; Fox didn't carry a prime-time speech by President George W. Bush in November 2001 despite a request from the White House.

"I can't imagine it was politically motivated," said Shelly Palmer, industry analyst and host of "MediaBytes," a daily show about technology and the media. "I'm assuming it was financially motivated."

While the other networks are going to be eating a combine 10 million in losses over this prime time speak. Fox will be making quite a bit of money. it is a gamble to do during sweeps but it could easily pay of huge.

Also pulled

An executive at one of the three other broadcasters, who asked for anonymity because the conversations were private, said that network's executives had expressed concern to the White House about the frequency of prime-time news conferences and the financial sacrifice they were making in carrying the event. The executive said it was hoped the administration would show more flexibility in working with networks to find the best times to schedule the events

This leads me to believe if Obama keeps requesting them they will get turned down saying screw you. 10 mil for each one. that adds up. After this round they are up to 30 million ins losses over Obama news conferences.

[obeygiant]

All I care about is if I'm going to miss LOST or not.

[yg17]

I will say it is about damn time some network said enough is enough.

Obama has made a lot of new conferences in just a few short months. I can not think of any other president who went a crazy doing it. If you pull out 9/11 and the standard ones that every president makes. It almost seems like Obama has made more than any other president and if not he is quickly on his way to setting a new record.

People already are starting to get tried of hearing Obama on TV. All these news conferences on prime time only add to his image of being a talking head in an empty suit.

I having a feeling this will pay off well for fox and you can bet that the other companies will start following suite and turning Obama down for prime time request. He has made a lot and it boarding on too many. He has cried wolf to many times so to speak.

Yes, god forbid the President talks to the people of this country and lets them know the state of things. It's not like we have 2 wars and a troubled economy that people might want to hear about :rolleyes:

[NT1440]

Yes, god forbid the President talks to the people of this country and lets them know the state of things. It's not like we have 2 wars and a troubled economy that people might want to hear about :rolleyes:

Exactly. We voted for more transparency this go around. You'd think people would enjoy being in on the loop.

[MacNut]

Nobody is censoring anything. The question is with all the ways to get information do we need every network to broadcast it. Let people decide if they want to watch, if they don't give them something else to view. Are we supposed to shut down every network on cable when the president speaks? I think there is more then enough coverage, most of the time too much.

[NT1440]

Nobody is censoring anything. The question is with all the ways to get information do we need every network to broadcast it. Let people decide if they want to watch, if they don't give them something else to view. Are we supposed to shut down every network on cable when the president speaks? I think there is more then enough coverage, most of the time too much.

Did anyone even say anything about forcing this on anyone or censoring?

[MacNut]

Did anyone even say anything about forcing this on anyone or censoring?What is the point of this thread then? Fox doesn't want to air it so what, they are not required too.

[hulugu]

All I care about is if I'm going to miss LOST or not.

Well, Lost is on ABC, so.... I wonder if my TiVO will figure it out though?

Nobody is censoring anything. The question is with all the ways to get information do we need every network to broadcast it. Let people decide if they want to watch, if they don't give them something else to view. Are we supposed to shut down every network on cable when the president speaks? I think there is more then enough coverage, most of the time too much.

We don't need every network to broadcast it, but I'm a little concerned about a company using public airwaves refusing such a request. I don't think it's politically motivated since as Rodimus pointed out, it's been done before, but nonetheless, Fox operates off the largess of the public so it should tread carefully before refusing what I would consider a public service.

The rest of the networks, including FX, are not under this same structure and thus can show whatever they please.

[NT1440]

What is the point of this thread then?

Lol, way to just assume things.

This thread is merely to discuss the oddity of fox skipping the speech for a (rather boring IMO) primetime show.

[MacNut]

Lol, way to just assume things.

This thread is merely to discuss the oddity of fox skipping the speech for a (rather boring IMO) primetime show.Some would argue that the speeches are boring and taking up airtime.

