Just now arriving at that, Subby? Helen Thomas has been calling bullshiat on politicians for decades. Don't start admiring her when she's taking shots that happen to align with your political leanings.

FTFA: Afterwards, Thomas told CNS News that Obama's grip on the media is even greater than that of Richard Nixon


Someone just got taken off the Christmas card list.

Kyro: Just now arriving at that, Subby? Helen Thomas has been calling bullshiat on politicians for decades. Don't start admiring her when she's taking shots that happen to align with your political leanings.

You're telling subby, who wasn't even clever enough to try and hide the fact that he's doing exactly what you say not to do.

If Obama is wasting his time trying to control the media then he's apparently a complete idiot. Since it's a 100% guarantee that Fox (with their significant market presence) is going to be against every move he makes, what does he stand to gain by controlling some remaining percentage ?

Just do your damned job, because you're probably going to be out of there in 2012 and we need to gain as much ground as possible before Palin takes over and starts working her magic.

Be scared....

Be very sacred....

I've had two Green Light Submissions in a row.

Mordant: Helen is just now falling out of her "Honeymoon" phase of her political bias with the current administration.

Don't worry submitter. You can go back to hating her and calling her ugly once we get another Republican in the White House.

We should also take a moment to reinforce the important point that both sides are bad... conservative media figures give Republicans a pass AND liberal ones NEVER call out Dems.

Yep, both sides are exactly the same.

While I think there's no fire to all this smoke, Obama's going to have to rethink the practice. It's become its own story and is distracting.

This exchange is simultaneously sickening and amazing. The pathetic excuse for a WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's Minister of PropOganda) evading questions in his typical contemptuous trade mark style, while Reid and Thomas dig in not wanting to let up. You could of cut the friction with a knife.

I thought Reid was the real hero in that exchange, wouldn't accept the brush off and drove his point home.

printboy: The pathetic excuse for a WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's Minister of PropOganda)

What exactly do you think the Press Secretary's job is? No matter which party is in office, the press secretary's duties are just to spin bullshiat. Stop acting so horrified. Dana Perino and Tony Snow did the same thing. And let's not forget the king of all bullshiat, Scott McCLellan. His BS was so strong he was able to write a goddamn book about it.

Good on her. Let's see if Obama moves her out of the front row like Bush did.

/not holding my breath

Obama's attempt to circumvent and garner control of the media reeks of third-world despotism. You know it's bad when Helen Thomas is calling you out.

sigdiamond2000: Don't worry submitter. You can go back to hating her and calling her ugly once we get another Republican in the White House.

I'm sure she'll expire before that happens.

Kyro: printboy: The pathetic excuse for a WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's Minister of PropOganda)

What exactly do you think the Press Secretary's job is? No matter which party is in office, the press secretary's duties are just to spin bullshiat. Stop acting so horrified. Dana Perino and Tony Snow did the same thing. And let's not forget the king of all bullshiat, Scott McCLellan. His BS was so strong he was able to write a goddamn book about it.

You left out the king of the previous administration's spin masters, Mr. Ari Fleischer.

I can't stand Robert Gibbs' style, his pursed moth prissiness of treating unwanted questions with "you are so stupid, but I will indulge you smirk", but the guy is doing what he is supposed to do. And has been quite effective at his job, now becoming the lightning rod for any negativity that might otherwise be aimed at his boss.

Yay transparency!

not.

It's OK when Bush does it, though.

"Uh... well, heh heh, um... heh... shucks, Don, that question wudn't on th' list... hehe heh he...."

Eat shiat, republican coonts.

Kyro: And let's not forget the king of all bullshiat, Scott McCLellan. His BS was so strong he was able to write a goddamn book about it.

Scott McClellan never had nothing on Ari Fleischer. I could watch that guy spin and deflect for hours.

Also, Helen Thomas's first question to President Obama, "What are you going to do to fulfill your ideals expressed on the campaign trail? Or are you going to submit, like most presidents, just . . . try to carry out your promises that have no meaning except for how many people gave you money?"

Perhaps printboy meant the honeymooners.

/Bang! Zoom!

Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

Kyro: No matter which party is in office, the press secretary's duties are just to spin bullshiat

Yes, but this went far beyond that. For a president that went on and on about transparency the extent to which they are trying to control the media's access to Obama is laughable.

"We have never had that in the White House. I'm amazed that you people ... call for openness and transparency."

But really, the important issue is subby so let's attack them instead of the actual issue.

gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

It wasn't a joke. Perhaps you think attempting to control the press with only accepting certain questions, while disregarding others is OK, I do not. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand.

And nobody in the WH press corps realized they were being lead by the nose until now?

mmm... pancake: Yes, but this went far beyond that. For a president that went on and on about transparency the extent to which they are trying to control the media's access to Obama is laughable.

Bravo, most people are too stupid to understand that as evidenced by a few posts in this thread.

Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

She is NOT a reporter. I do not understand why she is still there.

/+1 on the point about Obama and his empty promises though.

Ball Sack Obama: gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

It wasn't a joke. Perhaps you think attempting to control the press with only accepting certain questions, while disregarding others is OK, I do not. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand.

Hopefully we can put a stop to it before the Republicans get back in and you lose some of your "concern". We'd better work fast.

Ball Sack Obama: gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

It wasn't a joke. Perhaps you think attempting to control the press with only accepting certain questions, while disregarding others is OK, I do not. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand.

I was only talking about the shiatty way you expressed your opinion, not the opinion itself, chief.

Ball Sack Obama: It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

Cries for political neutrality coming from someone named 'Ball Sack Obama'. Heh.

And so far nobody's disagreeing with you. Obama's not been nearly as transparent as he said he would. Not by a long shot. But don't act like he's the first to bring out a slimy press secretary.

Who could be stupid enough to... oh, it's Printboy. Helen Thomas doesn't give anyone a free pass, regardless of party. All you've done today is prove that my previous suspicion about you is 100% correct: you're a partisan retard.

gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

It wasn't a joke. Perhaps you think attempting to control the press with only accepting certain questions, while disregarding others is OK, I do not. I'm sorry that's so hard for you to understand.

I was only talking about the shiatty way you expressed your opinion, not the opinion itself, chief.

Oooh, "Chief." Burn.

Thomas said that the administration was trying to control the media,

No! Preposterous.

The Washington press corp are a self absorbed clique that peddles gossip and one-ups-manship.

Who the hell wouldn't expect the Administration to leverage them? They're just pissed off there's no sexy wars cheer lead.

Kyro: Ball Sack Obama: It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

Cries for political neutrality coming from someone named 'Ball Sack Obama'. Heh.

And so far nobody's disagreeing with you. Obama's not been nearly as transparent as he said he would. Not by a long shot. But don't act like he's the first to bring out a slimy press secretary.

Who said anything about political neutrality? I'm saying he's full of shiat.

Hang On Voltaire: She is NOT a reporter.



She is a battle axe for the Dems.


She did get this right however. At least someone from the press called bullshiat on them for once.

HELEN THOMAS: We have never had that in the White House. We have had some control [inaudible]. I'm amazed that you people who call for openness and transparency...

ROBERT GIBBS: You haven't even heard the questions.

CHIP REID: It doesn't matter. It's the process. Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited and who was screened or the question was screened.

GIBBS: Chip, Chip, lets have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meetings.

THOMAS: No, no, no, we're having it now.

GIBBS: Well, I'd be happy to have it now.

THOMAS: It's a pattern.

GIBBS: Which questions do you object to at the town hall meeting?

THOMAS: It's a pattern.

GIBBS: What's a pattern?

THOMAS: It's a pattern of controlling the press.

GIBBS: How so? Is there any evidence going on that I'm currently controlling the press? Poorly, I might add.

THOMAS: Your formal engagements are prepackaged.

GIBBS: How so?

REID: Well, and controlling the public.

THOMAS: How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.

GIBBS: We've had this discussion ad nauseum, and uh...

THOMAS: Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.

GIBBS: Uh, well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen.

THOMAS: Well you should have.

GIBBS: Have you emailed your question today?

THOMAS: I don't have to email. I can tell you right now what I want to say.

GIBBS: I don't doubt that at all, Helen.

REID: Actually, could you pass along a question from all of us to the president: Is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?

gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

A sphincter says what?

capnmonkey: gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

A sphincter says what?

what?

DarnoKonrad:
No! Preposterous.

The Washington press corp are a self absorbed clique that peddles gossip and one-ups-manship.

Who the hell wouldn't expect the Administration to leverage them? They're just pissed off there's no sexy wars cheer lead.

They spent all of 2008 cheerleading for Obama. They need the rest

Phil Herup: She did get this right however. At least someone from the press called bullshiat on them for once.

Her very first question to Obama was "prove to us you're not just another empty suit."

It's amazing you're just now respecting Thomas

/voted specifically for Obama's transparency, haven't been very happy with Gibbs.

gustakooka: capnmonkey: gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.

A sphincter says what?

what?

Nixon had a "grip" on the media? Somehow I don't think "grip" means what she thinks it means....or, maybe she is confused about who was "gripping" whom?

