If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Vanity Fair)   Reporter spends 6 months embedded with Barack Obama: "All the people who had been demanding intervention [in Libya] went nuts after we intervened and said it was outrageous. That's because the controversy machine is bigger than the reality machine"   (vanityfair.com) divider line 182
    More: Interesting, obama, Captain Tyler Stark, Libya, Under Armour, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Nobel Peace Prize, F-15, gym bag  
•       •       •

5265 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Sep 2012 at 5:44 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



182 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-17 03:41:20 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: You would think that with the 100's of millions of dollars rich Republicans are throwing into this race, they could buy better trolls. I guess the Fark Politics tab gets the "he's my retarded cousin and I need to give him something to do during the day" trolls, and they save the A-list for other sites.


What's even sadder is the guys who get stuck working the graveyard shift.
 
2012-09-17 03:48:07 AM  

propasaurus: shower_in_my_socks: You would think that with the 100's of millions of dollars rich Republicans are throwing into this race, they could buy better trolls. I guess the Fark Politics tab gets the "he's my retarded cousin and I need to give him something to do during the day" trolls, and they save the A-list for other sites.

What's even sadder is the guys who get stuck working the graveyard shift.


We need to be nicer to them, otherwise there's going to be a massive amount of suicide reports for the cops to write on the morning of November 7th, and those things take FOREVER to write.
 
2012-09-17 03:53:33 AM  

gopher321: Benevolent Misanthrope: Welcome to the "no shiat" files. Jesus - it's like people have no idea how politics works.

This is why I'm seriously considering moving to Canada. They may have the same lack of leaders the US does, but at least their leaders' little picayune arguments don't affect the entire farking world.

I work with an ex-pat Yank. Helluva nice guy, real smart, cute wife. Bit of a conspiracy freak. Though I have to admit some of the things he's told me about what your government is up to/what might be up to scare the shiat out of me.


Chemtrails don't actually exist.
 
2012-09-17 03:54:47 AM  

Gulper Eel: Gunther: That's incredibly common practice for an embedded reporter.

All the cool kids are doing it. Which makes it perfectly okay.

Long as we are all clear that Michael Lewis is a stenographer and not a journalist.

If it turns out that reporters covering the campaigns actually have to do investigative work from here on in, I guess we should be thankful Lewis was so obvious about being a chump.


Are you serious?
 
2012-09-17 05:17:17 AM  

Gulper Eel: Gunther: That's incredibly common practice for an embedded reporter.

All the cool kids are doing it. Which makes it perfectly okay.


Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".
 
2012-09-17 06:01:09 AM  

Gunther: Gulper Eel: Gunther: That's incredibly common practice for an embedded reporter.

All the cool kids are doing it. Which makes it perfectly okay.

Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".


When you reject any information that conflicts with your existing worldview, everything except selective "feed" liike Fox News, is "propaganda". The right-wing radical of today lives inside an airtight bublle of information.
To Gulper Eel, any information that presents the wicked Kenyan Muslim usurper as any sort of decent human being is false by definition - since it contradicts what he already holds to be the "truth".
That's how the "Stormfront" crowd process information.
 
2012-09-17 07:21:41 AM  
People keep saying "pro Obama piece", etc. etc.

When you consider what percentage of the media's coverage(y'know, that liberal media who nonetheless keep presenting Obama in a mostly negative manner to stay "unbiased") is based on flat out fiction, then a piece that actually gives us an insight to what he's really like, how things actually are, is automatically going to be "pro Obama" because anything involving the reality of the man is going to be positive as it debunks the mostly negative perception being built.

I agree that there should have been a disclaimer on the quote agreement as well.

It's simply depressing that one of the best presidents this country has elected in over a decade is going to be "remembered"(keep in mind, these people have already forgotten Bush, and while they were likely alive during Reagan's administration, have absolutely no reliable recollection of his actual term as President) as history's greatest monster due to the sheer volume of the rhetoric.

No, he's not perfect, but most of the criticisms I'd have are comparatively mild ones, and many of the ones people do have generally involve either not comprehending how our government actually works or simple racism.
 
2012-09-17 07:22:13 AM  
Heh... If Obama gets reelected, the whining from the usual suspects around here is going to be hilarious. Hell, they're already acting like bitter little children banging their fists in impotent rage and it's not even October yet.
 
2012-09-17 07:51:27 AM  

jso2897: When you reject any information that conflicts with your existing worldview, everything except selective "feed" liike Fox News, is "propaganda". The right-wing radical of today lives inside an airtight bublle of information.
To Gulper Eel, any information that presents the wicked Kenyan Muslim usurper as any sort of decent human being is false by definition - since it contradicts what he already holds to be the "truth".
That's how the "Stormfront" crowd process information.


2/10. A fair enough start, but then came the obligatory Fox reference and then you Godwinned it at the end. Go get a napkin for that spittle.