[yg17]

Nobody is censoring anything. The question is with all the ways to get information do we need every network to broadcast it. Let people decide if they want to watch, if they don't give them something else to view. Are we supposed to shut down every network on cable when the president speaks? I think there is more then enough coverage, most of the time too much.

I think the reasoning is that there are still a lot of people who live out in the sticks without cable or satellite who can only get one or two channels over the air, so airing it on all channels should theoretically allow just about anyone to view it.

[NT1440]

Some would argue that the speeches are boring and taking up airtime.

And that matters because?

[MacNut]

I think the reasoning is that there are still a lot of people who live out in the sticks without cable or satellite who can only get one or two channels over the air, so airing it on all channels should theoretically allow just about anyone to view it.I will buy that argument. But I would rather see the big 4 rotate press conferences. And do away with the talking heads before and after.

[MacNut]

And that matters because?It matters to networks that will have viewers tuning out to watch something else.

[yg17]

And do away with the talking heads before and after.

No disagreements from me here. They should stick to cable news channels.

[MacDawg]

This thread is merely to discuss the oddity of fox skipping the speech for a (rather boring IMO) primetime show.

I kinda like the show :o

I agree with the others who voiced the opinion that it is unnecessary for every major network to carry this. I don't care if it is Bush or Obama or the Queen of England... why does it have to be on every channel? I won't watch it (shoulder shrug). These speeches, regardless of party affiliation, are largely just public relations events. If it is a crisis and you need to communicate something... like 9/11... then I'm there... but just to blah, blah, shake hands and have pictures taken... yeah, count me out. Show me the money and DO something instead of talking about it.

And as for the title... why Fox Network Refuses to Air Obama News Conference?

Why not... Fox Network Chooses Not To Air Obama News Conference?

Just a thought

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Rodimus Prime]

I think the reasoning is that there are still a lot of people who live out in the sticks without cable or satellite who can only get one or two channels over the air, so airing it on all channels should theoretically allow just about anyone to view it.

The would be ok only if the White house was willing to pay for the air time.

As it been pointed out each one of these press confrences is costing them 10 mil.
That is not including the fact that they are disrupting the flow of any shows they do have going on at this time. Completely screwed up the scheduling and what now. So that 10 million in loss money does not include the cost of the networks having to go reschedule everything and for the cost of the news equipment being set up and so on.

my biggest problem is Obama is doing it to much. I will read about it in the morning. When it is on I will just go play my 360 or something else. I do not care to see an empty suit talk.

I think Fox is only the first one. The networks are already complaining about this. I think he Obama request another one in the next 2 months they will just say FU to the white house and tell the they will air it on their cable new networks but leave their normal line up in place.

At the rate Obama is going he is requestion one ever 33 days. Less if you include Ingratiation. Right now he is making a speak every 25 days on average or once a month. So really the total in losses rightn ow for just Obama is at 40 mil.

1 press conference a month is a much larger number than any other president.

Now if just one station carried it that would be fine. But Obama better work something out because he keeps requesting this they will start saying no.

[hulugu]

The would be ok only if the White house was willing to pay for the air time....

Again, refer to my public airwaves comment.

...1 press conference a month is a much larger number than any other president.

Actually, Franklin D. Roosevelt had over 998 press conferences over the course of 12 years or nearly two a month. And, President Bush I had a dozen conferences in his first year.

[Abstract]

Don't you Americans have something called PBS, which is like a public broadcast and is more government-run?

If you do, then that's where this should be aired. Doesn't matter if nobody watches it. People who want to watch it, will watch it. Also, if you do it enough times like that, people will start to catch on and know where to turn to if they want to see Obama talk some more about bailouts.

[NT1440]

+1

Sorry if the facts get in the way of Obama dislike.

[MacNut]

Actually, Franklin D. Roosevelt had over 998 press conferences over the course of 12 years or nearly two a month.How many of those were on TV? And how many Bush press conferences were on network?
Don't you Americans have something called PBS, which is like a public broadcast and is more government-run?


