Media moves in, being in bed wasn't enough

[Shivetya]

http://drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff



Developing...


Apparently getting the guy elected wasn't enough for them. They will now sell whatever he wants to the American people.

It used to be that the press kept the Congress and President on their toes by looking for chinks in the armor and problems. Now they are nothing more than a mouthpiece for their idol.

[Sky Blue]

lol drudgereport

I'm sure Ken McKay has no problem with Fox News coverage.

[leekohler]

Umm...I need a little more info before I can comment on this.

[yg17]

Umm...I need a little more info before I can comment on this.


And I need something not written by RNC staffers and posted on the Sludge Report.

[leekohler]

Oh here we go. Shivetya- your hysterical side pops up once again. This isn't a government/media plot.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/06/white-house-to-host-primetime-televised-conversation-june-24.html

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: President Obama’s health care push will continue next week with a primetime event at the White House, with ABC’s Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer set to moderate a nationally televised event called “Questions for the President: Prescription for America.”

The president will answer questions offered by audience members “selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate,” as well as some submitted via ABCNews.com, according to the press release announcing the event.

The special edition of “Primetime” will air from the White House on Wednesday, June 24, at 10 pm ET. “Good Morning America,” “World News,” “Nightline,” and ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.

Diane Sawyer will have an exclusive interview with President Obama airing Wednesday on “Good Morning America.”

Here’s the full release from ABC:

“QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT: PRESCRIPTION FOR AMERICA”

ABC News’ Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer to Moderate a Primetime Conversation with President Barack Obama about the Future of the Nation’s Healthcare System

Special Edition of “Primetime” to Air from the White House Wednesday, June 24th at 10pm ET

“Questions for the President: Prescription for America” will continue on “Nightline” at 11:35pm ET on Wed. June 24th.

“Good Morning America” and “World News” to Originate From the White House on Wednesday

“GMA” to Feature Exclusive Interview with President Obama

As the nation debates sweeping changes in healthcare, ABC News’ Charles Gibson and Diane Sawyer will moderate a conversation with President Obama about this critical issue on the nation’s agenda. A special edition of Primetime “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” will air on Wednesday, June 24th from 10:00-11:00 PM ET on the ABC Television Network.

During the discussion from the East Room of the White House, President Obama will answer questions from an audience made up of Americans selected by ABC News who have divergent opinions in this historic debate. ABC News’ Medical Editor Dr. Timothy Johnson will also take part in the conversation which will focus on different ideas for how to fix the system and how proposed changes will impact our already fragile economy.

The health care conversation will continue on “Nightline” at 11:35pm ET.

Wednesday morning’s “Good Morning America” will originate from the South Lawn of the White House and will include an exclusive interview with President Obama. He sits down with Diane Sawyer to discuss healthcare and other issues on the nation’s agenda. Wednesday’s program will also feature portions of Robin Roberts’ exclusive interview with First Lady Michelle Obama.

Charles Gibson will anchor “World News” from the Blue Room of the White House on Wednesday.

ABCNews.com will invite viewers to join the discussion and share their questions about health care reform at ABCNews.com/Politics starting Tuesday, June 16th. ABCNews.com will also be working with Digg.com to select popular questions voted on by online users. Some of those questions will be put to President Obama during the program. ABC News' daily political webcast, “Top Line,” will focus on health care reform throughout the week of June 22. ABCNews.com senior political reporter and author of the Note, Rick Klein, will live-blog and interact with users as the forum airs and full video coverage of the forum will be posted online. A special section of ABCNews.com/Politics dedicated to the health care debate will offer comprehensive coverage of the forum and will continue as legislation is taken up in Congress.

ABC News Radio will air portions of “Questions for the President: Prescription for America” and will also produce a special edition of its weekly news magazine PERSPECTIVE, that will include portions of the special. PERSPECTIVE will be available to ABC News Radio affiliates for use over the weekend of June 27-28.

[steve2112]

Other sources?

Ok, here you go:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-06-15-abc-obama_N.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_en_ot/us_tv_abc_obama

[leekohler]

Other sources?

Ok, here you go:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2009-06-15-abc-obama_N.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090615/ap_en_ot/us_tv_abc_obama

Yes, but this is hardly what the OP is claiming. That's why I posted the ABC News source.

[Rodimus Prime]

I have little faith left in the media. I willing to bet that they will slant the issue. The media is using its power for its personal agendas no longer wanting to go about the truth.

