22 Feb

The press’s puppet master

                                       

obama puppets 2

Politico writers Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen have written a piece called “Obama, the puppet master.” It opens this way:

President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.

The Blaze has distilled the piece down to ten of what it calls “The ten most scathing remarks”

10. President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.

9. “The White House gets away with stuff I would never have dreamed of doing. When I talk to White House reporters now, they say it’s really tough to do business with people who don’t see the need to be cooperative.” — Former Bill Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry

8. The president has shut down interviews with many of the White House reporters who know the most and ask the toughest questions. Instead, he spends way more time talking directly to voters via friendly shows and media personalities. Why bother with The New York Times beat reporter when Obama can go on “The View”?

7. Obama boasted Thursday during a Google+ Hangout from the White House: “This is the most transparent administration in history.” The people who cover him day to day see it very differently.

6. “The way the president’s availability to the press has shrunk in the last two years is a disgrace,” said ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who has covered every president back to Gerald R. Ford. “The president’s day-to-day policy development — on immigration, on guns — is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.” [Emphasis added]

5. But something is different with this White House. Obama’s aides are better at using technology and exploiting the president’s “brand.” They are more disciplined about cracking down on staff that leak, or reporters who write things they don’t like. And they are obsessed with taking advantage of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and every other social media forums, not just for campaigns, but governing.

4. Conservatives assume a cozy relationship between this White House and the reporters who cover it. Wrong. Many reporters find Obama himself strangely fearful of talking with them and often aloof and cocky when he does. They find his staff needlessly stingy with information and thin-skinned about any tough coverage. He gets more-favorable-than-not coverage because many staffers are fearful of talking to reporters, even anonymously, and some reporters inevitably worry access or the chance of a presidential interview will decrease if they get in the face of this White House. ​[Emphasis added]

3. *The super-safe, softball interview is an Obama specialty. The kid glove interview of Obama and outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by Steve Kroft of CBS’s “60 Minutes” is simply the latest in a long line of these. Obama gives frequent interviews (an astonishing 674 in his first term, compared with 217 for President George W. Bush), but they are often with network anchors or local TV stations, and rarely with the reporters who cover the White House day to day.

2. * There’s the classic weekend document dump to avoid negative coverage. By our count, the White House has done this nearly two dozen times, and almost always to minimize attention to embarrassing or messy facts. “What you guys call a document dump, we call transparency,” the White House’s Earnest shot back. If that’s the case, the White House was exceptionally transparent during the Solyndra controversy, releasing details three times on a Friday.

1. * While White House officials deny it is intentional, this administration —like its predecessors — does some good old-fashioned bullying of reporters: making clear there will be no interviews, or even questions at press conferences, if aides are displeased with their coverage.

The story does contain one glaring knee slapper:

Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated.

obama puppets 4

Of course it is. The press largely worships Obama. As Obama once said

Most of you covered me. All of you voted for me.

It was supposed to be a joke. It’s not.

The press “swoons” over Obama

“The behavior of the assembled press corps was telling. Everyone, myself included, swooned. Swooned! Head over heels. One or two might have even lost their minds,” Hastings writes, as each reporter had a chance to speak personally with the president. “We were all, on some level, deeply obsessed with Obama, crushing hard, still a little love there. This was nerd heaven, a politico’s paradise, the subject himself moving among us — shaking our hands, slapping our shoulders!”

Ick.

Readers here know that the media being Obama’s puppets is nothing new.

It’s gotten so bad that the White House is now openly dismissive of a woman reporter

Some of the Tweets

You know Jay Carney is peeved when he says “I know you’re filling in…” Asked about sequester being an idea that came out of WH

Jay just told a CNN reporter when she asked a question, I know you are filling in. Room audibly gasped! Not good.

“This is complicated budget speak,” Jay Carney explaining sequester to fill-in White House reporter.

FYI, Carney go snarky today to substitute journo who is “filling in” today when SHE asked sequester Q. She is also black. #WarOnWomen

We can file this under “Had the Bush White House done this…”

From The Blaze

Still, in the accompanying video version of the story, Vandehei admits that while the critique of Obama being a “puppet master” who pulls strings to get favorable coverage is generally a conservative critique, it is an “accurate one”:

No kidding. One has to ask why Vandehei and Allen would put out such a piece. It could be that since the press has helped Obama get elected and re-elected it might be a good time to try to salvage reputations and Vandehei and Allen want to be the first ones out of the gate.