What?

museisluse: I can't stand Robert Gibbs' style, his pursed moth prissiness of treating unwanted questions with "you are so stupid, but I will indulge you smirk", but the guy is doing what he is supposed to do. And has been quite effective at his job, now becoming the lightning rod for any negativity that might otherwise be aimed at his boss.

Yeah, the first time I saw him I predicted he would be the first person in the Obama administration that "wanted to spend more time with his family."

Ball Sack Obama: mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

The teeth gnashing over this is really funny. It's not a b-b-b-Bush. There are degrees of wrong. I'm not saying this practice is correct (said so above). But when Bush drives a car through your house you it just doesn't make sense to muster the same level of outrage if Obama doesn't take his shoes off before entering.

Do Reid and Thomas have a valid reason for being in a snit? I'd say so. But then I think of what happened with Ganon and Armstrong Williams and it falls into perspective.

(CNSNews.com) - Following a testy exchange during today's briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.

"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?" Thomas said. "They're supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them."

Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

"When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you," Thomas said.

"I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well-for the town halls, for the press conferences," she said. "It's blatant. They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame." [...]

Hmmm, the party in power complaining about the party not in power complaining about perceived minor issues and details. Wow, because it's not like we didn't see this exact same thing, only in reverse, during the Bush 8, right? And during the Clinton 8 before that? Oh I know, it was totally different back then.

God. Hey, look, we hit an iceberg. Quick, start polishing those brass lighting fixtures.

mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

Only the Retards who voted for Obama actually believed that. The Democrats made their desire very clear "Anybody but Bush" they never qualified that with "Must be smarter than Bush" "Must be more ethical than Bush"

The Democratic party got exactly what it ordered... too bad they pissed away a perfect opportunity to put this country on the right track.

Ball Sack Obama: not.

Ball Sack Obama: Oooh, "Chief." Burn.

Just wanted to quote those two gems.

printboy: ...The pathetic excuse for a WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Obama's Minister of PropOganda)...

Robert Gibbels

That is all.

Dancin_In_Anson: Someone just got taken off the Christmas Ramadan card list.

FTFY.

/Secrit Muslin

Helen Thomas is a DIRTY LIB and like most LIB WOMEN she is ugly. She is not totally hot like Ann Coulter and all the other HOT CONSERVATIVE BROADS WHO LOVE REAL AMERICA. She just wants to BASH BUSH because she is an UGLY LIB filled with HATE!!!

/i already miss 2007

aurorous: Only the Retards who voted for Obama actually believed that. The Democrats made their desire very clear "Anybody but Bush" they never qualified that with "Must be smarter than Bush" "Must be more ethical than Bush"

Sir, are you insinuating that Obama is not smarter than Bush? Are you that dumb? Even Bush knows Obama is smarter than Bush, and he's a retard.

This thread is so saturated with freeper butthurt I will have to shower 5 times just to get the stank off me.

Hang On Voltaire: They spent all of 2008 cheerleading for Obama.

flagpin, ayers, arugula, wright, pledge of alliance, the bowling ally, orange juice, whole foods, obama's birth certificate, and whitey all say you're full of it.


The Washington press is garbage.

AspectRatio: It's OK when Bush does it, though.

"Uh... well, heh heh, um... heh... shucks, Don, that question wudn't on th' list... hehe heh he...."

Eat shiat, republican coonts.

The only thing a tu quoque (aka a "But Clinton" or "But Bush") can prove is that Obama and Bush are just as bad.

Kyro: What exactly do you think the Press Secretary's job is? No matter which party is in office, the press secretary's duties are just to spin bullshiat. Stop acting so horrified. Dana Perino and Tony Snow did the same thing. And let's not forget the king of all bullshiat, Scott McCLellan. His BS was so strong he was able to write a goddamn book about it.

You forgot the Master - Ari Fleischer. Man is a legend

Kyro: Just now arriving at that, Subby? Helen Thomas has been calling bullshiat on politicians for decades. Don't start admiring her when she's taking shots that happen to align with your political leanings.

Subby may not know that, since the Bush administration refused to let Helen Thomas ask questions for years. Pussies.

DarnoKonrad: Hang On Voltaire: They spent all of 2008 cheerleading for Obama.

flagpin, ayers, arugula, wright, pledge of alliance, the bowling ally, orange juice, whole foods, obama's birth certificate, and whitey all say you're full of it.


The Washington press is garbage.

They covered for him for all those things. Hell most of those were not even covered by the MSM. "It's the new Camelot!" "WOW look at her upper arms!" "He is so cool!" "They are just too competent to make fun of!"

Another benefit of the right pushing the "liberal media" crap is that whenever the media criticizes Obama, they can say "EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA is turning against him!!1!"

aurorous: too bad they pissed away a perfect opportunity to put this country on the right track

By electing whom, exactly? John "The Economy is Strong" McCain and Sarah "Europe is a Country" Palin?

Everything I came in here to say was said for me in the initial post of this thread. The attempts to politicize Helen Thomas during the Bush administration were just weak attempts at trying to paint any hard questions as partisan. There's a reason she's been doing her job for so many decades, and it isn't because she kisses anyone ass, regardless of which party they belong to.

She may be hideous and annoying to listen to, but she's one of the few real journalists out there. Obama dismisses her at his own peril.

You guys do realize that Helen Thomas is no longer a journalist, right?

And as such is less likely to be called on at press conferences, right?

Mmmk.

So Helen Thomas was the "wicked witch of the east" when she was calling out your team, but you like her now that she is taking swings at Obama?

Hypocrisy of the highest order, you has it.

Every single one of us should be demanding all the White House reporters be as critical and probing as Thomas. I voted for Obama and I'm *ecstatic* to see her doing her job on the new administration. If you repubs had an ounce of integrity you would've valued her the last eight years but instead it was easier to make fun of an elderly lady who isn't a beauty pageant queen like you're used to seeing sound out the words on Faux News.

Lenny_da_Hog: Subby may not know that, since the Bush administration refused to let Helen Thomas ask questions for years.

Wow this thread is just dripping with "B.. b.. b.. BUSH!"

I thought your guy was supposed to raise the bar; openness, transparency, and CHANGE!

GoldSpider: Lenny_da_Hog: Subby may not know that, since the Bush administration refused to let Helen Thomas ask questions for years.

Wow this thread is just dripping with "B.. b.. b.. BUSH!"

I thought your guy was supposed to raise the bar; openness, transparency, and CHANGE!

Helen Thomas is my guy?

Hang On Voltaire: they covered for him for all those things.

*snort* Whatever dude. Here:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.

mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

He is, by a metric shiatload. Don't worry, you'll see more of it over the next 7-1/2 years. If you don't die of infected butthurt.

elchip: Another benefit of the right pushing the "liberal media" crap is that whenever the media criticizes Obama, they can say "EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA is turning against him!!1!"

I don't think the press is never going to criticize Obama. They will. That doesn't make them non partisan. They also gave Bush positive coverage occasionally. However, as a whole, it is impossible not to say that the mainstream press is liberal and reports in that fashion. There is not even an argument anymore. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

Turns out Obama isn't all Rainbows and Unicorn farts like y'all expected, huh? Turns out he's a lot like Bush, huh? Deficit spending, opaque gov't, control of the media, committed to a pointless war.

If you liked Bush you're gonna LOVE Barack Obama.

the opposite of charity is justice: If you repubs had an ounce of integrity you would've valued her the last eight years but instead it was easier to make fun of an elderly lady who isn't a beauty pageant queen like you're used to seeing sound out the words on Faux News.

If they had super powers they could fly around the earth fast enough to reverse time and take us back to 2002... so what's the point of speculating about things that can't possibly happen ?

Although the time travel thing is slightly more plausible than the integrity one.

DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)

So much concern in this thread.

Subby, is Free Republic down?

/good to see such partisan hackery so out in the open

Davey Croquette: Turns out Obama isn't all Rainbows and Unicorn farts like y'all expected, huh? Turns out he's a lot like Bush, huh? Deficit spending, opaque gov't, control of the media, committed to a pointless war.

If you liked Bush you're gonna LOVE Barack Obama.

Well, there are some differences but he is just another incompetent politician

So subby, do you also now appreciate what a hypocritical partisan assclown you are?

savage henry: So much concern in this thread.

Subby, is Free Republic down?

/good to see such partisan hackery so out in the open

As opposed to the Palin thread which is full of mature political thought

GoldSpider: Lenny_da_Hog: Subby may not know that, since the Bush administration refused to let Helen Thomas ask questions for years.

Wow this thread is just dripping with "B.. b.. b.. BUSH!"

I thought your guy was supposed to raise the bar; openness, transparency, and CHANGE!

First, how can you discuss change without mentioning Bush? That's like saying in May, "It's not perfect out, but at least it's nicer than in February. It's getting better" and someone replying, "but.. but.. but.. Winter!"

Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

Thirdly, unrelated specifically to you, are people actually concerned about that whole Huffington Post/Iran question? What is the problem?

