Team Obama: "We Control the Media"

[uptownlivin90]

Probably because once a confirmed Obamalong--always an Obamalong--no matter what they admit too. Remember--Obama's "green jobs" czar Van Jones is on video giving praise to Hugo Chavez for taking over the media in his country.

We still have one media outlet that is not under Obama's thumb that is constantly under attack by this adminstration. FOX NEWS

ABC--CBS--NBC--CNN--MSNBC are in this administrations pocket.

View attachment 8476

. "We." We who? As long as your asleep to the fact that the people that DO control the media control ALL of it and don't give a damn about you... or anyone around you, you'll have nothing. Obama controls what he tells the media, the media is controlled by ... well ...

Corporate Media Ownership | Project Censored
Shadow Government | Who Rules America? Who Controls the U.S. Media?
Corporate Media and Threat to Democracy

Da Joooooooos! OK, gotcha

Nice dodge, there. Yeah, no. Jewish influence is far more foreign policy based then anything. Try again though, you'll get there...

 

[loosecannon]

Anita Dumb finally admits what even Helen Thomas finds painfully obvious: the American media is run out of the White House

White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.” -- Helen Thomas

Better Late Than Never

Good title. I thought you were going for "we control the vertical, we control the horizontal" used in the Twilight Zone. It really fit this adventure.

Here's my take:

I didn't pay any attention to this story until today when I read that the WH sent their posse out on every major Sunday news program to say that "Fox isn't a news org".

Those are worse than fighting words, they are a veiled threat.

The statements themselves aren't very damning, not nearly so damning as Fox's earlier salvo, the video of Dunne glamorizing Mao. That was blistering coming on the heels of the nation's green czar being outed as a self proclaimed commie.

You would think that the WH has the upper hand. First as Chomsky pointed out as one of his main points in "Manufacturing Consent" the government is the largest news source of them all. Between the ability to suspend the Fox WH press passes, and limiting access to the military and official news releases, interviews etc team Obama can also limit fox's access to the party, another major news source.

If the WH decides that Fox isn't a news org then their press privileges can all be terminated. And you can't really hang in the news business if the largest news sources deny you access to, ya know, the news.

Then there is the FCC, the DOJ, and the new executive powers used to single out the BoA CEO and claw back his entire salary and bonuses and intended to be applied to any industry considered systematically essential to the nation. And what is more systematically essential to the nation than the 4th estate?

You would think all the cards were in Rahmuel's greasy hands.

But as Harry Truman said of Randolph Hearst, "Son, you don't get in a pissing match with somebody who buys news ink by the boxcar".

Fox is already winning this war, and every GOP operative under the sun is likely to become a whistle blower in their defense if the WH keeps attacking the 4th estate.

You may not consider them news, you may consider them evil, but a free press is more important than any admin or any party.

There can be no democracy without a free press. Our founding Fathers were adamant about it. In fact they created the postal service explicitly to allow every and anybody who wanted to be in the news business affordable and equal distribution.

That was "every and anybody" including agenda driven news like Fox. And according to what I have read news has almost always been agenda driven in this nation. Almost every news rag that ever dominated a metro market was biased to the core. But opposing pov were also present.

Remember even liberal Molly Ivans said that the Obama admin is more intent on controlling the message than the (kings of secrecy) Bush admin was.

The WH is not thinking with a fair and balanced mind. And they will rue the day they started this if it gets carried away.

You don't mess with the 4th estate.

 

[Si modo]

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

LOL thus... "we control the media". Heckofajob!

Again, it's funny because you people don't know WHO controls "da media"... at all. Study public relations. Please... go to school and study take a course, you'll learn how to do everything Dunn talked about in the video. I'm wondering if anybody actually watched the video on this website:

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Anita Dunn was talking about, clearly, strategy to keep information leaks from occuring and keeping the media from getting a leaked statement and running around with it. Remember the 2008 campaign when Palin and John McCain had that problem with people leaking shit to the media and then the media ran with it... (including FOX). Yeah they eat that shit up. Dunn was talking about a campaign strategy in which the lower members of the national campaign would be very tight lipped in careful about statements made to the media and very disciplined about interviews if there to be any at... you know what f-it, it's no use... there communist bastards...fine... whatever. Atleast I got something out of it... that was a brilliant strategy by Mrs. Dunn and the campaign. I learned something.