UPDATE

The White House held another “off the record” meeting with the press to mollify reporters who were frozen out during Obama’s extremely expensive golf weekend with a serial adulterer.

Politico was not invited to the meeting, which sort of proves what Vandehei and Allen were saying.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Liberal Idiots, Media, MSM Bias, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Politics, propaganda bureau, Uncategorized, WtF? and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Friday, February 22nd, 2013 at 3:54 am
| 559 views

27 Responses to The press’s puppet master

  1. Liberal1 (Objectivity) says: 1

    And when is the last time a Republican president put himself out there for criticism from liberal members of the press? The article just describes standards presidential relation with the media. Not an unusual occurrence.

    ReplyReply
  2. joetote says: 2

    I have said it more than once on this site and I will say it again. As in every wanna be and/or established dictatorship past or future, one of the main instruments used for the implementation of such is the co-opted media. I also once again throw out this warning. Once the leftist cretins fully get their way, they will go after the same co-opted media, their usefulness now not needed.

    As for Liberal1 above, I’ve heard some seen some inane questions and comments from the left on this and other sites, but you might have just taken the cake! The left basks in the beatings taken by any conservative as given by the manipulated propaganda industry know as the Press, happily watching the media purposely destroy any conservative while also advocating the cover ups and worse for any leftist (and I might add miserable RINO).

    DrJohn has hit it on the head here. The fact that in this co-opted media journalism is not only dead but in fact a sin is only hastening the destruction of this country. And unfortunately, far to many of “We th ePeople” don’t seem to give a damn.

    ReplyReply
  3. another vet says: 3

    The media has plenty of avenues to vent their criticisms of this administration but have chosen not to do it. Whereas Tass and Pravda had propaganda down to an art, our MSM has turned it into a science. They are a joke with no professional or ethical standards and are not to be trusted as part of our system of checks and balances, at least not as long as a lefty is in the WH. As of right now they are more of a threat to our diminishing freedoms than they are a guardian.

    ReplyReply
  4. Richard Wheeler says: 4

    A.V PLS identify this dreaded mainstream media—-some names appreciated. Thanks

    Do you include Major Garrett and Ed Henry?

    Don’t people like Limbaugh and Hannity serve as a counter balance?

    ReplyReply
  5. Budvarakbar says: 5

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity): You should read the article and make some effort to comprehend what is being said before you make such a foolish statement. In particular read #6 item — Ann Compton’s statements — those are her statements –

    ReplyReply
  6. retire05 says: 6

    @Richard Wheeler:

    A.V PLS identify this dreaded mainstream media—-some names appreciated. Thanks

    Oh, I don’t know, Richard; perhaps Paul Krugman, Chris Matthews, who is just a hack posing as a journalist, or any other talking head on MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC? Journalist, none of them, but unfortunately, the left is too dimwitted to understand that.

    Don’t people like Limbaugh and Hannity serve as a counter balance?

    It is clear that you don’t understand the difference between journalists and talk show hosts who voice opinions on the news, not report the news.

    ReplyReply
  7. Richard Wheeler says: 7

    Retire05 Yours is the same tiresome story I hear over and over.Stop whining and do something about it.You sure as hell don’t need to read,or watch the lamestream
    .
    You can while away the hours watching hacks like Hannity or Palin(00ps she was fired). Or keep up on latest conspiracy theories with Newsmax and American Thinker.

    ReplyReply
  8. retire05 says: 8

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Retire05 Yours is the same tiresome story I hear over and over.Stop whining and do something about it.You sure as hell don’t need to read,or watch the lamestream

    And exactly what do you suggest that I do about the pathetic condition of those who claim to be “journalists?” Buy the NY Slimes? Oh, wait, the richest man in the world, a Mexican, Carlos Slim, has already done that. Yet, the NYTs readership is still in the toilet.

    You can while away the hours watching hacks like Hannity or Palin(00ps she was fired).

    Sorry to disappoint your preconceived impression of me, but I don’t watch/listen to Hannity and am not a fan of Sarah Palin.

    Or keep up on latest conspiracy theories with Newsmax and American Thinker.

    I guess you think HuffingtonPost, DailyKos or The New Republic, recently purchased by Obama’s tax dodging fan who got filthy rich creating Facebook would be better choices? Why not just cut to the chase and read Marx and Engles if I want propaganda?

    But then, we all know that the tony schools of journalism all teach that their gods are Walter Lippman, Walter Duranty and Walter Cronkite. So why should we expect unbiased news from any of them?