Gunther: Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".


Indeed it does, as it does the "reporters" who do similar favors for the Romney campaign.

What you end up with are news organizations who put together partial stories - partial in both the sense that they are a fragment of the full story, and partial in the sense that they let the source call shots in exchange for access.

Journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, not the tidied-up version. Yeah, so politicians are worried about gaffes. Too farking bad. That's the whole point of being a representative - to show the people you represent that you can engage your brain before opening your mouth, and to say things clearly enough the first time so you don't fall back on the "out of context" crutch.

One of the very few times quote-approval is acceptable is if the reporter is working on something highly technical and wants to be sure he's factually correct. But that's not what's going on here.
 
2012-09-17 07:54:18 AM  

asquian: It's simply depressing that one of the best presidents this country has elected in over a decade


How do you have any way of knowing that, considering that so much of what we get to see has been sanitized? Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

Besides, we've only had two presidents in the past decade, and three in 19+ years. Way to raise that bar.
 
2012-09-17 08:21:54 AM  

Gulper Eel: Gunther: Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".

Indeed it does, as it does the "reporters" who do similar favors for the Romney campaign.


No, it doesn't. "quote approval" doesn't mean that your subject gets to write your damn piece, it doesn't even mean you can't run a piece without approval. You can still say "The opinion I formed of the president was that he was a total ass. I pray he will be impeached for his many crimes against this nation", you just can't use quotes without approval. I had a look for what was left out, and came up with this:

"What the White House asked to leave off the record, Mr. Lewis added, was usually of little relevance to his article anyway -- like a discussion between Mr. Obama and his political strategists about their electoral strategy in Florida.
Mr. Lewis said there was one particularly moving exchange with the president that he wished he could have described in greater detail. But the White House nixed the idea, perhaps wary of having the commander in chief described as in tears.

Mr. Lewis declined to delve into too much detail because he said he did not want to violate the ground rules he agreed to, but he did offer that the president explained to him how the job exacts a heavy emotional toll. The president told Mr. Lewis how one evening after a particularly trying day, he sat down to watch a movie and surprised himself by suddenly tearing up."


Seriously, quit acting like this is the death of journalism.
 
2012-09-17 08:22:57 AM  

Gulper Eel: jso2897: When you reject any information that conflicts with your existing worldview, everything except selective "feed" liike Fox News, is "propaganda". The right-wing radical of today lives inside an airtight bublle of information.
To Gulper Eel, any information that presents the wicked Kenyan Muslim usurper as any sort of decent human being is false by definition - since it contradicts what he already holds to be the "truth".
That's how the "Stormfront" crowd process information.

2/10. A fair enough start, but then came the obligatory Fox reference and then you Godwinned it at the end. Go get a napkin for that spittle.

Gunther: Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".

Indeed it does, as it does the "reporters" who do similar favors for the Romney campaign.

What you end up with are news organizations who put together partial stories - partial in both the sense that they are a fragment of the full story, and partial in the sense that they let the source call shots in exchange for access.

Journalism is supposed to be the first draft of history, not the tidied-up version. Yeah, so politicians are worried about gaffes. Too farking bad. That's the whole point of being a representative - to show the people you represent that you can engage your brain before opening your mouth, and to say things clearly enough the first time so you don't fall back on the "out of context" crutch.

One of the very few times quote-approval is acceptable is if the reporter is working on something highly technical and wants to be sure he's factually correct. But that's not what's going on here.


No, what's going on here is a reporter was, for six months, in a position to overhear all sorts of things that could possibly compromise national security. You know, like the identities of CIA operatives, details on covert operations still underway, stuff like that. Stuff that you shouldn't want to be printed in the national press.
 
2012-09-17 08:43:20 AM  

LordJiro: barneyfifesbullet: The GOP has spent the last month developing a scenario whereby NOBODY could POSSIBLY want to re-elect Obama

It's almost like they are trying to win an election, ain't it?

I mean, they do what they can why Obama accuses Romney of murder, tax fraud and whatever else the Chicago machine comes up with. But, it's all right when Obama does it, isn't it?

It's not like someone died because Romney got them fired, thus screwing 'em out of health insurance when they had cancer, right?

And Romney STILL hasn't disproven the claims of tax fraud, and he continues to hide them. His father, and Mitt himself, have both claimed that someone who hides their tax returns is probably hiding something nasty...so why is Mitt hiding them?


It's also funny that after 3 years of demanding every document on Obama short of his duck, duck, goose results from pre-school, the Fark Independents are throwing a fit that people aren't just taking Mitt's word for it when it comes to taxes.

What was the old Bush administration line? Oh right. If he's done nothing wrong, he's got nothing to worry about.
 