Oh... I did find something scary though on the sight... an AD on the left side of the page (idk if it's a sponser of the website or not) but it's an AD for solar power generators. It lists reasons why you would need a generator... "hurricanes", "storms" and of all things (not an ice storm, blackout, or tornado BUT) "civil unrest". Hmm... subliminal messages?

Totally duped.

Well there's absolutely no point in talking to people who believe that communists want to take over the government to get back at the US for slavery. It's really worthless. If you want to know who really "controls sh**" in America you have to have something called critical thinking skills. And hint: it aint the white house.

It doesn't take any talent in the critical thinking department to analyze WND.

It DOES involve critical thinking to determine that passivity toward manipulation of the press by the government is counter to supporting freedom.

 

[Polk]

"We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it," Dunn said.

LOL thus... "we control the media". Heckofajob!

Again, it's funny because you people don't know WHO controls "da media"... at all. Study public relations. Please... go to school and study take a course, you'll learn how to do everything Dunn talked about in the video. I'm wondering if anybody actually watched the video on this website:

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

Anita Dunn was talking about, clearly, strategy to keep information leaks from occuring and keeping the media from getting a leaked statement and running around with it. Remember the 2008 campaign when Palin and John McCain had that problem with people leaking shit to the media and then the media ran with it... (including FOX). Yeah they eat that shit up. Dunn was talking about a campaign strategy in which the lower members of the national campaign would be very tight lipped in careful about statements made to the media and very disciplined about interviews if there to be any at... you know what f-it, it's no use... there communist bastards...fine... whatever. Atleast I got something out of it... that was a brilliant strategy by Mrs. Dunn and the campaign. I learned something.

Oh... I did find something scary though on the sight... an AD on the left side of the page (idk if it's a sponser of the website or not) but it's an AD for solar power generators. It lists reasons why you would need a generator... "hurricanes", "storms" and of all things (not an ice storm, blackout, or tornado BUT) "civil unrest". Hmm... subliminal messages?

Why brings facts into a good rant?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Anita Dumb finally admits what even Helen Thomas finds painfully obvious: the American media is run out of the White House

White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.” -- Helen Thomas

Better Late Than Never

Good title. I thought you were going for "we control the vertical, we control the horizontal" used in the Twilight Zone. It really fit this adventure.

Here's my take:

I didn't pay any attention to this story until today when I read that the WH sent their posse out on every major Sunday news program to say that "Fox isn't a news org".

Those are worse than fighting words, they are a veiled threat.

The statements themselves aren't very damning, not nearly so damning as Fox's earlier salvo, the video of Dunne glamorizing Mao. That was blistering coming on the heels of the nation's green czar being outed as a self proclaimed commie.

You would think that the WH has the upper hand. First as Chomsky pointed out as one of his main points in "Manufacturing Consent" the government is the largest news source of them all. Between the ability to suspend the Fox WH press passes, and limiting access to the military and official news releases, interviews etc team Obama can also limit fox's access to the party, another major news source.

If the WH decides that Fox isn't a news org then their press privileges can all be terminated. And you can't really hang in the news business if the largest news sources deny you access to, ya know, the news.

Then there is the FCC, the DOJ, and the new executive powers used to single out the BoA CEO and claw back his entire salary and bonuses and intended to be applied to any industry considered systematically essential to the nation. And what is more systematically essential to the nation than the 4th estate?

You would think all the cards were in Rahmuel's greasy hands.

But as Harry Truman said of Randolph Hearst, "Son, you don't get in a pissing match with somebody who buys news ink by the boxcar".

Fox is already winning this war, and every GOP operative under the sun is likely to become a whistle blower in their defense if the WH keeps attacking the 4th estate.

You may not consider them news, you may consider them evil, but a free press is more important than any admin or any party.

There can be no democracy without a free press. Our founding Fathers were adamant about it. In fact they created the postal service explicitly to allow every and anybody who wanted to be in the news business affordable and equal distribution.

That was "every and anybody" including agenda driven news like Fox. And according to what I have read news has almost always been agenda driven in this nation. Almost every news rag that ever dominated a metro market was biased to the core. But opposing pov were also present.