GoldSpider: Lenny_da_Hog: Subby may not know that, since the Bush administration refused to let Helen Thomas ask questions for years.

Wow this thread is just dripping with "B.. b.. b.. BUSH!"

I thought your guy was supposed to raise the bar; openness, transparency, and CHANGE!

I think the point is that Subby (who outted himself, so this should be no surprise) indicated that he's only cheering on Helen Thomas now that she's asking hard questions of Obama. Therefore said Subbs is nothing more than a partisan hypocrite.

As others have said here, it's the job of the press to smack the press secretary around and call him on bullshiat. That is gratifying to see, and it needs to be done more no matter who is in charge.

If you all had any principles left you'd see that.

If the media is overwhelmingly too prone to favoring Obama then we should go after the sources that have the highest ratings to make the most impact on the problem.

Now let me see if I can remember who has been crowing lately about the ratings of their favorite source... hmmm. Damn, I can't seem to remember who it was...

Anyone able to help me out with that ?

Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)



If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

The implication by the reporter is that you should take and answer unfiltered questions voted on by facebook?
Seriously? While not quite as bad as the questions one would get from youtube its not far off.
Hussain, when are you going to show your birth certificate?
Why havn't you blown up all of Iran yet?

A 5% difference in BC (the first dem in what, four cycles?) and GWB (Who barely won an election that was highly controversial) in positive coverage doesn't really lend a lot of credence to this "
liberal media" thing, you know.

As for Barack Obama, he was an underdog and the first Black President. of course with the increased volume of news around those two facts, you'll get more "positive" stories. (I'd be willign to wager there wasn't a choice of "neutral" stories)

And again, for those of you out there trumpeting this: For the most part, no one is horribly sad about their choice in voting. Theres no massive buyers remorse. You can stop laughing about how sad we must be that we've been duped. Given who was on the other ticket, I'd make the choice again in a heartbeat.

Hang On Voltaire:

Your graph might actually mean something if the press coverage was compared to approval ratings, but without context it's meaningless.

Hang On Voltaire: However, as a whole, it is impossible not to say that the mainstream press is liberal and reports in that fashion. There is not even an argument anymore. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

While you're over there in fantasy land, could you get me a hot redhead in a green Ferrari? I mean, since you're already deluding yourself and all...

Jairzinho: If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

I am assuming much of the 'non-positive' would be neutral, and a smaller amount would be negative.

Too lazy to click the link to find out.

Need coffee.....ggglrg

Car_Ramrod:
Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

She was allowed to ask questions in press briefings under Bush

Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)

Oh joy. A chart about a completely subjective assertion.

Next let's see kittens ranked from cutest to ugliest indexed by color.

It's bunk. I'm not blind or deaf. The media is saturated with rightwing pundits. And they've been blowharding since day one.

There was a whole month of nothing but speculation if Obama was a socialist. I'm sure that's reflected in your nice chart as well.

chipspastic: Your graph might actually mean something if the press coverage was compared to approval ratings, but without context it's meaningless.

Are the approval ratings high because of the media coverage, or is the media coverage high because of the approval ratings?

Diogenes: Do Reid and Thomas have a valid reason for being in a snit? I'd say so. But then I think of what happened with Ganon and Armstrong Williams and it falls into perspective.

Did Bush offer to make things more transparent with government and "raise the bar" and all that shiat?

B.. bu... but.... HOPE & CHANGE!

Hang On Voltaire: She was allowed to ask questions in press briefings under Bush

Although they moved her to the back and demoted her from her traditional status of asking the first question, IIRC.

This is really a new media v. old media argument about power, prestige and status. Newspapers have been given exclusive access fo so long that they believe they have some god given right to access and any changes to the status quo are viewed with suspicion.

There is about zero merit to the anger at the Huffington Post guy, who didn't pre-screen his question and asked the President something that he dodged answering. These asshats are just upset that they aren't afforded the same prestige that they have grown accustomed to.

To be fair though having hand-picked folks ask quesitons at a town hall is total BS and Obama should be called on that. It annoyed me to no end when Bush idd it and I am no happier about it under Obama.

Spanky_McFarksalot: "We have never had that in the White House. I'm amazed that you people ... call for openness and transparency."

What does she mean by "you people"??????

Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)

ROFLMAO! You do realize the irony of that piece, don't you?

Jairzinho: Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama

Or you could click the link he provided you twit.

FTFL: 37% of Obama's coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.

Shouldn't you be on a corner rallying people behind Obama's health care plan like a good sheep?

Well, there are some differences but he is just another incompetent politician

Which is excusable UNLESS you spent 7 months telling the world you were NOt just another politician. Although, Ray Charles could have seen Obama as a garden-variety hack. That America chose form over substance once again is no surprise, either.

Mordant: If the media is overwhelmingly too prone to favoring Obama then we should go after the sources that have the highest ratings to make the most impact on the problem.

It's an 'us' vs 'them' thing. Add up all the rest, does it approximate the viewership of Fox?

Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

subby , how many days did you "cheer" this guy?

elchip: chipspastic: Your graph might actually mean something if the press coverage was compared to approval ratings, but without context it's meaningless.

Are the approval ratings high because of the media coverage, or is the media coverage high because of the approval ratings?

Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

Next let's see kittens ranked from cutest to ugliest indexed by color.

there is nothing cuter than an orange cat. Named "Pumpkin"...natch.

Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

elchip: Hang On Voltaire: She was allowed to ask questions in press briefings under Bush

Although they moved her to the back and demoted her from her traditional status of asking the first question, IIRC.

I like how she was silenced for 3 years (new window)

Hang On Voltaire: Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

B..b..b..Bush!

Hang On Voltaire: Jairzinho:

If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

Don't bother comparing it to other Presidents.

Which would matter if the identity of the president was the only variable that has changed.

In the end, your chart is silly. Most importantly, what constitutes "favorable coverage" is so subjective as to render its assessment and its ability to be compared across presidents as irrelevant.

elchip:

Although they moved her to the back and demoted her from her traditional status of asking the first question, IIRC.

Yes. She writes an opinion column that I think one or two papers run.

So, let me get this straight - the "outrage" is that the White House let a reporter (the national editor) for the Huffington Post know that they would be calling on him at a press conference. Further, since the Huffington Post had been soliciting questions fo said reporter to ask from protestors in Iran, the White House KNEW that the question he would ask would be about Iran.


This is "controlling" the news how exactly? Does anyone in their right mind think that the questions that day weren't going to be primarily about Iran?

37% positive coverage on a president with a 65% approval rating.
You've sold me. Damn liberal bias.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: 1. Obama is the greatest president ever.

Who said that?

"Helen, have you been skipping out on your Kool-Aid? The Grammaton Cleric will be displeased!"

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

I sincerely doubt you learned anything today.

Car_Ramrod: First, how can you discuss change without mentioning Bush? That's like saying in May, "It's not perfect out, but at least it's nicer than in February. It's getting better" and someone replying, "but.. but.. but.. Winter!"

That's my point, there is no change in this case.

Car_Ramrod: Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

Obviously Thomas doesn't see it that way.

Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the worst president ever.
2. If he does anything the same as his predecessors, it's a tragedy and we got duped on false promises of change.
3. Bush has no relevency whatsoever.

This is fun.

chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

Hang On Voltaire: As opposed to the Palin thread which is full of mature political thought

I understand that you live on this site, so you'll forgive me if I missed a thread.

Was the Palin thread full of the hypocrisy on full display in this thread, with all the freepers cheering Helen Thomas? Are these people more lacking in memory, or shame?

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Things I've learned from this thread:

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.

Pretty much. Don't question the Obama.

BritneysSpeculum:

Which would matter if the identity of the president was the only variable that has changed.

In the end, your chart is silly. Most importantly, what constitutes "favorable coverage" is so subjective as to render its assessment and its ability to be compared across presidents as irrelevant.

Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

If Helen see's the squelching then it must be pretty bad.

But also today there is a story of the WaPo selling access to officials for lobbyists????


"WASHINGTON POST SELLS 'OFF-THE-RECORD' ACCESS TO OBAMA OFFICIALS, LAWMAKERS AND ITS OWN REPORTERS, EDITORS -- $25,000 TO $250,000...


Business as usual? For the press.

And seems business is worse under Obama....

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: First, how can you discuss change without mentioning Bush? That's like saying in May, "It's not perfect out, but at least it's nicer than in February. It's getting better" and someone replying, "but.. but.. but.. Winter!"

That's my point, there is no change in this case.

Obama is exactly the same as Bush in how he deals with openness and the press?

GoldSpider: Car_Ramrod: Second, if Thomas wasn't allowed to ask questions to the Bush administration, and she is allowed to ask questions to Obama's, isn't that indicative of a positive change towards openness?

Obviously Thomas doesn't see it that way.

Good thing I didn't ask Thomas. Unless you let her do all your thinking for you.

Shaggy_C: Mordant: If the media is overwhelmingly too prone to favoring Obama then we should go after the sources that have the highest ratings to make the most impact on the problem.

It's an 'us' vs 'them' thing. Add up all the rest, does it approximate the viewership of Fox?