2012-09-17 08:48:47 AM  

Jorn the Younger: No, what's going on here is a reporter was, for six months, in a position to overhear all sorts of things that could possibly compromise national security. You know, like the identities of CIA operatives, details on covert operations still underway, stuff like that. Stuff that you shouldn't want to be printed in the national press.


That doesn't appear to be the case, seeing as Lewis claims to have altered very little.

If the administration is touchy about security, okay - then don't grant the reporter access. They don't get to have it both ways.

Seriously, quit acting like this is the death of journalism.

It's not. This is the part where we realize the corpse is starting to stink.
 
2012-09-17 08:56:39 AM  
More like the Fart Prince of Bill Ayers, am I right
 
2012-09-17 09:00:00 AM  

Gulper Eel: Jorn the Younger: No, what's going on here is a reporter was, for six months, in a position to overhear all sorts of things that could possibly compromise national security. You know, like the identities of CIA operatives, details on covert operations still underway, stuff like that. Stuff that you shouldn't want to be printed in the national press.

That doesn't appear to be the case, seeing as Lewis claims to have altered very little.

If the administration is touchy about security, okay - then don't grant the reporter access. They don't get to have it both ways.

Seriously, quit acting like this is the death of journalism.

It's not. This is the part where we realize the corpse is starting to stink.


Why don't they get to have it both ways? Why is it wrong for them to say "Yes, you can spend time with the President, and share something of his daily life with the American People, but we can't let you print something that could be a threat to national security" ? Hasn't that been pretty much the deal since, like, forever? Isn't the smart thing to do is make it clear before starting that this is how it'll work, rather than having to get a judge to order an injunction to prevent publication of dangerous security information?
 
2012-09-17 09:01:43 AM  
Four years is quite long enough to lose touch with reality. It must be, because the republicans seem to think that they can get their poster-boy elected, despite alienating the Ron Paul contingent, all the Middle Class lost to the OWS movement, and a healthy percentage of women who like to think for their selves.

I wonder how close they are to being correct. This country knows no bounds when it comes to sheer ignorance and inability to see the big picture for all the distractions foisted upon us by the media. War on PovertyTM, War on DrugsTM, War on TerrorismTM- they're all wars on the effects of the exploitative policy of global imperialism by the rich. Why doesn't the government declare war on the cause, rather than the effects? Class warfare? Why is it only "Class Warfare" when it's a policy that will get the little guy ahead for once?
 
2012-09-17 09:54:34 AM  

SouthParkCon: So a noted Liberal author slobbers on his Messiah's knob and the Fark Progressive Brigade heralds it as further proof of Dear Leader's right to rule.

Your tears will be so sweet come November...

/Flame On!


I'm surprised the "messiah" meme is still going. I'm also curious to know what dimension you live in that you think this is really what liberals think of Obama?
 
2012-09-17 10:02:19 AM  
WTF? Embedded with the President of the US? Yeah, that seems legit.

We used to have the White House press pool and press conferences.
 
2012-09-17 10:08:35 AM  

Gulper Eel: If the administration is touchy about security, okay - then don't grant the reporter access. They don't get to have it both ways.


There's just no way you're going to be reasonable or rational about this, is there?
 
2012-09-17 10:41:41 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Why is it wrong for them to say "Yes, you can spend time with the President, and share something of his daily life with the American People, but we can't let you print something that could be a threat to national security" ? Hasn't that been pretty much the deal since, like, forever? Isn't the smart thing to do is make it clear before starting that this is how it'll work, rather than having to get a judge to order an injunction to prevent publication of dangerous security information?


From the tone of the article, it looks like he spent far more time on the basketball court than in security briefings. I mean, this is slick-n-vapid Vanity Fair we're talking about here. Their readers want to know which designer Michelle is wearing and who chose the Oval Office drapes and whether Annie Liebovitz did the photo shoot, and not the details of Medicare reimbursement rate debates.
 
2012-09-17 10:43:09 AM  

Phil Moskowitz: here's just no way you're going to be reasonable or rational about this, is there?


Isn't the press' relationship with public officials supposed to be adversarial?
 
2012-09-17 10:45:46 AM  

asquian: People keep saying "pro Obama piece", etc. etc.

When you consider what percentage of the media's coverage(y'know, that liberal media who nonetheless keep presenting Obama in a mostly negative manner to stay "unbiased") is based on flat out fiction, then a piece that actually gives us an insight to what he's really like, how things actually are, is automatically going to be "pro Obama" because anything involving the reality of the man is going to be positive as it debunks the mostly negative perception being built.

I agree that there should have been a disclaimer on the quote agreement as well.

It's simply depressing that one of the best presidents this country has elected in over a decade is going to be "remembered"(keep in mind, these people have already forgotten Bush, and while they were likely alive during Reagan's administration, have absolutely no reliable recollection of his actual term as President) as history's greatest monster due to the sheer volume of the rhetoric.

