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.

(Politico)   Barack Obama's media strategy: "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"   (politico.com) divider line 73
    More: Amusing, obama, Clinton White House, Lewinsky scandal, Mike McCurry, President Bill Clinton, Obama White House, Al Gore, White House correspondent  
•       •       •

1187 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2013 at 8:44 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-19 07:52:43 AM
Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.
 
2013-02-19 08:52:53 AM

quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.


Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."
 
2013-02-19 08:55:10 AM
You mean, the President, who used non-traditional media and outreach during his first campaign has kept up with using those media, while others lumber along with Fox News and sponsored sites?

You don't say? I, for one, am shocked.
 
2013-02-19 08:55:37 AM
Actually Obama is bad for the press and their profits. The guy is so boring and things are so peaceful right now all they can come up with is nonsensical stories like who his daughter dating or who he plays golf with.

When Bush was president they had 9/11, Afghan war, Irag war, Hurricane Katrina, huge financial collapse, etc... What's the media had the past 4 years? Newtown and Benghazi? If this was about the Liberal Media making money, a Romney victory would have been far more profitable. They would have had the 2013 Iran war to cover.
 
2013-02-19 08:57:06 AM

GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."


What's 1-way about using social media platforms?
 
2013-02-19 08:57:16 AM

Granny_Panties: about the Liberal Media


Guess how I figured out you are f**king retarded...
 
2013-02-19 08:57:51 AM
The same media that aided and abetted a President lying us into a war is upset, because they couldn't take pictures of another President playing golf with Tiger Woods.

Dear Politico,

F*ck you.

Regards,

Verbaltoxin
 
2013-02-19 08:59:42 AM
Given the way the media reports every crazed right wing talking point as though it had equal validity in comparison to verifiable facts why should he?

I'm serious, what benefit does Obama gain by opening himself up to the assorted hacks that treat the Benghazi like a really, really, real scandal?
 
2013-02-19 09:00:10 AM

Lost Thought 00: GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."

What's 1-way about using social media platforms?


They don't have to answer any questions.
 
2013-02-19 09:02:08 AM

Hoarseman: Given the way the media reports every crazed right wing talking point as though it had equal validity in comparison to verifiable facts why should he?

I'm serious, what benefit does Obama gain by opening himself up to the assorted hacks that treat the Benghazi like a really, really, real scandal?


Hint: the press doesn't exist for the benefit of the president.
 
2013-02-19 09:03:32 AM

GoldSpider: They don't have to answer any questions.


So . . . it's just like traditional platforms.
 
2013-02-19 09:04:17 AM
OTOH, future presidencies (presidencys?) will learn from this one. They will craft and publish their own press through their own channels, skipping over reporters entirely. They'll book talk show appearances, sitcom cameos and even movie roles for the President (Obama was basically in a Doctor Who episode, thanks to stock footage and stand-ins), and totally craft the message they want to tell as they see fit, with nobody in the way to ask hard questions. So there's a sinister undertone to how the Obama White House controls its message. It's very easy for them to craft propaganda with no one being the wiser.

Yet this media of ours has been a mouthpiece for government for so long, and its oligarchal owners' interests embedded so deep with the state, that who is actually around asking hard questions today?

I mean, really, Politico? A conservative news site speaking truth to power? Hardly.
 
2013-02-19 09:05:05 AM

quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.


Fixed the redundancy.
 
2013-02-19 09:05:09 AM
I see what's going on here.

The president has not granted an interview to print reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, POLITICO and others in years. These are the reporters who are often most likely to ask tough, unpredictable questions.
 
2013-02-19 09:05:20 AM
I wonder how many sockpuppets the Whitehouse has on Fark.  Probably less than it does Reddit given their recent "event" there.
 
2013-02-19 09:05:31 AM

GoldSpider: Lost Thought 00: GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."

What's 1-way about using social media platforms?

They don't have to answer any questions.


go on.....why is that an issue?
 
2013-02-19 09:05:47 AM

GoldSpider: Hint: the press doesn't exist for the benefit of the president.


Yeah, and? He doesn't exist just so they can write stories about him, either.
 
2013-02-19 09:07:20 AM

GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."