PBS isn't really government run, it is mostly publicly funded.

[NT1440]

How many of those were on TV?




Why does the medium matter so much? Radio was the main medium in FDR's days.

Same idea, adapted to today.

[MacNut]

Why does the medium matter so much? Radio was the main medium in FDR's days.

Same idea, adapted to today.We have 24 hour cable news networks for this purpose today.

[NT1440]

We have 24 hour cable networks for this purpose today.

The keyword being CABLE. ;)

[MacNut]

The keyword being CABLE. ;)And the majority of the public has it, if this was an important press conference I could see it everywhere, this is what a 100 day progress report?

[NT1440]

And the majority of the public have it, if this was an important press conference I could see it everywhere, this is what a 100 day progress report?

Majority is a funny word when the minority consists of MILLIONS of people....

[MacNut]

If the president wants network air time it should be because of a serious problem that threatens the safety of the public. Just to give a pep talk I don't see the need. The same for Bush. I didn't like clogging the air waves for fluff.

[NT1440]

If the president wants network air time it should have to be because of a serious problem that threatens the safety of the public. Just to give a pep talk I don't see the need.

Source for the underlined?

Its a good thing individuals personal opinions dont matter that much in this regard, I guarentee you that a large chunk would rather be playing halo, oh well.

[hulugu]

How many of those were on TV? And how many Bush press conferences were on network?

Well, you know the answer to the first question. On the second, I'm not sure how many were covered by networks, but that wasn't my point. The younger Bush had very few press conferences in total, so that doesn't seem like a fair point. Obama ran on a platform of "openness" which included monthly press conferences.

And the majority of the public has it, if this was an important press conference I could see it everywhere, this is what a 100 day progress report?

A good point, but I worry about a Democracy that requires a $50 cable-tv fee to see the president's press conferences. I'm less concerned since the press conference will be available on YouTube and a dozen other sites, but let's be careful in shifting all news gathering to the cable networks.

Don't you Americans have something called PBS, which is like a public broadcast and is more government-run?

If you do, then that's where this should be aired. Doesn't matter if nobody watches it. People who want to watch it, will watch it. Also, if you do it enough times like that, people will start to catch on and know where to turn to if they want to see Obama talk some more about bailouts.

It's not like the BBC, because there's some funding through the Center for Public Broadcasting, but much of it is publicly funded. And, yes PBS will show the conference, but because of the arrangement between the networks and the FCC, the big three networks are "borrowing" public airwaves and are thus, IMHO, beholden to the people's need to get information.

[hulugu]

... I didn't like clogging the air waves for fluff.

Wait, so American Idol isn't fluff, but a press conference is? You're weird. ;)

[yojitani]

I have never understood why every network has to air it, I would rather 1 network is picked to run it and if people really want to watch they can find it. I don't see the point in having 15 networks showing the same coverage. I wonder how many people tune out when a press conference is on.

I agree with this. The other networks have a responsibility to let viewers know that its on, I suppose, but otherwise, what's the point?

[MacNut]

Wait, so American Idol isn't fluff, but a press conference is? You're weird. ;)The sad thing is more people in this country know who is on American Idol but don't know anything about politics. Those are the people that have no interest in the speech but would cry foul that their favorite show is not on.

[Zombie Acorn]

I also agree that this doesn't need to be on every station, imagine Obama's rating numbers going down when he cuts into American Idol :p

I imagine Fox news will probably cover it, I could be wrong though.

[mactastic]

I will say it is about damn time some network said enough is enough.

Obama has made a lot of new conferences in just a few short months. I can not think of any other president who went a crazy doing it. If you pull out 9/11 and the standard ones that every president makes. It almost seems like Obama has made more than any other president and if not he is quickly on his way to setting a new record.

People already are starting to get tried of hearing Obama on TV. All these news conferences on prime time only add to his image of being a talking head in an empty suit.
No, YOU'RE getting tired of hearing Obama on TV. Personally, I'm ecstatic to have a president that speaks without a sneer, and is able to string together coherent sentences.