[leekohler]

I have little faith left in the media. I willing to bet that they will slant the issue. The media is using its power for its personal agendas no longer wanting to go about the truth.

You mean like Fox News?

[Rodimus Prime]

You mean like Fox News?

I mean all of them. Not just fox news. They all started leaving out information to suite their case. I would not put it pass ABC to "claim" to be fair just like fox on this issue but here I think they are handing more over than they should.

[steve2112]

Yes, but this is hardly what the OP is claiming. That's why I posted the ABC News source.

I got sidetracked while posting, so I think I was in the middle of posting you put that link up. I didn't see it when I started.

This just reinforces my belief that all mainstream media is biased. It's not just Fox.

[jb1280]

The media is not necessarily biased. The media, however, fails to report significant news. They appreciate irrelevant information and things that are not terribly important and make them important without proper context.

[leekohler]

I mean all of them. Not just fox news. They all started leaving out information to suite their case. I would not put it pass ABC to "claim" to be fair just like fox on this issue but here I think they are handing more over than they should.

Did you read what I posted? I don't think they're handing over anything. You think they didn't do the same for Bush, Clinton and every other president? I'm sorry- I'm not seeing this takeover of the media drudge and shivetya are claiming.

I got sidetracked while posting, so I think I was in the middle of posting you put that link up. I didn't see it when I started.

This just reinforces my belief that all mainstream media is biased. It's not just Fox.

This stuff really makes me giggle. So now, since Fox is biased, everyone is? You guys do realize that conservatives own the major media outlets, right?

[Mousse]

The media is not necessarily biased. The media, however, fails to report significant news. They appreciate irrelevant information and things that are not terribly important and make them important without proper context.

Too true. I miss the good old days when the Forth Estate reported news, not the sensationalism passed off as news. It was a sad day when Walter Cronkite retired. I considered that day the day real news reporting died.:(

[opinioncircle]

The media is not necessarily biased. The media, however, fails to report significant news. They appreciate irrelevant information and things that are not terribly important and make them important without proper context.

Biased media sells period. How else could you explain the success of Fox News and MSNBC? Their journalism credentials? Ahh pleAAASSE :D

[Eraserhead]

I mean all of them. Not just fox news.

Well yes, but there are degrees of bias. Fox News is much much more bias than any other US TV station, and the US TV stations are more bias than the BBC is for example.

[Eraserhead]

Biased media sells period.

I believe the Economist is actually doing very well at the moment and they seem to try and be as unbiased as possible.

[fivepoint]

Well yes, but there are degrees of bias. Fox News is much much more bias than any other US TV station, and the US TV stations are more bias than the BBC is for example.

Yes, but in the same breath where people call Fox News biased on these forums, they will follow it up by quoting something from the Huffington Post, NYT, or the Daily Kos.

Absolutely laughable. What's scary is that people on either side of the aisle will read these sources, and never even hear the other side of the story. Never make an attempt to even understand what/how/why the other side believes.

[BoyBach]

A news channel is to provide a means for the public to ask the President questions concerning potential healthcare reform. How is this a bad thing?

[leekohler]

Yes, but in the same breath where people call Fox News biased on these forums, they will follow it up by quoting something from the Huffington Post, NYT, or the Daily Kos.

Absolutely laughable. What's scary is that people on either side of the aisle will read these sources, and never even hear the other side of the story. Never make an attempt to even understand what/how/why the other side believes.

Sorry- Fox News is by far the most ridiculous "news source" in the US. It's an absolute joke. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I never quote any of the sources you mentioned. My most common source is the Chicago Tribune, which is considered to lean conservative.

A news channel is to provide a means for the public to ask the President questions concerning potential healthcare reform. How is this a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing. But anything the Republicans can make a big deal of, they will. There's not even a story here. It's beyond goofy.

[Desertrat]

leekohler, IMO programs like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, etc, are not news programs. They're editorial programs ABOUT the news. Same for any other opinion program, whether TV or radio. IOW, Limbaugh is not news; he's speaking editorials instead of writing them for a newspaper.

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?" as with the Sunday morning talking heads.

In the straight-news, no editorializing programs, Fox does seem to have more objective phrasing than the others. Fewer emotionally-laden words. Not saying that it's any sort of "always"; just a generality from browsing the channels from time to time.