No, he's not perfect, but most of the criticisms I'd have are comparatively mild ones, and many of the ones people do have generally involve either not comprehending how our government actually works or simple racism.


Good points.
 
2012-09-17 10:48:19 AM  

PonceAlyosha: make me some tea: choosing not to close Guantanomo

When did Obama chose to not close Guantanomo? Or does Congress magically not exist anymore?


Gather wasps in a jar. Seal the lid. Shake the jar. Do you then take off the lid? Ethics say yes. The rest of you that doesn't want to be stung says no. Especially if jar-shaking violates the Geneva convention pact.
 
2012-09-17 10:50:01 AM  

Gulper Eel: Jorn the Younger: Why is it wrong for them to say "Yes, you can spend time with the President, and share something of his daily life with the American People, but we can't let you print something that could be a threat to national security" ? Hasn't that been pretty much the deal since, like, forever? Isn't the smart thing to do is make it clear before starting that this is how it'll work, rather than having to get a judge to order an injunction to prevent publication of dangerous security information?

From the tone of the article, it looks like he spent far more time on the basketball court than in security briefings. I mean, this is slick-n-vapid Vanity Fair we're talking about here. Their readers want to know which designer Michelle is wearing and who chose the Oval Office drapes and whether Annie Liebovitz did the photo shoot, and not the details of Medicare reimbursement rate debates.


Since the decline of the big newspapers, a number of talented journalists have gone to work for offbeat places like Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. This happened a long time ago, actually. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but a lot of great journalism is being published there.
 
2012-09-17 10:58:56 AM  

make me some tea: Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair. This happened a long time ago, actually. Maybe you hadn't noticed, but a lot of great journalism is being published there.


Lest I be accused of belt-onion-adjusting, Rolling Stone was far better back in the day when you could get Hunter Thompson or Bill Greider or P.J. O'Rourke. You got a diversity of topics and a diversity of opinions.

Vanity Fair? Meh. Their specialty has always been glossy celebrity stories, and politicians are just a different brand of celebrity to them. Last time I took a close look at Vanity Fair was when I read their puff piece on Jon Huntsman - whom I wanted to like, and not just because of the three smoking hot daughters.
 
2012-09-17 12:14:00 PM  
As for Guantanamo, Obama tried to close it. Unfortunately, he tried to do so by shipping all the prisoners into the U.S. proper. Not the best of his ideas. It's understandable that Congress would shut him down on this. Perhaps the only thing I can give the GOP credit for in the past four years.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:48 PM  

simplicimus: Well yeah, cause everybody gets their own Basketball.


I just had a really amusing mental image of ten basketballs being in play in an NBA game. That would be a pretty interesting yet totally chaotic game.

HAMMERTOE: As for Guantanamo, Obama tried to close it. Unfortunately, he tried to do so by shipping all the prisoners into the U.S. proper. Not the best of his ideas. It's understandable that Congress would shut him down on this. Perhaps the only thing I can give the GOP credit for in the past four years.


No, it's not understandable at all, unless you also believe that Gitmo prisoners can break out of supermax facilities with their laser eyes like the Illinois GOP does.
 
2012-09-17 02:14:14 PM  
But the changes still generated controversy, especially the removal of the Churchill bust, which created so much stupid noise that Mitt Romney on the stump is now pledging that he will return it to the Oval Office.

www.failking.com
 
2012-09-17 07:40:13 PM  

jso2897: Gunther: Gulper Eel: Gunther: That's incredibly common practice for an embedded reporter.

All the cool kids are doing it. Which makes it perfectly okay.

Well no, but it is a common and understandable practice for reporters who are given a lot of access. It doesn't make him a "propagandist".

When you reject any information that conflicts with your existing worldview, everything except selective "feed" liike Fox News, is "propaganda". The right-wing radical of today lives inside an airtight bublle of information.
To Gulper Eel, any information that presents the wicked Kenyan Muslim usurper as any sort of decent human being is false by definition - since it contradicts what he already holds to be the "truth".
That's how the "Stormfront" crowd process information.


It's your own fault for engaging with someone named after a bottom-dwelling reject from the Devonian whose mouth is bigger than its body.
 
2012-09-17 08:54:10 PM  

Gyrfalcon: It's your own fault for engaging with someone named after a bottom-dwelling reject from the Devonian whose mouth is bigger than its body.


Glad you appreciate the subtle self-deprecating humor.
 
2012-09-17 10:50:39 PM  

Moosecakes: SouthParkCon: So a noted Liberal author slobbers on his Messiah's knob and the Fark Progressive Brigade heralds it as further proof of Dear Leader's right to rule.

Your tears will be so sweet come November...

/Flame On!

I'm surprised the "messiah" meme is still going. I'm also curious to know what dimension you live in that you think this is really what liberals think of Obama?


He probably gets all his news from forwarded e-mails.
 
Displayed 32 of 182 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report