It's ok if you want to hate Obama. Just don't assume that you speak for all "people".

I having a feeling this will pay off well for fox and you can bet that the other companies will start following suite and turning Obama down for prime time request. He has made a lot and it boarding on too many. He has cried wolf to many times so to speak.
Yeah, you're right. There aren't any actual crisis going on right now, just a bunch of fake "WOLF" cries by Obama.

I might like to point out that this seems very much like Fox and not politicaly movtivated.

From the artical
Would it have mattered to Hannity or Limbaugh if NBCs motives had been apolitical in refusing to air a Bush presser? That was my point, not that *I* think FOX is doing this for political reasons.

Some would argue that the speeches are boring and taking up airtime.
Some would argue that Lost is boring and taking up airtime. ;)

[obeygiant]

Some would argue that Lost is boring and taking up airtime. ;)

SACRILEGE!

[jaw04005]

This is not the first time this has happened during sweeps.

"Executives at Fox, owned by News Corp., would not comment on the decision Monday. It's not without precedent for the network; Fox didn't carry a prime-time speech by President George W. Bush in November 2001 despite a request from the White House."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/27/fox-not-airing-obama-pres_n_191954.html

Honestly, I think most people watch it on CNN, MSNBC or Fox News anyway. There's no real point in watching it live, you'll get the important highlights on your local and network news that night and the next morning.

[rhsgolfer33]

Source for the underlined?

Its a good thing individuals personal opinions dont matter that much in this regard, I guarentee you that a large chunk would rather be playing halo, oh well.

Why does he need a source? He's expressing his personal opinion and thus doesn't need to provide the opinion of someone else who expresses the same personal opinion in order to support his own. I guess the source could be the portion of his brain that plays a significant role in the formation of opinions?

I also agree that this doesn't need to be on every network; its more boring or as boring as every TV show on at that time, costs the channel millions, and frankly, I don't know anyone that watches these pointless press conferences anyways. I'm afraid most of the public probably doesn't much care what the president has to say about his first 100 days, whether its Obama or Bush.

Majority is a funny word when the minority consists of MILLIONS of people....

I guess you feel then, that the Obama administration should put significant weight on what McCain supporters believe the government should be doing? You know, since that minority was still millions of people and all. Not that I was a McCain supporter, but if we're going to consider what the minority needs and wants because the minority is millions of people in this case, why not in that case too?

The thing is, you can't always cater to the minority. I would hardly expect Obama to do things that McCain supporters wanted just because there are millions of them; he was elected, he should do what he thinks is right and target his supporters. I would also not expect networks that rely in large part on advertising money from shows during prime time to stay in business to air every Obama prime time press conference, especially when it seems to be of lacking in importance and is aired on every other network, just so a few million people with antennas can view the speech (how many people with antennas do we think are actually watching this thing anyways?).

[leekohler]

I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, I wish PBS was the only station to carry it. I hate it when the President's address interrupts something I want to see.

[kavika411]

This thread is merely to discuss the oddity of fox skipping the speech for a (rather boring IMO) primetime show.

I disagree. I think World's Dumbest Air Force One Pranks is a good primetime show.

[MacNut]

This will all be taken care of when the digital transition is complete. Local stations will have sub channels that they can air the speech and leave the network programing intact. Nobody will be able to say that they can't see it.

[jonbravo77]

I think it says a lot about the people who complain about not being able to watch their TV shows because the President is speaking but then turn around and complain and protest against what the President is doing. Wouldn't you want to hear first hand what the President is thinking instead of watching a bloated news organization telling you what you should think?

I understand not everyone is into politics and that's fine. But, this country has become a country of lesser thinkers thanks to American Idol and Reality TV. Boo Hoo, you have to miss 1 night of your gripping episode of Lost. Guess what, they get found, but then they are stupid to get Lost in the first place :p

[leekohler]

I think it says a lot about the people who complain about not being able to watch their TV shows because the President is speaking but then turn around and complain and protest against what the President is doing. Wouldn't you want to hear first hand what the President is thinking instead of watching a bloated news organization telling you what you should think?