    ReplyReply
  9. Richard Wheeler says: 9

    Ret05 says Don’t like Palin—5 stars. “Walter”–must be a secret code for Lib.
    Get most of my news from CNN, WSJ and O’Reilly. No D.K. etc. Think Facebook a narcissistic waste.
    I’m watching Canadian born Cruz–Will he strongly support a Rubio run?

    ReplyReply
  10. drjohn says: 10

    @Liberal1 (Objectivity):

    Not an unusual occurrence.

    For democrats, yes. The press is virtually all democrats. They hated Bush

    ReplyReply
  11. retire05 says: 11

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Ret05 says Don’t like Palin—5 stars. “Walter”–must be a secret code for Lib.

    Obviously, you don’t know the philosophies of the Three Walters. And believe me, it wasn’t to inform the American populace as to the real news. I highly recommend you study those three men, and understand that it is being taught that they are the Gods of the Copybook Headings in our journalism schools.

    WSJ? Financial department; conservative. Op-ed department, mostly liberals from schools like The University of Missouri Journalism School. CNN? Used to be honest but now totally in the tank for progressives and Obama. O’Reilly? Not sure about him but would venture a guess he voted for Obama, at least the first go-round.

    Canadian born Cruz? Well, at least there is no question about his citizenship, is there? But he does scare the crap out of progressives.

    ReplyReply
  12. Richard Wheeler
    you should learn something from drjohn and retire05, they come with substance
    to give thought to other,
    not empty words hiding arrogance and complex of superiority over the readers
    who for many come to contribute to the POST with positives opinions,
    it does without a doubt demonstrate; intelligence over
    stupidity,
    and brain matter over arrogant empty words aiming at hurting

    ReplyReply
  13. Richard Wheeler says: 13

    Bees i believe you’d learn more from Aye, Word and Aqua than DrJ and Retireo5. I know that I certainly do.Seems to me you distribute nastiness with the best of them.
    Retireo5 Seriously doubt O’Reilly ever voted for Obama.
    Do you question Rubio’s qualifications to be POTUS? Will Cruz support him?

    ReplyReply
  14. retire05 says: 14

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Do you question Rubio’s qualifications to be POTUS? Will Cruz support him?

    Rubio’s Constitutional qualification for POTUS will never be brought up. If it is, it would destroy the entire “anchor baby” philosophy that the left has subscribed to for so long. Do I think, historically speaking, that he is eligible? No. But then, neither is Obama, historically speaking (based on arguments when the “citizenship” amendment was being debated in Congress). As to Ted, I don’t know what he would do but I do know he is his own man, and as he is proving, not owned by any Party hack RINOs like John McCain or Lindsay Graham.

    ReplyReply
  15. Richard Wheeler says: 15

    Retire05 The question is not whether Dems will bring up Rubio’s legitimacy. They won’t.
    It’s the radical right, some of who post here at FA, that will form a circular firing squad in an attempt to prevent his nom.
    The result could well be the historical election of America’s first Female POTUS—-Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    ReplyReply
  16. retire05 says: 16

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Retire05 The question is not whether Dems will bring up Rubio’s legitimacy. They won’t.

    You mean like how the Dems didn’t bring up John McCain’s Constitutional eligibility to run for POTUS?

    It’s the radical right, some of who post here at FA, that will form a circular firing squad in an attempt to prevent his nom.

    Radical right? And who would that be? And why is there never any talk from you about the “radical” left?

    The result could well be the historical election of America’s first Female POTUS—-Hillary Rodham Clinton.

    Yeah, that’s what every Democrat in Texas told me……………………………………….in 2007.

    ReplyReply
  17. Richard Wheeler says: 17

    Ret o5 Hillary only loses to Dems.
    You know there was no SERIOUS OR lasting challenge to Macs. Constitutional Eligibility in 08.Earlier you agreed Dems wouldn’t challenge Rubio because of anchor baby support.
    Radical right would be those who challenge Rubio’s reasoned approach to immigration.
    I’ve challenged our radical leftist Lib Objectivity more than once.

    ReplyReply
  18. Richard Wheeler
    what you claim of the radical right is of no hold here
    because you are from the radical left,
    so don’t waste your spit on your keyboard
    by accusing the TOLERANT , SMART, NOBLE RIGHT, BE THEM FROM ANY SIDE OF THE LINES, THEY ALL FOLLOW THE VALUES OF THE CONSERVATIVES.