Not sure. I don't have a ton of free time so I actually use Fark as an index to what news needs further attention.

So I guess the bulk of what I see comes from NewsMax, News Busters, Fox, NRO, WSJ, and the rest of the low hanging fruit that almost every "conservative" on Fark feel is the best place to get info.

I call SHENANIGANS.

Recall, if you will, what the topic was for the prepackaged answer.

Iran

Why are the reporters all in a dither? It's not like Bush Administration didn't have an iron grip on the info coming out of the White House, and Obama gets in trouble for one prepackaged question/response on an issue of international politics?

And it's not like the press doesn't ever try to troll-bait Obama into corners, trying to elicit certain responses with loaded questions anyway.

SHENANIGANS.

savage henry:

I understand that you live on this site, so you'll forgive me if I missed a thread.

Was the Palin thread full of the hypocrisy on full display in this thread, with all the freepers cheering Helen Thomas? Are these people more lacking in memory, or shame?

You would prefer that they just ignore when Helen does something they like. The friggin headline acknowledges that Helen is a partisan tool and that they never liked her.

/not subby

elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I can look but I seriously doubt that. Remember the time frame of that silly chart is the first 6 months or so of the presidency. In the first 6 months of his presidency, nearly 50% of the country thought that Bush stole the White House. Clinton had his foibles (travelgate et al) but his real decline did not come until year 2 with the debacle that was Hillarycare.

Hang On Voltaire: Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

What kind of braindead moran reads Newsweek unless they get really bored at the airport?

1. Obama is the greatest president ever.
2. If he does anything wrong it is okay because he is a politician and that is what politicians do.
3. Bush did it too so it is okay.
4. If you don't like Obama your a troll.

chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Hang On Voltaire:
I don't think the press is never going to criticize Obama. They will. That doesn't make them non partisan. They also gave Bush positive coverage occasionally. However, as a whole, it is impossible not to say that the mainstream press is liberal and reports in that fashion. There is not even an argument anymore. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.

So now the cover of Newsweek is the market indicator for all media? Why don't you show Newsweek covers from 2001?

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Jairzinho: Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama

Or you could click the link he provided you twit.

FTFL: 37% of Obama's coverage has been positive, 40% neutral and 23% negative.

Shouldn't you be on a corner rallying people behind Obama's health care plan like a good sheep?

FTFA: (The part where the graph comes from) The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed

Let's see: I said 43% but it's really 42% Positive. And I said 57% but it is really 58% (20% Positive + 38% Neutral) for non-positive. Sorry I missed for THAT MUCH! I must really be a complete biased hack for doing so! ....TWIT!

chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

They were the same (new window)

Give 'em Hell, Hellen!

Thank the gods for Helen Thomas. We as a nation desperately need a White House press room FULL of journalists like her. It's really sad that she is the exception rather than the rule.

It will be a very dark day for this nation the day she dies/retires.

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

Wow, the only president to leave office better liked than he entered was a Democrat. How about that.

chipspastic: I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.

My apologies elchip. I stand (or sit more accurately) corrected.

netcentric: If Helen see's the squelching then it must be pretty bad.

But also today there is a story of the WaPo selling access to officials for lobbyists????


"WASHINGTON POST SELLS 'OFF-THE-RECORD' ACCESS TO OBAMA OFFICIALS, LAWMAKERS AND ITS OWN REPORTERS, EDITORS -- $25,000 TO $250,000...


Business as usual? For the press.

And seems business is worse under Obama....

Don't forget... it's nonconfrontational access.

chipspastic: Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

I was only talking about their approval ratings 100 days into the presidency, which is what the "press coverage" graph was detailing. 9/11 didn't happen within Bush's first 100 days.

100 days in, Obama > Bush > Clinton.

Shaggy_C: Hang On Voltaire: Oh please. You know the tone of coverage for Obama has been worshipful. Look at the covers of Time and Newsweek the last year he is literally cast as Messianic.

What kind of braindead moran reads Newsweek unless they get really bored at the airport?

That's a crying shame... as a hardcore "Lib" it appears that Newsweek's fellation of Obama is tailor made for me, and yet I never even glance at a cover. I wonder why.

sniffle... sniffle...

What's going on here? All the usual Obama apologists and spin doctors (que Sin Doctors pics) haven't made their appearance. There must be a Palin or Fox News ELEVENTY thread going on.....

chipspastic: Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

3_Butt_Cheeks: What's going on here? All the usual Obama apologists and spin doctors (que Sin Doctors pics) haven't made their appearance. There must be a Palin or Fox News ELEVENTY thread going on.....

I heard there was a firmware upgrade for the Obots.

Coincidence?

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: elchip: chipspastic: Causation isn't the issue, correlation is. If the media coverage is significantly different than the approval rating, you could conclude that one or the other is biased.

I think Clinton's approval ratings were lower than Bush's early on.

I think I'll wait until I see some hard numbers with citations, but nice try.



You're welcome.

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Barely. Is the difference is statistically significant?

Hang On Voltaire:

You would prefer that they just ignore when Helen does something they like.

I would prefer they acknowledge their irrational hatred of her.

No chance, right?

How long until freepers resume calling for her death?

Car_Ramrod:

Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

How is it a gag? It's obviously the US arc is now for some sort of national health care system, that's liberal. The US is pro-choice, that's liberal. Against Creationism in school, again liberal. Giving gay rights in military and civil unions, that's liberal. Regulating the banking system, that's liberal. Do i really need to keep going?

elchip: chipspastic: Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

I was only talking about their approval ratings 100 days into the presidency, which is what the "press coverage" graph was detailing. 9/11 didn't happen within Bush's first 100 days.

100 days in, Obama > Bush > Clinton.

OK - maybe the press coverage doesn't match the "first 100 days" approval ratings, but they sure as hell are a better match for the overall average approval rating. So maybe press coverage is a better indicator of overall performance.

Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

chipspastic: Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Barely. Is the difference is statistically significant?

I don't know, and frankly I don't care. I did a 10 second google search for something you apparently refuse to look up yourself. Do your own legwork.

All that transcript had was Chip Reid saying "You done wrong!!! I can't cite anything, but I know you did it!!" and Gibby was just falling back on [citation needed].

Yeah, the HuffPo thing was a bit...off, but that was hardly a softball question. Come back to me when Jeff Gannon asks Obama how awesome he REALLY is.

moralpanic:

How is it a gag? It's obviously the US arc is now for some sort of national health care system, that's liberal. The US is pro-choice, that's liberal. Against Creationism in school, again liberal. Giving gay rights in military and civil unions, that's liberal. Regulating the banking system, that's liberal. Do i really need to keep going?

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group (new window)

Poll indicates more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' (new window)

I am against Creationism in school. I am for repealing don't ask/don't tell and I support civil unions. You can keep going but you are wrong so far (I know I let pesky reality get in the way).

I'd like to see a different press secretary. I'm not a fan of Gibbs, there's something off about him that's just wrong for the job, and I don't think he inspires confidence or authority. I liked Dee Dee Myers, wish Obama would bring her back.

And good on Helen, keep putting feet to the fire, no matter who is in office.

conservatives are the largest segment of the population and their favorite news source has the best ratings.

oh, AND they are utterly persecuted and have no voice in public matters.

You have to wonder how all that came to pass.

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

How is it a gag? It's obviously the US arc is now for some sort of national health care system, that's liberal. The US is pro-choice, that's liberal. Against Creationism in school, again liberal. Giving gay rights in military and civil unions, that's liberal. Regulating the banking system, that's liberal. Do i really need to keep going?

"Conservatives" Are Single-Largest Ideological Group (new window)

Poll indicates more Americans call themselves 'pro-life' (new window)

I am against Creationism in school. I am for repealing don't ask/don't tell and I support civil unions. You can keep going but you are wrong so far (I know I let pesky reality get in the way).

The first poll asked people how they self-identify, not what their actual views are. If Gallup had asked those people about their individual views, they would most certainly skew more liberal than they believe. Add to that the tar-and-feathering the term "liberal" has taken over the last century, and...

And that second poll about abortion has been called a pretty obvious outlier, meaning no other poll can replicate that result, so its methodology was flawed. Use the Google machine.

Jha: "Helen, have you been skipping out on your Kool-Aid? The Grammaton Cleric will be displeased!"

I LOL'd

Hang On Voltaire: moralpanic:

That's because REALITY is liberal to you kooks.


That old gag

And you guys have been waving the liberal media flag for what? 30 freaking years. . .you know, before you stole the idea from Truman back when he was talking about liberal Republicans. .before you re-branded neo-liberalism into conservatism.

We to go Chip and Helen!!!!

Make no mistake about it, plenty of kids are naive enough, and even more adults are dumb enough to believe these "town hall meetings" and other scripted events are actually on the up and up.

Mordant: You have to wonder how all that came to pass.

I can't nail down the 'how', but I think it happened sometime between 2001 and 2008.

Hang On Voltaire: They covered for him for all those things.

The fact that you think he needed to be "covered for" because of the flaps over arugula lettuce, dijon mustard or the whitey tape (among other things) is a more scathing indictment of you than the media.

Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

Rwa2play: Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac ability to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

FTFY

Unless you prefer the tone of this thread, in which case my response turns to: "Of course, he's history's greatest monster!"

There is a small chance, however unlikely, that this Admin's scripting of questions and mutual masterbation between them and the press could be thawing.

I wouldn't count on it though.

The Why Not Guy: Hang On Voltaire: They covered for him for all those things.

The fact that you think he needed to be "covered for" because of the flaps over arugula lettuce, dijon mustard or the whitey tape (among other things) is a more scathing indictment of you than the media.

Welcome to the world of grown-ups where ones actions have consequences. All the little paste eaters who jumped on board for all the BS crap about lettuce and mustard and kenyan socialist bogeymen are now going to be taken as seriously as they deserve for having done so.

If anyone doesn't like that and wants to be taken seriously instead then perhaps they should look at themselves to see what they need to change.

Of course the people who need to hear that are probably busy frantically submitting "OMFG !! HOPEYCHANGEY!!!" headlines linking to NewsMax right now, so they won't hear it.

Car_Ramrod: chipspastic: Can you correct for the bias created by 9/11? Didn't think so.

How about looking at the damn graph and seeing where they both started off. Bush started as higher than Clinton did.

Barely. Is the difference is statistically significant?

I don't know, and frankly I don't care. I did a 10 second google search for something you apparently refuse to look up yourself. Do your own legwork.

I did the same search and found the same graphs before they were posted, but when anyone makes claims like that, they should be able to back them up.

printboy: Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.

"When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you," Thomas said.


And then the Huffington post asked an extremely tough question.

Subby is a callow shiat for brains it seems.

Helen is primarily upset at the fact that a blogger was called on at a presidential press conference. She's been a gadfly for years, but it doesn't mean she can't have an inflated sense of self-worth and a desire to protect her exalted status as a member of the White House press corps.

Her comments are solely about protecting her turf from dirty outsiders who don't deserve to ask the president questions.

Jairzinho: Hang On Voltaire: DarnoKonrad:

Do not go gentle into that good night, Voltaire. Never let that liberal media lie die in the light. Rage, rage against the dying of the Right.



Source (new window)

The Obama infatuation is a great unreported story of our time. Has any recent president basked in so much favorable media coverage? Well, maybe John Kennedy for a moment, but no president since. On the whole, this is not healthy for America. (new window)



If I'm reading that chart correctly, around 43% of Obama's coverage is positive. That means that around 57% is non-positive. Damn! You convinced me, OMG! the press is in bed with Obama!

I assume there's a "neutral" choice.

You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

ebonic pickle: Helen is primarily upset at the fact that a blogger was called on at a presidential press conference. She's been a gadfly for years, but it doesn't mean she can't have an inflated sense of self-worth and a desire to protect her exalted status as a member of the White House press corps.

Her comments are solely about protecting her turf from dirty outsiders who don't deserve to ask the president questions.

Ummmm, no. The scripted "town hall" meetings are where the dirty 'outsiders' hand picked by Barack's people get to ask questions.

Libs see Huffpo as legit.

Car_Ramrod: Rwa2play: Wait a sec (and with all due respect to Helen Thomas), the WH press corps didn't have the nutsac to call out the Bush Administration for doing the same thing but now that Obama's the President they have the nutsac ability to say so?

WH Press Corps = Chickens**t.

FTFY

Unless you prefer the tone of this thread, in which case my response turns to: "Of course, he's history's greatest monster!"

My apologies.

The WH Press Corps are just a bunch of cowards anyway.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

I know. I personally just ordered 17 pallets of Newsweek issues so I can be constantly exposed to the media glow about Obama on my way to the next Town Hall meeting that I have been attending religiously since January after cursing Bush for years over them.

Haha, funny how subby is all up in arms about the White House and the press now that it's Obama. And so he's cheering on Helen Thomas, who was relegated to ghetto status by the previous administration so she wouldn't raise a fuss...

..when they did things like bring a male prostitute in as a "journalist" to lob softball questions at Bush. How can Thomas possibly say it's gotten worse than that?

Ball Sack Obama: mmm... pancake: Holy crap, this thread has gone into "B-b-but Bush!!!!!" overdrive. When did the Bush administration become the new standard of excellence for Obama? I thought this guy was going to be BETTER than the last guy.

It's all they've got. There's no defending this bullshiat.

Just like there was no defense for when Bush was doing it, yet when folks were screaming then, it was the republicans attempting to defend him just as the democrats attempt to defend Obama now.

You're all farking ignorant sheep.

JokerMattly: Given who was on the other ticket, I'd make the choice again in a heartbeat.

and THIS

If any of you actually think Sarah Palin should get anywhere remotely near that much power, I shudder for our future. My bias against her has very little to do with her religious nuttiness (I was raised Catholic - went to church twice a week), but more becuase of her sheer idiocy and lame attempts to capitalize on "America is never wrong patriots."

/republican
//voted for Obama

Helen Thomas has been awesome since the early 17th century.

Klingon Penis: Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

I beleive the canned response to your statement is: I thought there was CHANGE. Huuurrrrr.

Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

Subby apparently has not followed Helen Thomas' career very closely. He probably heard Limbaugh call her a librul a few years back, and believed it without question. Next time do your homework, subby, and you won't embarrass yourself so much.

As for the objection, I have zero problem with coordinating questions, or telling the press who will be called on. It's just more orderly. Chip Reid did accuse them of screening the questions, and if that's true, then that's way the fark out of line. I'd be interested to see if he has evidence of that. And if so, he should present it and shame the administration into knocking it the fark off.

aurorous: hey never qualified that with "Must be smarter than Bush" "Must be more ethical than Bush"

Yeah...uh...you could pretty much swing a dead cat and hit someone with those qualifications, dude. Or do you have amnesia?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

That is interesting. I wonder where Obama will be at in 2012 and 2016.

ayenull: Klingon Penis: Would it end the WHARRGARBL in this thread if I told you all that this has been going on in Presidential press conferences forever? That is, pre-selecting the questioner (but not the question).

Yes, b-b-b-but Bush did it. Now you can have the discussion of whether the practice is right or wrong.

You will notice that that practice is not extended to White House daily pressers with Robert Gibbs, as this exchange shows.

(And for the millionth time, news is only something that should be "busted" if you're a propagandist.)

I beleive the canned response to your statement is: I thought there was CHANGE. Huuurrrrr.

Most people tend not to respond to his usual teen angst ridden wharrrgarbl. Hurrr. Eleventy. Durrrr. Et al.

Rwa2play: My apologies.

The WH Press Corps are just a bunch of cowards anyway.

We're in agreement there. No matter who is in power, they are embarassing, with exceptions few and far between.

AspectRatio: It's OK when Bush does it, though.

"Uh... well, heh heh, um... heh... shucks, Don, that question wudn't on th' list... hehe heh he...."

Eat shiat, republican coonts.

Why do some of you people think Democrats can't disagree with Obama? I voted for a President, not a tool that needs to rely on Huffington Post to ask tough, un-biased questions. You're worse than any of the Republicans when it comes to partisanship.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

Clearly, the dopes who can't see obvious differences and go with the "both parties are duh same, hurrrr" are still around, too.

This is retarded having the press selected the night before is somehow a lot worse than pre-selecting them that day?
I can see complaining that the press should not be selected at all it should be a random lottery but to pretend when the selection process is done is somehow "controlling the media", is stupid.

Come on press ask things like:

Don't ask don't tell, policy.

Is there further budget cuts?

How things are going in Afghanistan.

Start asking real question instead of your little bullshiat "gotchas".

They are too busy with their gotcha games catching people in things that don't actually make any difference.


We have 2 wars and an economic crisis but the most important things is WHEN press people are selected?

678583: Why do some of you people think Democrats can't disagree with Obama? I voted for a President, not a tool that needs to rely on Huffington Post to ask tough, un-biased questions on the behalf of someone in Iran because they've done a great job covering the situation on the ground over there. You're worse than any of the Republicans when it comes to partisanship.

Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

...despite of Monica, Waco, Elian, Oklahoma City, the Cole and a backstabbing Congress. Now imagine if he had had an artifical push like W did with 9/11.

Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!



Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Corvus: This is retarded having the press selected the night before is somehow a lot worse than pre-selecting them that day?
I can see complaining that the press should not be selected at all it should be a random lottery but to pretend when the selection process is done is somehow "controlling the media", is stupid

/this. The press is just pissed because bloggers are getting asked questions now.

HOWEVER, Chip Reid also accused the administration of prescreeing questions. If this is true, then this is very very wrong.

chaoswolf: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Interesting...

Clinton is the only president in 50 years to leave office with higher approval rating than he started with.

That is interesting. I wonder where Obama will be at in 2012 and 2016.

I figure it would have been higher if not for the scandal. Most people love a good drama, but don't actually care about who puts what body part into/onto whoever else when it comes to the polls. So while the scandal probably muted his popularity, it didn't hurt it enough to cancel out the stock market boom.

