Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama WH/Campaign Censors Press  
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3395 posts, RR: 2
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Obama's White House and Campaign Staffs Censors Media interviews before they are published. So much for respect of the 1st Amendment that Obama has. Obama hasn't had a formal WH press conference since March 6th but has made time for those serious publications like Entertainment Weekly.

This wasn't just some right wing nut complaining this was reported in the oh so august New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/us...e-it-back.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

I guess the useful idiots aren't useful anymore?


"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4504 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2141 times:

Did you RTFA?

"The Romney campaign insists that journalists interviewing any of Mitt Romney’s five sons agree to use only quotations that are approved by the press office. And Romney advisers almost always require that reporters ask them for the green light on anything from a conversation that they would like to include in an article.

"



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

What an outrage! The government shows up, busts down the doors, and beats up reporters, burning all "questionable material." Oh wait...

"They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name."

...orrrrrrr they agree prior to the interview to only publish approved quotes.

Yeah...

I'm no corrupt government official, but if I were being interviewed, I'd make sure I'd have the final say on what the reporter can or can't publish. I think most people are that way.

Move along people, nothing to see here



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting casinterest (Reply 1):
Did you RTFA?

Romney isn't paid on the taxpayer dime. The article was talking about Romney's sons not people who are employed by Obama. Of course you never want anything bad said or written about Obama. Obama is the guy who said he would have the most tranparent administration in the history of the US.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I'd make sure I'd have the final say on what the reporter can or can't publish.

Then what's the point of a free press and the First Amendment if the government tells the press what to print? Welcome Pravda.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 3):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I'd make sure I'd have the final say on what the reporter can or can't publish.

Then what's the point of a free press and the First Amendment if the government tells the press what to print? Welcome Pravda.

Again, they agreed before they did the interview. When companies disallow employees to tell secrets, is that a breach of the 1st Amendment?

It's not like the reporters found something out or a leak and the government busts down the doors. They agreed beforehand.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8942 posts, RR: 40
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

I'll need to read the full article later, but from the little I've read so far, it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference. . . not that it's a nice thing by any means, but it's not the same. . .


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
It's not like the reporters found something out or a leak and the government busts down the doors. They agreed beforehand

But its a quid pro quo. Government employess shouldn't be involved in such games.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2033 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
Obama's White House and Campaign Staffs Censors Media interviews before they are published.

No, they redact interviews which have been conducted under that expressed condition.

"Censorship" as a matter of general civil rights would be suppression of undesired content which had been created outside of such agreements, which is something completely different.

Granting access in exchange for control of the final message by itself does not touch the 1st amendment, as long as the press is free to report outside of such agreements.

There can be a grey area, but if anything, you should complain about press organs willingly handing over part of the control of their reporting to the object of same reporting (although I don't see the agreements extending to other parts of their content beyond direct interviews).

The question is how dominant this kind of agreement is in the end across all products of said media. If it isn't and if the agreement in play is properly documented, there is not much to complain about. If it should tinge the entirety of all reporting by certain media, then there would be cause for concern. But even then it would not rise to the level of your sensationalist "censorship".


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Do you know what the First Amendment says?

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Um.....


what part of the First Amendment has been violated?

Seriously people. I'm getting so @#$%ing sick and tired of people blasting someone as violating the First Amendment, when they have no clue what it actually says.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
Obama WH/Campaign Censors Press

There's nothing even remotely illegal in unethical being done here.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13518 posts, RR: 62
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1996 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 9):
Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):Obama WH/Campaign Censors Press
There's nothing even remotely illegal in unethical being done here.

Illegal, no.

First Amendment violation, no.

Kinda shady, you bet.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1973 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Kinda shady, you bet.

Not if a) these conditions are documented properly (which they seem to be) and if b) said officials do not categorically exclude unedited interviews (which you have any evidence for?).


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 7):
No, they redact interviews which have been conducted under that expressed condition.

"Censorship" as a matter of general civil rights would be suppression of undesired content which had been created outside of such agreements, which is something completely different.

If the press effectively cannot do any interviews with the President without signing the 'agreement', then it is at least (!) close to censorship.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1963 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 12):
If the press effectively cannot do any interviews with the President without signing the 'agreement', then it is at least (!) close to censorship.

I have already asked if that is actually the case.

It is easier for journalists to agree to such conditions. But whether they are actually forced to agree to them is still a separate question.

[Edited 2012-08-16 15:53:53]

User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1956 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
Obama's White House and Campaign Staffs Censors Media interviews before they are published.

From the article "the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name."

With all out of context quotes who can blame them for doing this? If you read the full article you will also find "the other side" is doing the same.

Misplaced outrage.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1953 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
I have already asked if that is actually the case.

Well the article clearly states

Quote:
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21529 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1947 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Thread starter):
So much for respect of the 1st Amendment that Obama has.

   You don't know what the first amendment actually says, do you?

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 10):
Kinda shady, you bet.

It is a bit shady, but every campaign does it. The same way that town hall campaign appearances have become a farce - the questions are all pre-approved and designed to portray the candidate in the best possible light.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7943 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1935 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
It is a bit shady, but every campaign does it.

Yes, but that doesn't make it right.
There is probably a reason why Reporters Without Borders ranks the USA 47th in 2011/2012 - down from rank 20 in 2010!

While the reason are "the many arrests of journalist covering Occupy Wall Street protests", I have to admit, this comes as a shock to me. I would have thought that the U.S. fairs better than Germany (no. 16 in the list together with Cyprus and Jamaica - not that great either; it was rank 7 in 2002).

http://en.rsf.org/spip.php?page=classement&id_rubrique=1043



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21415 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15):
Well the article clearly states

Quote:
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.

