I guess we don't need a fairness doctrine

[uscitizen]

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

 

[Damocles]

Hey, but it's all okay, you see he has a "D" by his name.

 

[uscitizen]

zoomed right over huh?

 

[Damocles]

zoomed right over huh?

I was speaking generally, not at you, sorry that it appeared that way. So far today I've argued with Onceler about congressional oversight, and now I see the beginning of the official government news...

Ugh. It's a bad morning.

 

[Annie]

I was speaking generally, not at you, sorry that it appeared that way. So far today I've argued with Onceler about congressional oversight, and now I see the beginning of the official government news...

Ugh. It's a bad morning.

I know how you feel, while reading this I must admit of shades of USSR and the wholly owned media. I guess it's really just that elections have consequences.

 

[Bonestorm]

I was speaking generally, not at you, sorry that it appeared that way. So far today I've argued with Onceler about congressional oversight, and now I see the beginning of the official government news...

Ugh. It's a bad morning.

You're such a drama queen. Seriously.

If you really wanted to get upset about "official government news" this stupid special ain't it, my friend.

 

[Bonestorm]

I know how you feel, while reading this I must admit of shades of USSR and the wholly owned media. I guess it's really just that elections have consequences.

But cheer up, Damo. You're not this much of a drama queen.

WOLVERINES!

 

[Damocles]

You're such a drama queen. Seriously.

If you really wanted to get upset about "official government news" this stupid special ain't it, my friend.

As if this wasn't just one of many signs that our Press is willing to go to the end of the earth for this President... Seriously, this is just another story about it, not the only story.

 

[Bonestorm]

As if this wasn't just one of many signs that our Press is willing to go to the end of the earth for this President... Seriously, this is just another story about it, not the only story.

Apparently, you slept through the entirety of Bush's presidency and only started paying attention after Hurricane Katrina.

 

[Damocles]

Apparently, you slept through the entirety of Bush's presidency and only started paying attention after Hurricane Katrina.

Not particularly. I used to agree with y'all that the run up to the war was a farce and that the WMD weren't very "Mass Destructive" even if they existed.

Apparently you have selective memory syndrome.

 

[Chapdog]

i actually logged in to post the same thing. Can we just put the fairness doctrine in the trash now? The only group that wanted it was the Dems to begin with.

 

[uscitizen]

As if this wasn't just one of many signs that our Press is willing to go to the end of the earth for this President... Seriously, this is just another story about it, not the only story.

but he is a war president!

 

[Bonestorm]

Not particularly. I used to agree with y'all that the run up to the war was a farce and that the WMD weren't very "Mass Destructive" even if they existed.

Apparently you have selective memory syndrome.

I'm not taking issue with your position on the war (and I understand why you want to parade around with that particular feather in your cap, but please try to stay on topic) but surely you remember the way the press treated President Bush before he became unpopular.

What we have here is nothing new and it sure as shit isn't unique to Obama. That is all.

 

[Bonestorm]

i actually logged in to post the same thing. Can we just put the fairness doctrine in the trash now? The only group that wanted it was the Dems to begin with.

The Fairness Doctrine has always been in the trash. The only people talking about it are right-wing blowhards with victim complexes.

 

[Damocles]

I'm not taking issue with your position on the war (and I understand why you want to parade around with that particular feather in your cap, but please try to stay on topic) but surely you remember the way the press treated President Bush before he became unpopular.

What we have here is nothing new and it sure as shit isn't unique to Obama. That is all.

Hence my repetition of facts such as the non-mass destructive ability of the weapons that Iraq supposedly had. Since the Press wasn't reporting it, I sought and posted information about it.

I was giving an example. What we have is nothing new, except that newsroom embeds (not reporters assigned, an actual newsroom) in the White House are not a good idea.

Again, it appears as if we have the roots of the officially sanctioned media. If you have no problems with it, I suggest it is because of the party affiliation, because I certainly remember people who are excusing it now having a problem with it in the past.

 

[Bonestorm]

Hence my repetition of facts such as the non-mass destructive ability of the weapons that Iraq supposedly had. Since the Press wasn't reporting it, I sought and posted information about it.

I was giving an example. What we have is nothing new, except that newsroom embeds (not reporters assigned, an actual newsroom) in the White House are not a good idea.