Clinton was lucky to preside over such a huge boom. Just like Bush was unlucky to get caught in the inevitable contraction.

That said, I firmly believe Bush actively made things much worse than it should have been.

Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

eddiesocket: HOWEVER, Chip Reid also accused the administration of prescreeing questions. If this is true, then this is very very wrong.


Yes for the public forum!

Do you really want "President Obama your a socialist, and ACORN is trying to take over America!,,, (30 mins)"

Do you want that at the health forum?

Everyone would pre-screen a forums questions. You don't want 90% loon questions that have nothing to do with healthcare.

You do think that's a good idea?

swahnhennessy: While you're over there in fantasy land, could you get me a hot redhead in a green Ferrari?


Does Ferrari even sell green?

Why would you want a green Ferrari?

678583: Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

I was so busy cursing Bush for being a Dutch illegal immigrant who spilled Dijonnaise on a fraudulent copy of his birth certificate that I don't remember where I stood on the important issues about his Presidency.

678583: Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

So what exactly is your problem with the Huffington Post "incident"?

How about you go into some threads about Obama not immediately revoking DOMA or DADT and look at all the lefties disagreeing with the President and being disappointed with him not keeping campaign promises (yet). There's no cognitive dissonance there. I'm not sure what you are having an issue with. Should we get outraged at everything the opposition tells us to so we can avoid claims of bias?

Corvus: Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

GEORGE BUSH'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR!!1!!

JESUS farkING CHRIST!!!111111111111111111111111111

678583: Car_Ramrod: Many Democrats/liberals/progressives/whatever disagree with the President on some things, but nothing as stupid as this.

That's a nice way to completely avoid my point. The amount of cognitive dissonance some of you guys display is incredibly, I'm amazed your heads don't explode. Did we not just get done berating Bush for being such a moronic tool, not keeping campaign promises, and generally being a non-transparent liar? Yet when Obama does the same thing, people refuse to acknowledge it and just start rambling about Bush and the evil Republicans and how "teh stupid is rampant blah blah". Whatever, it's no use.

Didn't Huffington post have on there website they were going to have the Iranian ask a question?

I thought it was public knowledge.

Is anyone suggesting the question was planted? I have never heard anyone suggest this.

printboy: Be scared....

Be very sacred....

I've had two Green Light Submissions in a row.

Mordant: Helen is just now falling out of her "Honeymoon" phase of her political bias with the current administration.

> I think she fell out of the Honeymoon phase in January when she expected this admin would completely pull out of the middle east, only to be sitting there with such a heart broken look while Gibbs told the WHPC that they were sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the only thing she could keep saying was "why?".

> I don't really think the guy is trying to control the media, as it's been gotten at already on this thread, with Fox, talk radio, and the internet it isn't like he's going to be able to hide/skate with much of anything. All the staging and everything goes back to the teleprompoter issue. The guy is charismatic as all get out, but only when he's reading/reciting something that was scripted. Whenever he tries to go off the cuff, he makes George jr.'s blunders look tame.

Are you guys retarded, the white house wanted a question from the Iranian people, they knew the huffington post was in contact with people in the Iranian population and asked them to field a question from them. This is just a case of the old media getting it's panties in a wad because some blog got to ask the second question.

Have you ever listened to the questions Jeff Ganon asked Bush, compared to the actually hard questions proposed by the Huffington post, you would freaking laugh at this crap.

Car_Ramrod: Should we get outraged at everything the opposition tells us to so we can avoid claims of bias?

I'm actually hiring someone to call me anytime Nemo submits an article and I'm not logged in to Fark. That way I can rush over and express appropriate outrage before being accused of being a coward or being so biased. It'll be expensive, but it's worth it.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Corvus: Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

GEORGE BUSH'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR!!1!!

JESUS farkING CHRIST!!!111111111111111111111111111

HEY RETARD, I WAS RESPONDING TO HIM SAYING THEY WERE THE SAME. MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ THE POINT BEFORE REACTING!


DUMBASS!


If your too stupid to read the context DO NOT REPLY!!!!

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Corvus: Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.


GEORGE BUSH'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR!!1!!

JESUS farkING CHRIST!!!111111111111111111111111111

First off, they make decaf coffee now. Seriously.

Second, what is wrong with Obama's behavior? Specifics, please.

Third, when people are decrying Obama, saying, "I thought he was promising CHANGE?!?!?!?!", how is it inappropriate to mention the behavior of his predecessor to demonstrate the change that has occured?

Corvus: eddiesocket: HOWEVER, Chip Reid also accused the administration of prescreeing questions. If this is true, then this is very very wrong.


Yes for the public forum!

Do you really want "President Obama your a socialist, and ACORN is trying to take over America!,,, (30 mins)"

Do you want that at the health forum?

Everyone would pre-screen a forums questions. You don't want 90% loon questions that have nothing to do with healthcare.

You do think that's a good idea?

I assumed he meant they were screening questions from reporters. The implication being that they wouldn't let you ask if they were too tough.

Corvus:
If your too stupid to read the context DO NOT REPLY!!!!

your stupid!

liquidred: All the staging and everything goes back to the teleprompoter issue. The guy is charismatic as all get out, but only when he's reading/reciting something that was scripted. Whenever he tries to go off the cuff, he makes George jr.'s blunders look tame.

*facepalm*

Mordant: Car_Ramrod: Should we get outraged at everything the opposition tells us to so we can avoid claims of bias?

I'm actually hiring someone to call me anytime Nemo submits an article and I'm not logged in to Fark. That way I can rush over and express appropriate outrage before being accused of being a coward or being so biased. It'll be expensive, but it's worth it.

I have a program installed that automatically posts "LOL, you thought you were getting change!" in any thread where "Obama" is mentioned in the headline.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Corvus: Call me when Obama calls on a planted gay prostitute as a "reporter" and then we'll talk ok?

Until then STFU with the "they are both the same" BS.

I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

GEORGE BUSH'S OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE EQUAL OBAMA'S BUSH'S SHIATTY BEHAVIOR!!1!!

JESUS farkING CHRIST!!!111111111111111111111111111

There ya go.

liquidred: > I think she fell out of the Honeymoon phase in January when she expected this admin would completely pull out of the middle east, only to be sitting there with such a heart broken look while Gibbs told the WHPC that they were sending more troops to Afghanistan, and the only thing she could keep saying was "why?".

I agree it's like Helen Thomas is heart broken Obama didn't do all this crap he never said he would do in the first place.

He said he was going to put more troops in Afghanistan before the election and she acted all shocked when he did.

Even with the overwhelming high amount of knobslobbering, fawning coverage Obama gets, his Obamabot supporters still can't deal with any negative story about him or his administration... it's amazing. Just the attacks on the subby for his headline are enough to prove my point.

The question Reid asked was completely legitimate, and fat-boy Gibbs did a horrible job of trying to dodge it.

Car_Ramrod: liquidred: All the staging and everything goes back to the teleprompoter issue. The guy is charismatic as all get out, but only when he's reading/reciting something that was scripted. Whenever he tries to go off the cuff, he makes George jr.'s blunders look tame.

Dumbest thing said so far, in this thread. Congrats.

eddiesocket: I assumed he meant they were screening questions from reporters. The implication being that they wouldn't let you ask if they were too tough.

I agree that could be a problem. But they did seem to also complain that the public forum screened questions which is just retarded not to.

Has anyone told them a question and then was not called upon?

It's one of those things where Obama admin wanted to help so they didn't have to say "I'll check with the president and get back to you" and basically now the press is attacking them for it.

The Obama should realize that any change made with the press they will look on with skepticism and complain about it, no matter if it is helpful.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Corvus:
If your too stupid to read the context DO NOT REPLY!!!!

your stupid!

run along and let the grown ups talk.

Astralwand: Are you guys retarded, the white house wanted a question from the Iranian people, they knew the huffington post was in contact with people in the Iranian population and asked them to field a question from them. This is just a case of the old media getting it's panties in a wad because some blog got to ask the second question.

Have you ever listened to the questions Jeff Ganon asked Bush, compared to the actually hard questions proposed by the Huffington post, you would freaking laugh at this crap.

THIS

Jeff Gannon to Bush: "Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And (Senator) Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work - you've said you are going to reach out to these people - how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?"

Nico Petney to Obama on behalf of some Iranians: "Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working for?"

Added for reference.

Also we don't know how many times Petney has visited the WH after hours for other services.

But Helen, Chip, you voted for 'Hope and Change'...what exactly did you think that meant? This IS change and you'd better darn sight get used to it!

It is also ironic that a reporter complains that all question could be pre-screened asking a non-prescreened question.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: GEORGE BUSH'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR!!1!!



Yes it does. Yes....It....Does!!!
OMFG....Obama!!! Harvard!!!!

Corvus: I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bush never claimed that things would be different and that he'd raise the bar and provide "transparency," either. You were duped when you threw your faith behind the piece of shiat we have in office now. Admit it.

Phil Herup: amazing_live_seamonkeys: GEORGE BUSH'S BEHAVIOR DOES NOT EXCUSE OBAMA'S BEHAVIOR!!1!!