I understand not everyone is into politics and that's fine. But, this country has become a country of lesser thinkers thanks to American Idol and Reality TV. Boo Hoo, you have to miss 1 night of your gripping episode of Lost. Guess what, they get found, but then they are stupid to get Lost in the first place :p

Excuse me- I'm very interested in politics and am very active. You know what? I can read a damn transcript of the President's speech, or watch a YouTube video. And you can't force people to watch the speech anyway, even if it's on every network. People can go outside and barbeque or read a book. Having it on every network is pointless.

[obeygiant]

Obama has his own channel on Dish Network link (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/10/01/dish-network-now-has-obama-channel), (or used to). Channel 73.

All Obama all the time for all you junkies and worshipers out there. :D

9am Obama treadmill/basketball action

1030 Coverage of the NYC Air Force One Fiasco

1200 Fox News Watch

130 What is Michelle Wearing

230 Sasha and Maliea get home from school

400 Obama and Hillary have a 3 martini lunch

630 Bowling Lessons at the White House

800 Obama making phone calls

[Zombie Acorn]

fox news is airing it at 9 pm fyi just so we don't get confused. I usually watch fox because the sensationalism is usually more entertaining and they do at least try to get one person from each side on their debates, while covering pretty much everything going on.

The shows like glen beck are over the top but he has some interesting guests sometimes like people from the communist party etc. I also don't like o'reilly, hes pretty much a dick.

[Shivetya]

What is the point of this thread then? Fox doesn't want to air it so what, they are not required too.

and the majors refused to air a Reagan speech as well... but I guess that would be okay with some here.


The point is, there is already adequate coverage. If Fox wants to do something else they give US a choice. That is what people are missing. We should have a choice to watch what we want, if networks simply stop what they are doing to shove government propaganda down our throats they just become tools of the government; though that is probably not in doubt with MSNBC.

[NT1440]

and the majors refused to air a Reagan speech as well... but I guess that would be okay with some here.


The point is, there is already adequate coverage. If Fox wants to do something else they give US a choice. That is what people are missing. We should have a choice to watch what we want, if networks simply stop what they are doing to shove government propaganda down our throats they just become tools of the government; though that is probably not in doubt with MSNBC.

Please tell me, how is a speech from the president propaganda?

[jzuena]

This will all be taken care of when the digital transition is complete. Local stations will have sub channels that they can air the speech and leave the network programing intact. Nobody will be able to say that they can't see it.

Which, of course, would already have happened back in February if the cutover date hadn't been pushed back by the president. Maybe he should push back some of his speeches until June (is the new date still scheduled for June?) Maybe he will be less inclined to keep pushing it back if it becomes a requirement for him to be able to give prime time speeches that the networks are willing to cover.

[hulugu]

This will all be taken care of when the digital transition is complete. Local stations will have sub channels that they can air the speech and leave the network programing intact. Nobody will be able to say that they can't see it.

Good point, I had forgotten about the sub-channels.

[jaw04005]

Please tell me, how is a speech from the president propaganda?

How is it not? It's the very definition of propaganda. Why else hold a press conference unless you're trying to win over public support for your policies or views?

"Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[mactastic]

How is it not? It's the very definition of propaganda. Why else hold a press conference unless you're trying to win over public support for your policies or views?

"Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda
Now all he needs is a catapult...

[Desertrat]

Aw, well, this gives him a chance to put some spin on the how/why his folks piddled away $329,000 to scare the bejeezus out of folks in NYC. Plus laundry bills, of course. :D Will it be along the lines of a father's, "Those darned kids sneaked the keys out of my coat pocket, and went joy-riding in my car!"?