"Default" does not equal "exclusively".

Journalists have choices about which compromises they are willing to make. Telling the public that the opportunity for an unedited interview was declined may not be "sexy", but that's where the integrity of the respective reporter may come in if the editing by the WH is seen as excessive.

Of course that's also the question: Is such editing merely about excising politically irrelevant stuff like the odd repetition or swear word or have they insisted on eliminating or modifying politically relevant questions and (potentially lacking) answers?

Political journalism has plumbed ever new depths in the US in recent years (with one major "news" station even explicitly campaigning against the sitting President), so I wouldn't be entirely surprised with the WH trying to limit at least the worst excesses of deliberate distortions.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference

Yes it is. This is after all the Marxist/Maoist/Stateist/Communitst/Socialist Muslim liberal that is an anti-American terrorist. *rolls eyes* Anything to hate.

Not one person on the right even lifted an eyebrow when Bush had his "free speech zones" and screened everyone going to his town hall meetings just to make sure they were all Bushies. That was perfectly fine and all on the taxpayer dime too I might add.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1871 times:

How many times has something been carefully edited to portray something in a particular way? Something as simple as the removal of a comma can change the meaning of a phrase. In a hour long interview just one sentence, or a part of it, will be seized on and used in a manner which may not reflect the context.

"We have accumulated debts..." On the screen that phrase seems neutral enough. But what does it mean? Does it mean that we as a nation have debts totalling a given amount? Or does it mean that the Government has been irresponsible and accumulated those debts since coming into office?

Given that newspapers of whichever persuasion will put their own slant on any story is it not reasonable that people would want to check that they actually print the facts? You may call it censorship. Others may call it making sure the press isn't lying.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 19):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 5):
it's not the white house but the campaign who is censoring. Big difference

Yes it is. This is after all the Marxist/Maoist/Stateist/Communitst/Socialist Muslim liberal that is an anti-American terrorist. *rolls eyes* Anything to hate.

Not one person on the right even lifted an eyebrow when Bush had his "free speech zones" and screened everyone going to his town hall meetings just to make sure they were all Bushies. That was perfectly fine and all on the taxpayer dime too I might add.

So PPVRA makes a comment that is not even bashing the President and you go into one of your right wing rants? When is it "ok" for one side to do something and the not the other? Your 2nd paragraph shouldn't even exist.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
So PPVRA makes a comment that is not even bashing the President and you go into one of your right wing rants?

I was actually agreeing with him.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
When is it "ok" for one side to do something and the not the other? Your 2nd paragraph shouldn't even exist.

It exists to tell all the right-wingers what happened under Bush and why this is not news.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 1841 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21):
So PPVRA makes a comment that is not even bashing the President and you go into one of your right wing rants?

I was actually agreeing with him.

My apologies



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3395 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1816 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
but every campaign does it.

It's not just the campaign it's senior government officials engaged in this kind of activity.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 11):
Not if a) these conditions are documented properly (which they seem to be) and if b) said officials do not categorically exclude unedited interviews

I don't see the disclaimers in the articles saying that this report was reviewed by the interviewee and subsequently edited by them. Lots of TV programs tell the viewer the context of the interview i.e., "we had to submit our questions in advance", "this topic was off-limits", etc.

What is happening here is that if they say something stupid they get a do over.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
25 MD11Engineer : It is standard practice, since quite a few "journalists" like to take quotes out of context and to splice them together (by ommitting the content inb
26 casinterest : If it was a mistake in phrasing, wouldn't you want one, or would you like someone like Rush Limbaugh omitting facts and going on a tirade over a 7 wo
27 flipdewaf : It's a sad state of affairs when journalists have to stoop to a.net trolling methods (saying no names) but unfortunately this seems the way of the me
28 bjorn14 : Unfortunately you're right. I would rather see a quote from an unnamed government official not authorized to speak to the media than from a named one
29 seb146 : Really? Where? When? My in-laws watch FOX constantly. They show quotes from several interviews but I don't hear "you can see the entire interview....
30 Quokkas : Trouble with unnamed sources is two fold; i) you don't know if the person actually exists or is simply a journalistic device; ii) even if the person
31 Post contains images Smittyone : First, he's President Obama. Second, I suggest you leave the application of the US Constitution to those qualified to do so... [Edited 2012-08-18 06:
32 Post contains images bjorn14 : So if you were Catholic you'd still want Mass said in Latin even though you don't undstand it.
33 Smittyone : Haha, no. I'm just saying you should stick to what you know. This isn't it...
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Official U.S. Election – Obama/Biden Campaign posted Fri Sep 12 2008 17:51:22 by Moderators
GOP Already Starting Its Obama Smear Campaign posted Thu Feb 28 2008 21:46:57 by Mdsh00
Obama Picks Bud Light For Cop/Prof WH Meeting. posted Wed Jul 29 2009 13:31:17 by Planespotting
Obama's Trip To Berlin Becomes US Campaign Issue posted Mon Jul 14 2008 05:23:58 by Columba
Tony Snow To Be New WH Press Secretary posted Tue Apr 25 2006 05:17:38 by AirCop
Obama Celebrates Ramadan In The White House! posted Sat Aug 11 2012 06:50:02 by Revelation
Obama's Traveling Limos posted Fri Jul 20 2012 11:08:22 by jfk777
Obama Says “If You’ve Got A Business—yo posted Mon Jul 16 2012 09:23:17 by bjorn14
Obama: "Give Me Your Gift." Pathetic posted Sat Jun 23 2012 06:22:52 by GuitrThree
Obama Claims Executive Privilege W Fast & Furious posted Wed Jun 20 2012 12:06:31 by slider