Yes it does. Yes....It....Does!!!
OMFG....Obama!!! Harvard!!!!

I never said It did either.

Keep fighting those windmills.

Corvus: I never said It did either.


I was not referring to you. Just the mindless.

Ball Sack Obama: Corvus: I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bush never claimed that things would be different and that he'd raise the bar and provide "transparency," either. You were duped when you threw your faith behind the piece of shiat we have in office now. Admit it.

Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
"We will use these good times for great goals,"
"We will confront the hard issues."
"I'm uniter, not a divider"
"They had their chance. They have not led. We will."
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be."
"He (Gore) believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."
..etc,etc.

Phil Herup: Just the mindless.

This coming from you?

Wow.

Jairzinho: Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
"We will use these good times for great goals,"
"We will confront the hard issues."
"I'm uniter, not a divider"
"They had their chance. They have not led. We will."
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be."
"He (Gore) believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."
..etc,etc.

You forgot "I want to restore honor and integrity at the White House."

choice and consequence: I thought Reid was the real hero in that exchange, wouldn't accept the brush off and drove his point home.

This

mmm... pancake: Obama's attempt to circumvent and garner control of the media reeks of third-world despotism. You know it's bad when Helen Thomas is calling you out.

AND this.

I'm no big fan of Helen, but good for her.

I watched this yesterday without any preconceived notions. I hadn't any idea what the topic of the meet was - my boss said, hey, come here, watch this (YouTube, I think). My impressions were:

1) The WH press secretary, Gibbs, is a gladhanding sack of sh*t. He needs to wipe that arrogant smirk off his face. And if he insisted on them sending him crap by email one more time, if I were there, I would have smacked him from here to... well... Iran. He wants the press to turn against the administration? Keep being condescending and arrogant.

2) Reid was correct in holding the line. Gibbs was blowing him off, and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same as Reid if I were in his shoes.

3) Say what you will, but as was mentioned upthread, you piss off Helen Thomas at your own peril, no matter who you are, no matter your political leanings. Whether she's still a journalist or not, whatever your opinion, that woman has strings that many politicians envy.

4) If the point that Reid and Thomas were pressing - about controlling the press - is true, then things are at a pretty pass. And it's going to get worse. People are naive to think this hasn't been the case since Day One, though. Obama IS a well oiled PR machine, from the day he exploded on the scene to now and then into the future. I don't know why they're miffed now.

These press conferences should be interesting to watch in the months to come.

That said, the honeymoon is over.

//shoves popcorn into microwave
/no buttah!!

Jairzinho: Ball Sack Obama: Corvus: I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bush never claimed that things would be different and that he'd raise the bar and provide "transparency," either. You were duped when you threw your faith behind the piece of shiat we have in office now. Admit it.

Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
"We will use these good times for great goals,"
"We will confront the hard issues."
"I'm uniter, not a divider"
"They had their chance. They have not led. We will."
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be."
"He (Gore) believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."
..etc,etc.

I missed the "transparency" and "raising the bar" part. Applying the "logic" given so far in this thread, he didn't get BJs from an intern and lie about it to the nation and to a grand jury so he actually improved upon what his predecessor did while he was in office.

You were duped.

Ball Sack Obama: Applying the "logic" given so far in this thread, he didn't get BJs from an intern and lie about it to the nation and to a grand jury so he actually improved upon what his predecessor did while he was in office.

Your priorities are puzzling.

the opposite of charity is justice
Every single one of us should be demanding all the White House reporters be as critical and probing as Thomas. I voted for Obama and I'm *ecstatic* to see her doing her job on the new administration. If you repubs had an ounce of integrity you would've valued her the last eight years but instead it was easier to make fun of an elderly lady who isn't a beauty pageant queen like you're used to seeing sound out the words on Faux News.

Well said.

Oh, and:

Ball Sack Obama:
Bush never claimed that things would be different

Jairzinho:
Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."

So there's that. Which is fun.

AspectRatio: It's OK when Bush does it, though.

"Uh... well, heh heh, um... heh... shucks, Don, that question wudn't on th' list... hehe heh he...."

Eat shiat, republican coonts.

"Change" farktard.

Ontos: choice and consequence: I thought Reid was the real hero in that exchange, wouldn't accept the brush off and drove his point home.

This

mmm... pancake: Obama's attempt to circumvent and garner control of the media reeks of third-world despotism. You know it's bad when Helen Thomas is calling you out.

AND this.

I'm no big fan of Helen, but good for her.

Yea, she's a disgusting troll, but that exchange was priceless. I must say I'm surprised she of all people would finally be the one to call out this Administration's press manipulation.

Who knew!

Christ on a cracker, if you guys spent as much time doing something about the farkin' economy as you did yelling about which reporter is a dirty lib or a fox flunkie, you'd have..

um..


no, you probably wouldn't. Never mind.

AspectRatio: "Europe is a Country" Palin?

How many states does Obama think there are again? 57?

Hoopido: AspectRatio: "Europe is a Country" Palin?

How many states does Obama think there are again? 57?

I love this game.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Hoopido: AspectRatio: "Europe is a Country" Palin?

How many states does Obama think there are again? 57?

I love this game.

Here's the funny thing, with Obama pretty much everyone with the exception of the most virulent freeper knew that Obama misspoke. With regard to Palin, who actually said that Africa was a county, pretty much everyone, again with the exception of the freepers, knew that she actually thought that Africa was one big country.

Car_Ramrod: Oh, and:

Ball Sack Obama:
Bush never claimed that things would be different

Jairzinho:
Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."

So there's that. Which is fun.

Oh, he said the word "change?" Omifarkingod

Astralwand: Are you guys retarded, the white house wanted a question from the Iranian people, they knew the huffington post was in contact with people in the Iranian population and asked them to field a question from them. This is just a case of the old media getting it's panties in a wad because some blog got to ask the second question.

Have you ever listened to the questions Jeff Ganon asked Bush, compared to the actually hard questions proposed by the Huffington post, you would freaking laugh at this crap.

This.

How many people from the press actually took the time to actually field a question straight from Iran? Obama felt that was rather important at the time. It was rather well known that Nico was doing a better job covering this story than our traditional press. He didn't know what Nico was going to ask, just that it was coming straight from Iran.

Personally, I don't mind that he did something like that in that situation. It was needed. I think the press just needs to get their panties out of a wad and do their damn jobs in situations like Iran. They did a horrible job covering it, so what makes you think they had great questions to ask?

/goes back to lurking

Ball Sack Obama: Car_Ramrod: Oh, and:

Ball Sack Obama:
Bush never claimed that things would be different

Jairzinho:
Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."

So there's that. Which is fun.

My bad, I guess I was wrong. I'm glad someone pointed it out so I don't look stupid in future threads.

That's very gracious of you.

Ball Sack Obama: Bush never claimed that things would be different

Did you really say that???? That has gotta be the dumbest thing ever said here and that is going far. Every politician says that things will be different if you elect him. If he didn't say that people can justifiably ask why to vote for him. Even Bush 1 said he would changes thing after Saint Ronnie.

Klingon Penis: Russky: You can pretty much change Obama to Bush and you have the Fark threads from years ago.

The greatest part is watching one side condemn the other side for the same thing they were doing for 8 years. Of course the side that was complaining for 8 years is now doing the same thing they were complaining about as well. CLASSIC!

Clearly, the dopes who can't see obvious differences and go with the "both parties are duh same, hurrrr" are still around, too.

There are similarities, i didn't say they were exactly the same in every facet.

Of course it's easier to pigeonhole someone that way, instead of discussing it like an adult.

Your right Obama should have all his "Town Hall Meetings" on military bases. The word transparency lost its meaning a long time ago.

Ball Sack Obama: Car_Ramrod: Oh, and:

Ball Sack Obama:
Bush never claimed that things would be different

Jairzinho:
Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."

So there's that. Which is fun.

Oh, he said the word "change?" Omifarkingod

So... you're not going to bother pretending or claiming to be independent or neutral then ? Good, since you obviously took the time to create a new persona just for this purpose anyway.

Enjoy yourself.

madcow66: Your right Obama should have all his "Town Hall Meetings" on military bases.

or have Loyalty Oaths required to attend.

/I hope no one steals MY idea

Anyways...I don't really care about canned QnA's...I just hate Robert Gibbs. He's a smarmy, peckerwood lookin guy. Always has a smirk or sneer on his face, I wanna kick him in da nertz...I'd kick Helen in her nertz, too...but the 40lb pair she carries around would break a toe.

gustakooka: Ball Sack Obama: Yay transparency!

not.

-10 internets for a "not" joke.


Your quotation marks should have been around joke, as not-jokes are not jokes.

mmm... pancake: Obama's attempt to circumvent and garner control of the media reeks of third-world despotism. You know it's bad when Helen Thomas is calling you out.

Why? Helen Thomas has been calling people out for as long as I can remember. She's never been easy on this administration.

See, i must be crazy.
My understanding was they were calling reporters before events, saying "We're going to call on you" giving them a topic, and having the person come up with a question to submit.