Again, it appears as if we have the roots of the officially sanctioned media. If you have no problems with it, I suggest it is because of the party affiliation, because I certainly remember people who are excusing it now having a problem with it in the past.

All I'm telling you, my dear Republican friend, is that this is nothing new. You seem to think that favorable coverage of popular presidents is something that just started since Obama took office. It isn't.

And the assertion that this is "the roots of officially sanctioned media" now that a popular Democratic president it getting the popular president treatment from the press is hilarious.

 

[Damocles]

All I'm telling you, my dear Republican friend, is that this is nothing new. You seem to think that favorable coverage of popular presidents is something that just started since Obama took office. It isn't.

And the assertion that this is "the roots of officially sanctioned media" now that a popular Democratic president it getting the popular president treatment from the press is hilarious.

Where in my posts did I say it was "something new"? That, my Democrat Friend, is a strawman.

Who else has put their anchor behind a desk within the White House?

Again, I'm finding it interesting how you would complain about it with one, then defend it with another.

Using hyperbole during conversations is also nothing new, yet to you it seems to be something incomprehensible.

However, pointing out your hypocrisy becomes easier by the moment.

 

[Bonestorm]

Where in my posts did I say it was "something new"? That, my Democrat Friend, is a strawman.

Who else has put their anchor behind a desk within the White House?

Again, I'm finding it interesting how you would complain about it with one, then defend it with another.

Using hyperbole during conversations is also nothing new, yet to you it seems to be something incomprehensible.

However, pointing out your hypocrisy becomes easier by the moment.

1) Let's see here. Maybe I'm wrong for inferring that you were implying that this was something new by the following but I doubt it:

it appears as if we have the roots of the officially sanctioned media

As if this wasn't just one of many signs that our Press is willing to go to the end of the earth for this President

Maybe it was this one:

I see the beginning of the official government news

Sure as shit looks like you thought it was something new.

2) It's one fucking newscast. Charlie Gibson isn't setting up permanent residence in the goddamned green room. Tim Russert did Meet the Press with Bush from the oval office and didn't end up filming MTP in the oval office each fucking week.

3) I'm not defending it. I'm not supporting it. In fact, I think it's stupid and a total non-issue. I'm simply arguing against the implication (see above) that this is something unique to Obama. It isn't.

 

[Damocles]

1) Let's see here. Maybe I'm wrong for inferring that you were implying that this was something new by the following but I doubt it:





Maybe it was this one:



Sure as shit looks like you thought it was something new.

2) It's one fucking newscast. Charlie Gibson isn't setting up permanent residence in the goddamned green room. Tim Russert did Meet the Press with Bush from the oval office and didn't end up filming MTP in the oval office each fucking week.

3) I'm not defending it. I'm not supporting it. In fact, I think it's stupid and a total non-issue. I'm simply arguing against the implication (see above) that this is something unique to Obama. It isn't.

I believe that the appearance of some things should be avoided. Please note "appearance".

Note that in each phrase you quoted of mine, except the one where I was using hyperbole, I used a noun that you refuse to read or attempt to comprehend. It changes the meaning of the sentence when you actually see the word, read it, and comprehend what was stated.

I know you practice persistent and purposeful "miscomprehension" (newly coined word), especially of my posts, but this is getting to the level of stupid.

I think the Press should work a bit more towards at least the appearance of being separate.

 

[apple0154]

It's about time Obama talked with the people.

Every country started out with a "pay or suffer' medical system. Over the years many implemented a universal medical plan such as Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine and the United Kingdom along with Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela along with Brunei, China, Hong Kong SAR, India, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea, Seychelles, Sri Lanka,Taiwan, Pakistan and Thailand.
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

If anyone follows international politics they would have discovered that any country that implemented universal medical has never reverted back to the "pay or suffer" system. Furthermore, they would have learned that not one politician in any of those aforementioned countries campaigned on reverting back to a "pay or suffer" system.

Universal medical care has been debated by every possible race, creed, nationality, sex, political persuasion, color and age of individual. There is nothing left to debate as far as should one be implemented.

The Repub arguments are nothing more than scare tactics which is proven by the fact not one country has reverted back to the "pay or suffer" system. Not one single country.

What is there to discuss?

If Obama has to shove this down people's throats, so be it. It's become an absurdity at this point. As Obama said during the campaigning the time is now. We've waited long enough.