    ReplyReply
  19. retire05 says: 19

    @Richard Wheeler:

    Ret o5 Hillary only loses to Dems.

    I don’t think she will take the nomination. The Democrat Party has turned into the Obama Party, and she, and Bubba, ain’t players. If the Dems wanted Hillary, she would have taken the nomination in ’08, but she didn’t, did she. You see, Richard, Hillary ain’t left enough for the party of Jim Crow.

    You know there was no SERIOUS OR lasting challenge to Macs. Constitutional Eligibility in 08.

    I see; taking his eligiblility up with the entire Senate by the Dems wasn’t really serious? I guess you think it was just more silliness on the part of the Dems?

    Radical right would be those who challenge Rubio’s reasoned approach to immigration.

    No form of amnesty, no matter what promises the Dems will make that they will only break AGAIN, is reasonable.

    I’ve challenged our radical leftist Lib Objectivity more than once.

    More than once can mean only twice. Count me unimpressed.

    ReplyReply
  20. another vet says: 20

    @Richard Wheeler: ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, Brian Williams, Chris Matthews, etc. etc. Like I stated on another post, I stopped watching the news because of these people. So I’ll ask you this, have they had any updates on the intel leaks investigation that started back in June and how does that coverage compare to that of Valerie Plame? They were real aggressive in covering Fast and Furious, weren’t they? How about their coverage of the unemployment rate or the deficits? Seems to me when the unemployment rate under Bush was around 5% it was too high but the much higher unemployment rate under Obama is not worthy of discussion, ditto for the deficits which are far worse. Anyone who believes the MSM isn’t biased toward the dems or this POTUS is living on another planet hence the reason I won’t give them the time of day. The one point in my original comment you seem to miss is that those in the press who are complaining about being manipulated by Obama are wrong. The press isn’t being manipulated by anyone. They support his agenda and therefore won’t criticize it much less even give it balanced coverage.

    ReplyReply
  21. Hard Right says: 21

    I come back and see rich is still betraying his country, his oath, and pissing on the graves of his commrades.
    You are rather similar to the communists you fought in vietnam.
    I shall laugh when your treason finally bites you in the *ss.

    ReplyReply
  22. Hard Right says: 22

    So rich, you proclaim jfk as your hero. Please reconcile how he is your hero when he blatantly violated the Constitution with illegal wiretaps of Americans. MLK being one of the most notable.
    And BTW, I would not be here without his major bumbling on Cuba.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=jfk+and+illegal+wiretaps&btnK=

    ReplyReply
  23. Hard Right says: 23

    Speaking of the radical left, the people that rich supports:

    Robin Kelly, Candidate For Illinois 2nd District: “I’m All About Banning Guns”..
    http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/215195.php

    ReplyReply
  24. Richard Wheeler says: 24

    Hard right Our resident draft-dodger, or was it 4f , returns to question my patriotism.
    You say JFK assisted in your being here. Everyone is allowed one mistake.
    I’ve noticed you STILL haven’t learned how to spell.

    Semper Fi

    ReplyReply
  25. Hard Right
    hi,
    notice the exit of Rich Wheeler always with a nice compliment.
    bye

    ReplyReply
  26. Wordsmith says: 26

    So just out of curiosity, how do you reconcile stories like this with the narrative of a fawning, liberally biased press (not that I don’t share in some of the same beliefs)? Or when we cite news articles to support our opinions; but then automatically assume it must be due to liberal bias when the articles don’t support our position? When registered democrat bob Woodward wrote books that had some red meat for the bush detractors on the wars, then he is merely expressing his bias; but when he writes a blistering book on the price of Obama’s politics and a recent op-ed that tickles our conservative funny bone, he’s now doing his job as a serious- minded, responsible journalist?

    Thanks.

    ReplyReply
  27. JOETOTE
    I strongly believe SOME MEDIAS are impregnate by foreigners who bought shares in them and enough to assure their weight on who and what they want to push,
    like the OBAMA rise to power in 2008,
    and the one who carry the tingle in their legs programs are just holding to their jobs by carrying the
    volontary demands of those foreign influences bad for AMERICA,
    THEY MUST BE EXPOSE AS MINGLING IN THE POLITICS OF AMERICA AND DEPOSED AS PURVEYOR OF FINANCIAL INPUT IN AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT LAWS, CONCERNING TREASON,
    BYE

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>