They're not saying "come up with something better" they're telling them this is the topic we want you to cover. Like having the HuffPo reporter give an Iran question, but not "this is the question you'll ask: does iran suck?"

Hoopido: AspectRatio: "Europe is a Country" Palin?

How many states does Obama think there are again? 57?

Yup.

And he's president of all of them. Suck it.

BritneysSpeculum: Ball Sack Obama: Bush never claimed that things would be different

Did you really say that???? That has gotta be the dumbest thing ever said here and that is going far. Every politician says that things will be different if you elect him. If he didn't say that people can justifiably ask why to vote for him. Even Bush 1 said he would changes thing after Saint Ronnie.

"B... b... but Bush"

Anyone remember that movie where Helen Thomas tries to steal a sleeping Drew Barrymore's breathe only to get taken out by her pet cat?

MickCollins: Anyone remember that movie where Helen Thomas tries to steal a sleeping Drew Barrymore's breathe only to get taken out by her pet cat?



LULZ





I loved how they found little pieces of it after it hit the fan. Good stuff.

Ball Sack Obama: "B... b... but Bush"

No -- B...B...but Bush I.

BritneysSpeculum: Ball Sack Obama: "B... b... but Bush"

No -- B...B...but Bush I.

This thread is about Obama's bullshiat "transparency" being blown full of holes. Try as you might, and obfuscate all you'd like, but you cannot change that the whole "Hope and Change" stuff was a load of shiat.

Ball Sack Obama: This thread is about Obama's bullshiat "transparency" being blown full of holes. Try as you might, and obfuscate all you'd like, but you cannot change that the whole "Hope and Change" stuff was a load of shiat.

And try as you might, you can't overcome the fact that you suggested that Bush also did not promise change. In saying that, you looked like a dumb ass. Aside from that, this issue really is more about old media v. new media, not about the administration trying to hide anything. There was a great article on Obama's use of this tension recently here: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/wolff200907. I recommend you read it.

As others have pointed out, there was no coordination between the administration and the HuffPost, except to ensure that an Iranian had a chance to ask a question. It is not like Roger Ailes coming to the White House to coordinate and advise on how Fox News should cover post-9/11 ceremonies.

Ball Sack Obama: This thread is about Obama's bullshiat "transparency" being blown full of holes. Try as you might, and obfuscate all you'd like, but you cannot change that the whole "Hope and Change" stuff was a load of shiat.

And you cannot change the fact that a black man in the White House enrages you.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ball Sack Obama: This thread is about Obama's bullshiat "transparency" being blown full of holes. Try as you might, and obfuscate all you'd like, but you cannot change that the whole "Hope and Change" stuff was a load of shiat.

And you cannot change the fact that a black man in the White House enrages you.

racist and ignored troll is racist?

Mandatory: Stephen Colbert vs. Helen Thomas

Dr. Mojo PhD: Ball Sack Obama: This thread is about Obama's bullshiat "transparency" being blown full of holes. Try as you might, and obfuscate all you'd like, but you cannot change that the whole "Hope and Change" stuff was a load of shiat.

And you cannot change the fact that a black man in the White House enrages you.



That is quite an intellectually dishonest thing to take out of that. Not one single inkling of racism could ever be taken from that post.

-50 for race baiting

plus




You earned 4 Al Sharpton heads. That is not easy to achieve.

Phil Herup:
You earned 4 Al Sharpton heads. That is not easy to achieve.

Must've been good to make Phil give Al Sharpton head

s.

Ball Sack Obama: Jairzinho: Ball Sack Obama: Corvus: I never complained Bush selected the press members like people are now complaining for Obama, I DID complain when they were not real press and were plants and just there to ask bullshiat question.

So there is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Bush never claimed that things would be different and that he'd raise the bar and provide "transparency," either. You were duped when you threw your faith behind the piece of shiat we have in office now. Admit it.

Candidate Bush:
"I want to change the tone of Washington to one of civility and respect."
"We will use these good times for great goals,"
"We will confront the hard issues."
"I'm uniter, not a divider"
"They had their chance. They have not led. We will."
"I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be."
"He (Gore) believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders."
..etc,etc.

I missed the "transparency" and "raising the bar" part. Applying the "logic" given so far in this thread, he didn't get BJs from an intern and lie about it to the nation and to a grand jury so he actually improved upon what his predecessor did while he was in office.

You were duped.

You assume that those of us who voted for Obama were ONLY voting for him based on "transparency" and "raising the bar." Not quite - and But good job building that strawman.

Considering that 65% of Americans (about 13% more than actually voted for him) think he's doing a good job, I'd say that you're the dupe for believing the Fox noise.

And your "logic" is backward. I'd say that a BJ in the Oval Office is preferable to unprovoked war on false pretenses.

Lying about a hummer is one thing. Lying about a war is something else completely.

rufus-t-firefly: I'd say that you're the dupe for believing the Fox noise.

And your "logic" is backward. I'd say that a BJ in the Oval Office is preferable to unprovoked war on false pretenses.

Lying about a hummer is one thing. Lying about a war is something else completely.



You qualify for moonbat school.

Phil Herup: rufus-t-firefly: I'd say that you're the dupe for believing the Fox noise.

And your "logic" is backward. I'd say that a BJ in the Oval Office is preferable to unprovoked war on false pretenses.

Lying about a hummer is one thing. Lying about a war is something else completely.



You qualify for moonbat school.

Because he admits that the Bush administration put forth a massive quantity of false information in an attempt to sway public opinion about the invasion of Iraq?

You must think that those people that say the earth goes around the sun are also insane.

chaoswolf: Because he admits that the Bush administration put forth a massive quantity of false information in an attempt to sway public opinion about the invasion of Iraq?



How many nations and the UN were behind the invasion?

They were all duped? Sorry.

Phil Herup: chaoswolf: Because he admits that the Bush administration put forth a massive quantity of false information in an attempt to sway public opinion about the invasion of Iraq?



How many nations and the UN were behind the invasion?

They were all duped? Sorry.

No one was duped by the lies. Those that joined the "coalition of the willing" did so for reasons (financial/ideological) of their own. No one with half a brain ever believed Iraq had WMD or Saddam was linked to bin Laden.

But it's obvious that you've been downing the koolaid for a while, so I'll leave it at that, Phil.

F*ck Helen Thomas and f*ck the press.

For eight years they sat there and took it and now they want to complain?

They should've never stopped doing their job back then and maybe they'd have some credibility.

Hang On Voltaire: elchip: Another benefit of the right pushing the "liberal media" crap is that whenever the media criticizes Obama, they can say "EVEN THE LIBERAL MEDIA is turning against him!!1!"

I don't think the press is never going to criticize Obama. They will. That doesn't make them non partisan. They also gave Bush positive coverage occasionally. However, as a whole, it is impossible not to say that the mainstream press is liberal and reports in that fashion. There is not even an argument anymore. You are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts

Prove it. I want concrete proof of this "liberal media". I'm pretty sure you don't actually have any.

BTW, it would help make their case if they made a coherent point. They're complaining about openness and transparency because people are pre-submitting questions? Seriously? Do they want 2 hours of "I..don't...trust him... he's an arab" bullshiat like we had during McCain's town halls? Seriously?

Pre-submitting questions is so we can cut through the bullshiat. This is whining. What legitimate question has actually been dodged? Anybody?

Just now realizing they are being used like puppets. What a bunch of dopes.

chaoswolf: But it's obvious that you've been downing the koolaid for a while, so I'll leave it at that, Phil.



Mmmm Hmmmm


I've said numerous times the real reasons they went to Iraq, and why it is good that we did.

The only Kool-Aid I drink is internal combustion flavor

Phil Herup: chaoswolf: But it's obvious that you've been downing the koolaid for a while, so I'll leave it at that, Phil.



Mmmm Hmmmm

Wow. I only hope someone close to you died in the war.

I've said numerous times the real reasons they went to Iraq, and why it is good that we did.

The only Kool-Aid I drink is internal combustion flavor

eddiesocket: Wow. I only hope someone close to you died in the war.


No hate like liberal hate... it rings true consistently.


You hope someone died?

You definitely should go to bed without your supper, when you grow up you'll realize how stupid you sounded.

gustakooka: Car_Ramrod: liquidred: All the staging and everything goes back to the teleprompoter issue. The guy is charismatic as all get out, but only when he's reading/reciting something that was scripted. Whenever he tries to go off the cuff, he makes George jr.'s blunders look tame.

Dumbest thing said so far, in this thread. Congrats.

What? Whenever he tries to talk on his own he's lucky to get out five words that aren't "umm" or "hmm".

I would never want to be the Presidential Press Secretary for any president. Your whole job description is to stand in front of the press and take tons bullets every day for the actions and words of every clown in your administration. Worse, you have absolutely no say in what your idiots do or say.


/DRTFT for similar sentiments.

dentalhilljack: I would never want to be the Presidential Press Secretary for any president.



Well if you were Press Sec for a POTUS that was not full of shiat and empty promises it would be an easier jorb.