Doing an open Q&A section on one of the most popular sites on the Internet is hardly "one-way government communication".
 
2013-02-19 09:07:56 AM
He's gone rogue!
 
2013-02-19 09:08:05 AM

Mr. Eugenides: I wonder how many sockpuppets the Whitehouse has on Fark.  Probably less than it does Reddit given their recent "event" there.


What event? I've unsubscribed and ignored so much of Reddit, that I'm down to basically their guitar and writing subreddits.
 
2013-02-19 09:08:06 AM

Tarl3k: Granny_Panties: about the Liberal Media

Guess how I figured out you are f**king retarded...

i580.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-19 09:08:31 AM

Cozret: So . . . it's just like traditional platforms.


Satan's Bunny Slippers: go on.....why is that an issue?


Felgraf: Yeah, and? He doesn't exist just so they can write stories about him, either.


An administration that doesn't have to answer stupid questions about Benghazi also doesn't have to answer questions about the legal/intelligence pretext of going to war.

I'm sure you were OK with that ten years ago.
 
2013-02-19 09:09:04 AM

mcnguyen: I see what's going on here.

The president has not granted an interview to print reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, POLITICO and others in years. These are the reporters who are often most likely to ask tough, unpredictable questions.


Oh please, they have as much teeth as ABC, NBC, and CBS have these days.

I'm a young adult and I still read the newspaper but even I don't buy that schlock.
 
2013-02-19 09:11:29 AM

GoldSpider: Cozret: So . . . it's just like traditional platforms.

Satan's Bunny Slippers: go on.....why is that an issue?

Felgraf: Yeah, and? He doesn't exist just so they can write stories about him, either.

An administration that doesn't have to answer stupid questions about Benghazi also doesn't have to answer questions about the legal/intelligence pretext of going to war.

I'm sure you were OK with that ten years ago.


False equivalency is false.
Keyword:  stupid
 
2013-02-19 09:12:07 AM

GoldSpider: Lost Thought 00: GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."

What's 1-way about using social media platforms?

They don't have to answer any questions.


I thought those involved question and answer sessions.

If that the case, than it's hardly "propaganda" no matter how scary you make it sound.
 
2013-02-19 09:13:19 AM
I guess we can add "too chummy with the media/doesn't do enough media" yo the Obama Dichotimies list, along with "communist/fascist", "empty suit/ruthless dictator", and "secret Muslim/devotee of a radical Christian church".
 
2013-02-19 09:13:37 AM

HeartBurnKid: Doing an open Q&A section on one of the most popular sites on the Internet is hardly "one-way government communication".


A Q&A session with pre-screened questions, prepared answers, in most cases delivered by an anonymous staffer is hardly "transparency."
 
2013-02-19 09:14:16 AM

GoldSpider: Cozret: So . . . it's just like traditional platforms.

Satan's Bunny Slippers: go on.....why is that an issue?

Felgraf: Yeah, and? He doesn't exist just so they can write stories about him, either.

An administration that doesn't have to answer stupid questions about Benghazi also doesn't have to answer questions about the legal/intelligence pretext of going to war.

I'm sure you were OK with that ten years ago.


Well, considering I'm certain I did not have the entertainment value of internet conversing with you 10 years ago, I would deem it nearly impossible for you to know what I was ok with back then. The WH does in fact hold several press conferences on a pretty regular basis that include print, radio, and social media representatives, and extra sessions when situations call for it.  I'm not at all sure where you are getting 'HURRDURR THEY NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS" from that. In addition, social media is not a platform for 'answering questions' in the terms you seem to be suggesting.  So I ask again,  the use of social media is propaganda/not having to answer questions how?
 
2013-02-19 09:14:21 AM

Mrtraveler01: GoldSpider: Lost Thought 00: GoldSpider: quatchi: Bit of a butt-hurt tone to this Politico piece.

Obama is spending more time with media other than the traditional press pool like Google+, Facebook, Reddit, Youtube and TV and it's really got the print folk's jimmies rustled.

The times they are a'changing.

Anywhere else, we'd call such one-way government communication "propaganda."

What's 1-way about using social media platforms?

They don't have to answer any questions.

I thought those involved question and answer sessions.