'Rat

[leekohler]

leekohler, IMO programs like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, etc, are not news programs. They're editorial programs ABOUT the news. Same for any other opinion program, whether TV or radio. IOW, Limbaugh is not news; he's speaking editorials instead of writing them for a newspaper.

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?" as with the Sunday morning talking heads.

In the straight-news, no editorializing programs, Fox does seem to have more objective phrasing than the others. Fewer emotionally-laden words. Not saying that it's any sort of "always"; just a generality from browsing the channels from time to time.

'Rat

Thanks for the condescending words- as if I don't know what editorial commentary is.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here. I've seen it too.

[steve2112]

Biased media sells period. How else could you explain the success of Fox News and MSNBC? Their journalism credentials? Ahh pleAAASSE :D

This the problem. In the never ending race for ratings, the news programs have turned to political commentary. Look, personal bias is part of human nature, and it has always shown up to some degree in news broadcasting. In, the era of 24 hour news, these programs have to do something to get viewers. After 9/11, Fox News basically decided to play on people's fears and shot to the top in ratings. It looks like MSNBC has decided to be the opposite of Fox.

While I do think most MSM is slightly more biased toward liberalism, it is a long-standing tradition in the media. I often wonder what Fox News would think of the muckraker journalists of the late 19th/early 20th century. Ultimately, most MSM is only as liberal as their corporate masters will allow them to be.

[hulugu]

leekohler, IMO programs like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, etc, are not news programs. They're editorial programs ABOUT the news. Same for any other opinion program, whether TV or radio. IOW, Limbaugh is not news; he's speaking editorials instead of writing them for a newspaper.

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?" as with the Sunday morning talking heads.

In the straight-news, no editorializing programs, Fox does seem to have more objective phrasing than the others. Fewer emotionally-laden words. Not saying that it's any sort of "always"; just a generality from browsing the channels from time to time.

'Rat

Fox News does have a "straight" news component, but I'd argue that since they bury it between opinion segments, inherently biased questions, and a ticker-tape that is incredibly biased, it's nigh impossible to get "straight" news without some bit of opinionated-radioactivity too.

Of course, a critique of Fox News is not a defense of the others, many of whom have been stealing from the Fox News playbook and introduced their own insults to journalistic ethics. MSNBC, I'm looking at you. And CNN seems completely unable to grasp that they're anything but a 24-hour advertisement for Twitter.

At this point, I've nearly given up on television news.

[leekohler]

Fox News does have a "straight" news component, but I'd argue that since they bury it between opinion segments, inherently biased questions, and a ticker-tape that is incredibly biased, it's nigh impossible to get "straight" news without some bit of opinionated-radioactivity too.

Of course, a critique of Fox News is not a defense of the others, many of whom have been stealing from the Fox News playbook and introduced their own insults to journalistic ethics. MSNBC, I'm looking at you. And CNN seems completely unable to grasp that they're anything but a 24-hour advertisement for Twitter.

At this point, I've nearly given up on television news.

This is true. TV news in general is Teh Stupid™.

[steve2112]

Fox News does have a "straight" news component, but I'd argue that since they bury it between opinion segments, inherently biased questions, and a ticker-tape that is incredibly biased, it's nigh impossible to get "straight" news without some bit of opinionated-radioactivity too.

Of course, a critique of Fox News is not a defense of the others, many of whom have been stealing from the Fox News playbook and introduced their own insults to journalistic ethics. MSNBC, I'm looking at you. And CNN seems completely unable to grasp that they're anything but a 24-hour advertisement for Twitter.

At this point, I've nearly given up on television news.

No kidding. For the first couple of days of the whole situation in Iran, CNN was devoting more air time to David Letterman and his Palin jokes than they were to the developing situation in Iran. I was getting better info from fark.com that any TV network.

[.Andy]

I have little faith left in the media. I willing to bet that they will slant the issue. The media is using its power for its personal agendas no longer wanting to go about the truth.
They've never been about the truth per se. Their pay packets have always been from advertising revenue. They've always been about printing what attracts readers eyes within the limits of approval of their business underwriters. The only agendas they are pushing is those of business.

[Eraserhead]

leekohler, IMO programs like the O'Reilly Factor and Hannity, etc, are not news programs. They're editorial programs ABOUT the news.

...

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?" as with the Sunday morning talking heads.

The thing is that "what does it mean" pieces are much more influential - hell the whole of the Economist (with the exception of about 2-3 pages) is "what does it mean" pieces.

