The White House takes on the Press, page 1

The White House takes on the Press, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 8-10-2009 @ 09:30 PM by fooffstarr

There was never a single moment when White House staff decided the major media outlets were falling down on the job. There were instead several such moments.

For press secretary Robert Gibbs, the realization came in early September, when the New York Times ran a front-page story about the bubbling parental outrage over President Obama's plan to address schoolchildren - even though the benign contents of the speech were not yet public. "You had to be like, 'Wait a minute,'" says Gibbs. "This thing has become a three-ring circus."

For deputy communications director Dan Pfeiffer, the more hyperbolic attacks on health-care reform this summer, which were often covered as a "controversy," flipped an internal switch. "When you are having a debate about whether or not you want to kill people's grandmother," he explains, "the normal rules of engagement don't apply."

Source

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 09:33 PM by fooffstarr

So, pretty much the White House wants to silence even mainstream dissenting voices now?

At least they aren't trying to hide their intentions anymore.

So the WH will now launch public attacks against any pundits or shows they deem are wrongly critical of the regime. What ever happened to free speech?

Is it not a right to vocally disagree with and criticize a president and government? Apparently not anymore.

I can see anger against the fact that some pundits do spread misinformation, but many of the points raised critical of the White House are not misleading, they are simply truths that Obama would rather the MSM audiences not know.

Don't get me wrong, I hate both sides of the US political system equally... but the opposing party still should have the right to vocalize their views.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 09:55 PM by StinkyFeet

reply to post by fooffstarr

Well how else do you expect them to steer the country toward communism against the will of people without shutting down the ability to show the American public just what they are up to?

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 10:26 PM by orderedchaos

Well, Obama came through on one of his promises - transparency. The government is beginning to show to the world how incredibly corrupt and deceptive as most people believed it to be.

According to our gov't henchmen, we have the right to agree or shut up.

I vote we get louder

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 10:38 PM by chrisd250

reply to post by orderedchaos

agreed...we must rise up and not let our country become a communist nation...too bad most people are way too blind to realize this is the direction we are heading...

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 10:41 PM by fooffstarr

reply to post by orderedchaos

It was the same as when Bush was in power, only it is the other 'side' doing it now.

Remember when the war on Iraq started FOX and co were literally saying word for word 'either you support the war, or you shut up'.

Now it is the other side. Either you support Obama, or you shut up.

Sigh. I still don't understand how any sane person can be convinced one party or the other is actually putting the interests of the people first. They make it quite clear over and over again that they both serve the same overarching masters.

reply posted on 8-10-2009 @ 10:46 PM by EmperorZeno

Didn't the White House also allow ABC to broadcast news from inside it's doors, I'm pretty sure they would have had been biased on that. I don't remember if they ever went through with it though.

reply posted on 9-10-2009 @ 07:55 AM by damwel

But but but I thought they were the Obama loving liberal media. I always thought it was odd that the Obama loving liberal media was owned mostly by rich conservatives.

Pages: ^^TOP^^