I like the letter to the NYT, querying whether or not anybody in the White House had ever heard of PhotoShop. Fair question, really. Woulda saved a bunch of money--and PhotoShop probably doesn't generate nearly as much CO2. :D

And it looks like the Fox folks are pretty smart: Get the advertising income from their primetime show, and carry the Barack Hussein Obama propaganda on FNC. Best of both worlds.

[hulugu]

How is it not? It's the very definition of propaganda. Why else hold a press conference unless you're trying to win over public support for your policies or views?

"Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, often presents information primarily in order to influence its audience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Technically, you're correct, but let's be careful about the use of the word propaganda when referring to Press Releases or Press Conferences. As the wiki article notes, there is a difference between "white propaganda" "grey propaganda" and other forms of disseminating information to espouse a particular viewpoint.

From the Wiki article:

Propaganda can be classified according to the source and nature of the message. White propaganda generally comes from an openly identified source, and is characterized by gentler methods of persuasion, such as standard public relations techniques and one-sided presentation of an argument. Black propaganda is identified as being from one source, but is in fact from another. This is most commonly to disguise the true origins of the propaganda, be it from an enemy country or from an organization with a negative public image. Grey propaganda is propaganda without any identifiable source or author. A major application of grey propaganda is making enemies believe falsehoods using straw arguments: As phase one, to make someone believe "A", one releases as grey propaganda "B", the opposite of "A". In phase two, "B" is discredited using some strawman. The enemy will then assume "A" to be true.
In scale, these different types of propaganda can also be defined by the potential of true and correct information to compete with the propaganda. For example, opposition to white propaganda is often readily found and may slightly discredit the propaganda source. Opposition to grey propaganda, when revealed (often by an inside source), may create some level of public outcry. Opposition to black propaganda is often unavailable and may be dangerous to reveal, because public cognizance of black propaganda tactics and sources would undermine or backfire the very campaign the black propagandist supported.

And, 'Rat I don't know what you're talking about.

[Teh Don Ditty]

Technically, you're correct, but let's be careful about the use of the word propaganda when referring to Press Releases or Press Conferences. As the wiki article notes, there is a difference between "white propaganda" "grey propaganda" and other forms of disseminating information to espouse a particular viewpoint.

I didn't know propaganda was racist.

:p

[hulugu]

I didn't know propaganda was racist.

:p

You can't trust the greys can you?

[mactastic]

And, 'Rat I don't know what you're talking about.
I assume he's talking about the "Scare Force One" episode; which, presumably was secretly ordered by Barack HUSSEIN Obama to provide valuable intel for his Muslim friends who wish to do us harm.

[iJohnHenry]

I offered a potential scenario in that direction, but it was spiked. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

I assume he's talking about the "Scare Force One" episode; which, presumably was secretly ordered by Barack HUSSEIN Obama to provide valuable intel for his Muslim friends who wish to do us harm.

How did I miss this story? The Air Force decides to fly one of the 747s just over New York for a photo-op and they manage to freak out the locals. Oh boy, this is the NewsMax cover story!

[MacDawg]

How did I miss this story? The Air Force decides to fly one of the 747s just over New York for a photo-op and they manage to freak out the locals. Oh boy, this is the NewsMax cover story!

Here is the thread on the story (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=692733)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[hulugu]

Here is the thread on the story (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=692733)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Thanks Dawg.

I did miss this story. And all the associated aircraft puns.

[Desertrat]

hulugu, the followup is that Obama said that he didn't know it was gonna happen. He's gonna have a two-week-long investigation to get to the bottom of the dastardly deed. :D

I read somewhere that the NYT had over a thousand letters griping about the whole deal. The heads of the FBI and the FAA weren't told, nor was the Honorable Mayor. They say they're mad. Mad, I tell you! Mad!

The deal was, the existing photo shows AF-1 flying past Mt. Rushmore. The new photo is to show AF-1 flying past the Statue of Liberty.