If that the case, than it's hardly "propaganda" no matter how scary you make it sound.


It does. GoldSpider is being willfully obtuse again.
 
2013-02-19 09:15:05 AM

urbangirl: False equivalency is false.
Keyword: stupid


Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.
 
2013-02-19 09:15:30 AM

GoldSpider: HeartBurnKid: Doing an open Q&A section on one of the most popular sites on the Internet is hardly "one-way government communication".

A Q&A session with pre-screened questions, prepared answers, in most cases delivered by an anonymous staffer is hardly "transparency."


And the traditional media gives you something more?
 
2013-02-19 09:16:08 AM

mcnguyen: I see what's going on here.

The president has not granted an interview to print reporters at The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, POLITICO and others in years. These are the reporters who are often most likely to ask tough, unpredictable questions.


One of these things is not like the others...
 
2013-02-19 09:18:55 AM

GoldSpider: HeartBurnKid: Doing an open Q&A section on one of the most popular sites on the Internet is hardly "one-way government communication".

A Q&A session with pre-screened questions, prepared answers, in most cases delivered by an anonymous staffer is hardly "transparency."


citation please.
 
2013-02-19 09:19:00 AM
When was the last time a President actually sat down with an interview with a newspaper?

I don't even remember this happening much during Bush or Clinton either.

Is Politico whining for the sake of whining?
 
2013-02-19 09:19:19 AM

GoldSpider: Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.


Yes, you are rather good at that sometimes.

I'll try to break it down for you:

The president is not, whether I like it or not, obligated to allow the press to shove a camera up his ass. Freedom of press means he can't censor them, not that they have to be allowed to ask anything and everything under the sun.

The 'last war" bits were moot, anyways, because most of the major news companies *WEREN'T EVEN ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS*. At least not until we were too hip-deep in shiat for it to matter.

Lastly, the president choosing *not* to answering a question can be as damning as him choosing to. Had they wished to, they could have harped on bush not answering the hypothetical questions you are putting here. The president also using social media does not prevent reporters from attempting to get in touch with him, and then reporting he refused to speak with them/get in touch with them/answer their questions.
 
2013-02-19 09:20:07 AM

GoldSpider: HeartBurnKid: Doing an open Q&A section on one of the most popular sites on the Internet is hardly "one-way government communication".

A Q&A session with pre-screened questions, prepared answers, in most cases delivered by an anonymous staffer is hardly "transparency."


He was just on 60 Minutes with Hilary Clinton a few weeks ago.

Is that transparent enough?
 
2013-02-19 09:20:29 AM

GoldSpider: urbangirl: False equivalency is false.
Keyword: stupid

Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.


Please explain.
 
2013-02-19 09:23:55 AM

GoldSpider: urbangirl: False equivalency is false.
Keyword: stupid

Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.


Alright amatuer hour is over can we get tenpounds or billco over here to teach this turd how to really troll?
 
2013-02-19 09:24:37 AM

Mrtraveler01: I thought those involved question and answer sessions.


When was the last time we got a straight answer on things like:

-The legal pretext for assassinating American citizens abroad?
-Ongoing hostilities from China and their human rights abuses?
-Continued federal enforcement of drug laws despite state legalization?
-The TSA and other ongoing privacy violations enshrined in the Patriot Act?

Are none of these things important?
 
2013-02-19 09:25:23 AM

ScaryBottles: GoldSpider: urbangirl: False equivalency is false.
Keyword: stupid

Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.

Alright amatuer hour is over can we get tenpounds or billco over here to teach this turd how to really troll?


For god's sake, just don't say those names three times,,,
 
2013-02-19 09:27:12 AM

Mrtraveler01: He was just on 60 Minutes with Hilary Clinton a few weeks ago.

Is that transparent enough?


Yeah, they really held his feet to the fire, didn't they?

urbangirl: Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.

Please explain.


The point is that the effort to insulate the president from stupid, non-issue questions like Benghazi is going to result in a White House that is answerable to nobody in the press.
 
2013-02-19 09:27:38 AM

GoldSpider: Mrtraveler01: I thought those involved question and answer sessions.