Remember even liberal Molly Ivans said that the Obama admin is more intent on controlling the message than the (kings of secrecy) Bush admin was.

The WH is not thinking with a fair and balanced mind. And they will rue the day they started this if it gets carried away.

You don't mess with the 4th estate.

One thing I will agree with you on is... it is NEVER smart for politicians to get in a fight with the media. They ALWAYS loose. Oh... and the two bold statements.

 

[xsited1]

Anita Dumb finally admits what even Helen Thomas finds painfully obvious: the American media is run out of the White House

White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.” -- Helen Thomas

Better Late Than Never

FOX dug its own hole.. By giving soft interviews to republicans at election time, and by being so one sided.

The White house never said jack about trying to cut off FOX- They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS to avoid all the spin that whiny ass republicans just love to use.

Now, what is this? FOX is feeling the heat, because the conservative base is shrinking, and the liberal base is growing- and their viewing audience is diminishing? So, they take this comment from the white house calling them on how unbalanced they are, and suddenly there's a civil war all over again??

I swear, republicans will use any excuse at all to ******* start a war. Crybabies. Get over it.

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

 

[Polk]

Anita Dumb finally admits what even Helen Thomas finds painfully obvious: the American media is run out of the White House

White House boasts: We 'control' news media
Communications chief offers shocking confession to foreign government
Posted: October 18, 2009
7:11 pm Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

TEL AVIV – President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

White House boasts: We 'control' news media

“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.” -- Helen Thomas

Better Late Than Never

FOX dug its own hole.. By giving soft interviews to republicans at election time, and by being so one sided.

The White house never said jack about trying to cut off FOX- They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS to avoid all the spin that whiny ass republicans just love to use.

Now, what is this? FOX is feeling the heat, because the conservative base is shrinking, and the liberal base is growing- and their viewing audience is diminishing? So, they take this comment from the white house calling them on how unbalanced they are, and suddenly there's a civil war all over again??

I swear, republicans will use any excuse at all to ******* start a war. Crybabies. Get over it.

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

 

[Si modo]

FOX dug its own hole.. By giving soft interviews to republicans at election time, and by being so one sided.

The White house never said jack about trying to cut off FOX- They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS to avoid all the spin that whiny ass republicans just love to use.

Now, what is this? FOX is feeling the heat, because the conservative base is shrinking, and the liberal base is growing- and their viewing audience is diminishing? So, they take this comment from the white house calling them on how unbalanced they are, and suddenly there's a civil war all over again??

I swear, republicans will use any excuse at all to ******* start a war. Crybabies. Get over it.

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

 

[xsited1]

FOX dug its own hole.. By giving soft interviews to republicans at election time, and by being so one sided.

The White house never said jack about trying to cut off FOX- They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS to avoid all the spin that whiny ass republicans just love to use.

Now, what is this? FOX is feeling the heat, because the conservative base is shrinking, and the liberal base is growing- and their viewing audience is diminishing? So, they take this comment from the white house calling them on how unbalanced they are, and suddenly there's a civil war all over again??

I swear, republicans will use any excuse at all to ******* start a war. Crybabies. Get over it.

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm guessing you read something like that at a Leftist site like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Neither statement is true. The Media’s love affair with Obama started a long time ago, even back in 2006 with a Time cover story. Here's a great opinion piece which is right on the money which of course you will neither read nor understand:

The Weekend Interview With Andrew Breitbart: Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex' - WSJ.com

Have fun with your one-party rule. The rest of us call it what it is: Liberal Fascism.

 

[Polk]

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

 

[Polk]

Brainwashing complete. They are just giving controlled STATEMENTS, eh?

Obama has the support of most major news outlets and yet the White House has declared war on Fox News. Doesn't that bother you in the least? Of course it doesn't. You're an Obamabot. I swear, you folks are worse than Neocons.

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm guessing you read something like that at a Leftist site like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Neither statement is true. The Media’s love affair with Obama started a long time ago, even back in 2006 with a Time cover story. Here's a great opinion piece which is right on the money which of course you will neither read nor understand:

The Weekend Interview With Andrew Breitbart: Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex' - WSJ.com

Have fun with your one-party rule. The rest of us call it what it is: Liberal Fascism.