Yes, but in the same breath where people call Fox News biased on these forums, they will follow it up by quoting something from the Huffington Post, NYT, or the Daily Kos.

I dunno about the others but I don't think the New York Times is anywhere near as bias as Fox News...

They've never been about the truth per se. Their pay packets have always been from advertising revenue. They've always been about printing what attracts readers eyes within the limits of approval of their business underwriters. The only agendas they are pushing is those of business.

That is probably true.

[Rodimus Prime]

They've never been about the truth per se. Their pay packets have always been from advertising revenue. They've always been about printing what attracts readers eyes within the limits of approval of their business underwriters. The only agendas they are pushing is those of business.

More than likely but it has only gotten worse over the years. They claim to be fair and balance and that is a load of crap.

They claim they only go after the truth but when one really digs in to most of their "ground breaking" stories it turns out to be very far from what it the media makes it appear to be. (case and point Palin and Letterman issue). If one looks at around sweeps those stories get even worse.

It just gotten really bad over the years I think it gets worse and worse every year.

[Eraserhead]

The problem is that now they can just look stuff up on Wikipedia - so they do.

Unfortunately although wikipedia is good enough for a family discussion its not really good enough for a serious newspaper.

To be honest none of the "broadsheet" newspapers in the UK are particularly reliable and neither is the BBC - but at least its not intentional bias with the BBC.

[Iscariot]

In the straight-news, no editorializing programs, Fox does seem to have more objective phrasing than the others.

Naw.
A just-released report by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy (PIPA) finds a majority of respondents have misperceptions about the war.*

The results show 48 percent incorrectly believed that evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iraq has been found; 22 percent that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq; and 25 percent that world opinion favored the United States going to war with Iraq.

A walloping 60 percent overall held one or more of these misperceptions.

Percentage of Respondents getting their news from NPR who had 1 or more misconceptions: 23%

Percentage of Respondents getting their news from Fox who had 1 or more misconceptions: 80%

[skunk]

To be honest none of the "broadsheet" newspapers in the UK are particularly reliable and neither is the BBC - but at least its not intentional bias with the BBC.It may not be intentional bias, but the BBC is certainly far too ready to take government pronouncements at face value these days. Ever since Hutton put the frighteners on them they've been cravenly hesitant to question the blatant and shameless propaganda which passes for ministerial statements.

[pseudobrit]

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?" as with the Sunday morning talking heads.

You've just written off the entire concept of in-depth, investigative journalism.

Analysis is the major defining component of such work and if you truly think such detail and insight must by default carry some unannounced bias that cannot be accounted for by an intelligent audience you are hopelessly cynical.

Listen to Bloomberg's Tom Keene. Listen to American Public Media's Marketplace productions or NPR's All Things Considered. I dare you to listen for a month and come up with a half-dozen instances of editorializing by the journalists or hosts.

[skunk]

To me, news is who did what to whom and where and when. Not "What does it mean?"You are talking about statistics, not news, and even statistics are unavoidably slanted. Your stance makes no sense.

[opinioncircle]

I believe the Economist is actually doing very well at the moment and they seem to try and be as unbiased as possible.

I know. But they're trying. Every opinion is biased, and that's why we read newspapers. However extreme biased news assure a network, a journalist, a newspaper, long term growth and long term customers.

And I think people like that, so in a way, news corporations adapt to it and try to make the best of it.

[opinioncircle]

You've just written off the entire concept of in-depth, investigative journalism.

Analysis is the major defining component of such work and if you truly think such detail and insight must by default carry some unannounced bias that cannot be accounted for by an intelligent audience you are hopelessly cynical.

Listen to Bloomberg's Tom Keene. Listen to American Public Media's Marketplace productions or NPR's All Things Considered. I dare you to listen for a month and come up with a half-dozen instances of editorializing by the journalists or hosts.

Well you could make a case for Jim Cramer, who gave meaning to financial news and financial advice. In-depth journalism should inform people and not mislead them into buying an idea, a product or an personal ideology from the journalist.

[pseudobrit]

Well you could make a case for Jim Cramer, who gave meaning to financial news and financial advice. In-depth journalism should inform people and not mislead them into buying an idea, a product or an personal ideology from the journalist.

Cramer's show is almost pure editorial.

[opinioncircle]

Cramer's show is almost pure editorial.

Sure but he makes it look like it's an in-depth journalism effort (watch the Daily Show interview with him if you get a chance).