Coulda sent up a 172 with a photographer and done it with PhotoShop. Airbrush. Whatever. :D

"...freak out the locals..."? That's a pretty danged snotty attitude. It's obvious where you WEREN'T on 9/11/01. I imagine there are a helluva lot of folks in NYC who get real nervous just hearing a low-flying multi-engine jet. You might have seen it on TV; they saw it first-hand and in dying color.

[hulugu]

....
Coulda sent up a 172 with a photographer and done it with PhotoShop. Airbrush. Whatever. :D

I'm pretty surprised that they have to do actually fly the plane around to get such a shot. I'd think Photoshop would be a lovely idea.

"...freak out the locals..."? That's a pretty danged snotty attitude. It's obvious where you WEREN'T on 9/11/01. I imagine there are a helluva lot of folks in NYC who get real nervous just hearing a low-flying multi-engine jet. You might have seen it on TV; they saw it first-hand and in dying color.[/QUOTE]

:confused: I didn't mean that as derogatory towards New Yorkers at all, I can understand why a low-flying 747 might make people nervous, and I'm really surprised how little advanced notice the USAF gave.

[mactastic]

And now it appears that while FOX exercised their right not to broadcast Obama's presser, Obama exercised his right not to call on FOX during his presser.

Nice touch... :p

[jonbravo77]

Well, I just got done watching the press conference and it was not any network station. The only channel it was on in Arizona was PBS World which is a cable channel. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, all did not broadcast the press conference..

[dsnort]

I for one am glad they didn't air it, gave me and mine the option to watch something else, ( and Frankly, I find "Lie to Me" very entertaining). Plus, I have a low tolerance for listening to people lie to me regardless of party affiliation.

Fox is shallow, Obama is not. Watch somewhere else.

Yoouuu, yoou make me laugh!!!! ( Such earnest naivety )!

Yes, god forbid the President talks to the people of this country and lets them know the state of things. It's not like we have 2 wars and a troubled economy that people might want to hear about :rolleyes:

Things are screwed up, the government is making it worse as fast as they can go. What more do you need to know?

"Snip"

There's more mis-types in that post than I've seen from Rodimus in all 3 years I've been on this forum.

[MyDesktopBroke]

Do you believe that this administration is intentionally trying to destroy America?

[rdowns]

Well, I just got done watching the press conference and it was not any network station. The only channel it was on in Arizona was PBS World which is a cable channel. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, all did not broadcast the press conference..

SInce you posted this at around 11pm ET, I assume you watched a rebroadcast of it. It aired live at 8pm ET.

[dsnort]

Do you believe that this administration is intentionally trying to destroy America?

No.

IMO the problem is with our politicians in general regardless of party affiliation.

The Chinese have a saying, something about "dying the death of a million tiny cuts".

The Vietnamese say " a tiger can kill an elephant if he just bites him once a day".

Our politicians all seem to think that their tiny cut/bite isn't doing any real harm, and have no concept of the accumulation.

[jonbravo77]

SInce you posted this at around 11pm ET, I assume you watched a rebroadcast of it. It aired live at 8pm ET.

Intereseting, since I watched it at 7pm PST. Don't really see how I saw a rebroadcast. Unless they taped it at 5pm PST which would put it live for you. Don't know.... The point was that everyone was getting up in arms over the press conference being on every station and it wasn't, at least for me it wasn't...

[yg17]

Intereseting, since I watched it at 7pm PST. Don't really see how I saw a rebroadcast. Unless they taped it at 5pm PST which would put it live for you. Don't know.... The point was that everyone was getting up in arms over the press conference being on every station and it wasn't, at least for me it wasn't...

That's odd, because the presser was held live at 8 PM EST (I was watching it at 7 CST). I don't know why they would delay it for west coast viewers

[it5five]

Well, I just got done watching the press conference and it was not any network station. The only channel it was on in Arizona was PBS World which is a cable channel. NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, all did not broadcast the press conference..

I watched it on NBC at 5pm our time. I remember catching the end of it on NPR right before I started work last night (6pm). What you saw was a rebroadcast.