The media has a love affair with Obama? So that's why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers got so much coverage while McCain's connections with radicals like G. Gordon Liddy and John Hagee got no press attention whatsoever?

 

[Si modo]

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

Source?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I thought you were going for "we control the vertical, we control the horizontal" used in the Twilight Zone.

NOT!!!!!!

The Outer Limits.

 

[xsited1]

If Obama has the support of the major new outlets, why do they give Republicans more airtime and are much less critical of the claims made by Republicans?

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm guessing you read something like that at a Leftist site like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Neither statement is true. The Media’s love affair with Obama started a long time ago, even back in 2006 with a Time cover story. Here's a great opinion piece which is right on the money which of course you will neither read nor understand:

The Weekend Interview With Andrew Breitbart: Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex' - WSJ.com

Have fun with your one-party rule. The rest of us call it what it is: Liberal Fascism.

The media has a love affair with Obama? So that's why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers got so much coverage while McCain's connections with radicals like G. Gordon Liddy and John Hagee got no press attention whatsoever?

You must watch Fox News exclusively. The other networks glossed over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and slammed McCain for supporters like John Hagee. Try watching other news programs once in a while. You'll see the truth. Until then, I'm sorry you're not a troll. That can only mean one thing: you're ignorant. Get the facts.

Obama = Bush III. Somehow that's supposed to be good?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The media has a love affair with Obama? So that's why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers got so much coverage while McCain's connections with radicals like G. Gordon Liddy and John Hagee got no press attention whatsoever?

Uhhhhhhh......because the connections DIDN'T MEAN SHIT????!!!!!!!!

 

[Polk]

More airtime than what? Less critical than whom?

The other major party. The Democrats. Maybe you've heard of them?

I see you've moved beyond posting logical fallacies to posting content containing comparative adjectives without providing an actual comparison.

There has been a long documented preference for right-wingers to be give more face time on the Sunday shows for years and I've yet to see any figures that's changed.

Source?

http://mediamatters.org/static/pdf/MMFA_Sunday_Show_Report.pdf

Before screaming "it's Media Matters", it's not like they can just invent these numbers (as it would be painfully easy to disprove by looking at the records).

 

[Polk]

Now I know you're just trolling. I'm guessing you read something like that at a Leftist site like the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Neither statement is true. The Media’s love affair with Obama started a long time ago, even back in 2006 with a Time cover story. Here's a great opinion piece which is right on the money which of course you will neither read nor understand:

The Weekend Interview With Andrew Breitbart: Taking On the 'Democrat-Media Complex' - WSJ.com

Have fun with your one-party rule. The rest of us call it what it is: Liberal Fascism.

The media has a love affair with Obama? So that's why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers got so much coverage while McCain's connections with radicals like G. Gordon Liddy and John Hagee got no press attention whatsoever?

You must watch Fox News exclusively. The other networks glossed over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and slammed McCain for supporters like John Hagee. Try watching other news programs once in a while. You'll see the truth. Until then, I'm sorry you're not a troll. That can only mean one thing: you're ignorant. Get the facts.

Obama = Bush III. Somehow that's supposed to be good?

Wright and Ayers got wall to wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

mediamatters...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Why don't you just say GeorgeSoros.com

 

[xsited1]

The media has a love affair with Obama? So that's why Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers got so much coverage while McCain's connections with radicals like G. Gordon Liddy and John Hagee got no press attention whatsoever?

You must watch Fox News exclusively. The other networks glossed over Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers and slammed McCain for supporters like John Hagee. Try watching other news programs once in a while. You'll see the truth. Until then, I'm sorry you're not a troll. That can only mean one thing: you're ignorant. Get the facts.

Obama = Bush III. Somehow that's supposed to be good?

Wright and Ayers got wall to wall coverage on CNN and MSNBC.

That was before Obama got the Democratic Nomination. Prior to that, Hillary was the front-runner. Look it up.

 

[Polk]

mediamatters...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Why don't you just say GeorgeSoros.com

So do you have any disproving the numbers in question? If the numbers were wrong, one of the right-wing blogs would have something up giving a counter argument.