When was the last time we got a straight answer on things like:

-The legal pretext for assassinating American citizens abroad?
-Ongoing hostilities from China and their human rights abuses?
-Continued federal enforcement of drug laws despite state legalization?
-The TSA and other ongoing privacy violations enshrined in the Patriot Act?

Are none of these things important?


So, when was the last time any of the traditional media asked hard questions about any of that stuff to a sitting President?  Because they gave Bush a free ride on it, and they give Obama a free ride on it too.

Don't know if you noticed, Chumley, but the mainstream media stinks on toast, and it's not the result of political bias.  Well, Fox stinks from political bias, but the rest just stink from plain shallow senationalism.
 
2013-02-19 09:28:33 AM
Is all this because they didn't know he'd be golfing with Tiger Woods?

We get it, they're both black.
 
2013-02-19 09:28:41 AM

GoldSpider: Mrtraveler01: I thought those involved question and answer sessions.

When was the last time we got a straight answer on things like:

-The legal pretext for assassinating American citizens abroad?
-Ongoing hostilities from China and their human rights abuses?
-Continued federal enforcement of drug laws despite state legalization?
-The TSA and other ongoing privacy violations enshrined in the Patriot Act?

Are none of these things important?


All of that shiat has been asked and answered already. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me think you are either suffering from willful ignorance or just plain trolling.
 
2013-02-19 09:30:31 AM

HeartBurnKid: So, when was the last time any of the traditional media asked hard questions about any of that stuff to a sitting President? Because they gave Bush a free ride on it, and they give Obama a free ride on it too.


Indeed, and look what happened.  Less press access to the president isn't likely to fix that.

Tor_Eckman: All of that shiat has been asked and answered already. The fact that you are unaware of this makes me think you are either suffering from willful ignorance or just plain trolling.


So you're satisfied with the answers...?
 
2013-02-19 09:33:08 AM

GoldSpider: Mrtraveler01: He was just on 60 Minutes with Hilary Clinton a few weeks ago.

Is that transparent enough?

Yeah, they really held his feet to the fire, didn't they?

urbangirl: Way to completely (intentionally) miss the point.

Please explain.

The point is that the effort to insulate the president from stupid, non-issue questions like Benghazi is going to result in a White House that is answerable to nobody in the press.


Now I see why I missed your point -- I don't see how the first inevitably results in the second.  And maybe if the press wants to be taken seriously again it should stop giving coverage to "stupid non-issue questions".
 
2013-02-19 09:33:47 AM

GoldSpider: HeartBurnKid: So, when was the last time any of the traditional media asked hard questions about any of that stuff to a sitting President? Because they gave Bush a free ride on it, and they give Obama a free ride on it too.

Indeed, and look what happened.  Less press access to the president isn't likely to fix that.


You and yours spent the last 5 years whining about how Obama gives the press too much access, and now you whine he doesn't give them enough.  From where I'm sitting, it seems like your real problem with him is something else.  Like him eating crackers like he owns the place.  But feel free to prove me wrong.
 
2013-02-19 09:36:12 AM

urbangirl: Now I see why I missed your point -- I don't see how the first inevitably results in the second. And maybe if the press wants to be taken seriously again it should stop giving coverage to "stupid non-issue questions".


Agreed, as long as the White House doesn't restrict access to "hostile" reporters in retaliation.

HeartBurnKid: You and yours spent the last 5 years whining about how Obama gives the press too much access...


*I* spent the last 5 years doing no such thing.
 
2013-02-19 09:37:16 AM

GoldSpider: Mrtraveler01: He was just on 60 Minutes with Hilary Clinton a few weeks ago.

Is that transparent enough?

Yeah, they really held his feet to the fire, didn't they?


So what makes you think the Post or the Times would be any different?

I mean I like both papers, but they give the President the same treatment that CBS, NBC, and ABC do.
 
2013-02-19 09:40:57 AM

Mrtraveler01: So what makes you think the Post or the Times would be any different?

I mean I like both papers, but they give the President the same treatment that CBS, NBC, and ABC do.


A few things have to happen:

1.  The White House has to occasionally give access to reporters who ask relevant, important, and sometimes tough questions.
2.  The reporters can't waste that access on dumb non-issues like Benghazi.
 
Displayed 50 of 73 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report