The_Godfather Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 See Story & Video: http://www.examiner.com/x-6356-Wichita-Independent-Examiner~y2009m7d2-Obamas-healthcare-townhall-more-a-closed-chat "The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled..." (venerable White House reporter Helen Thomas) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Helen freakin Thomas is going off about this.. thats when you know you've gone too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Wow, I thought I was reading a quote from Sean Hannity then saw it was Helen Thomas. Surprising. But not really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Oh ****, thats what I saw yesterday. I was leaving work driving down I495 and I saw this huge barricade of police on motorcycles followed by tons of SUVs with the Presidential logo on them. I saw an ambulance in the mix too, so I figured some high ranking authority was going to the hospital. I guess it was just Obama talking at NOVA...makes sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte51Coleman Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I love Helen Thomas. Gibbs, when cornered, is as or more smug as any WHPS that I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Thomas historically has been great. She gives them all hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It seems as if each administration gets a little more sophisticated in how they control the message. For me, though, the king was Ari. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Let me know when they start putting people with dissenting opinions in large cages called "protest zones" that are far away from where the event they want to protest is actually happening. Oh wait, my mistake. That was done 5 years ago. And so was this "town hall" format in which questions are pre-screened from an audience hand picked to present the President in the most positive light. It really seems to me that policies that Republicans embraced under Bush were fine, but when continued under Obama are cause for concern. The thing is there's a good bunch of us out here who do not have short memories, and who realize that nothing NEW is going on here. And what's good for the goose,, well, you know the rest. If you want honesty, transparency, integrity, then display it yourselves. Otherwise, complaining about it from others just rings hollow. I really would like the Republican party to collect itself again, and to try to offer up something that is viable. As of now, that doesn't exist. In fact, honesty, integrity, vicions for the future,, they seem to have sompletely evaporated from the republican stance. Do as I say, not as I do.. unless of course you do as I say and you're from the other side, then no matter what it's wrong, even if I do the same thing.. I like to say I stand in the middle, but lately the right makes that harder and harder to do. "Complain, whine, moan, & point, " is not a political vision. It's just ****ing. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It seems as if each administration gets a little more sophisticated in how they control the message. For me, though, the king was Ari. That may be true, but Obama campaigned on a promise of open and transparent government. People want to pooh-pooh this and say everybody does it, but Obama campaigned on a pledge to change the spin and BS in DC. They haven't changed diddlysquat. They've just perfected the art of information control, or in layman's terms... bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 While I think there is nothing wrong with it, it is certainly interesting that Helen Thomas is complaining. If nothing else, I like that Obama has the ability to talk to people without sounding stupid. Prepped or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Godfather Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 The thing is there's a good bunch of us out here who do not have short memories, and who realize that nothing NEW is going on here. Reread Helen's quote. She disagrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 That may be true, but Obama campaigned on a promise of open and transparent government. People want to pooh-pooh this and say everybody does it, but Obama campaigned on a pledge to change the spin and BS in DC. They haven't changed diddlysquat. They've just perfected the art of information control, or in layman's terms... bull****. Who doesn't run on a campaign like that in some form or another? Change. Washington Outsider. Better, more efficient government that gets out the way and represents the will of the people. This has been going on since the founding of the Republic. They are products that we buy, just with a strict, no return policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I love Helen Thomas. Gibbs, when cornered, is as or more smug as any WHPS that I can remember. I personally can't stand her. She was unprofessional in her attitude towards Bush. Asking rhetorical questions and being simply rude isn't the same thing as asking tough questions and being a good journalist. Thomas, like Sen. Byrd, has gone a bit overboard in her old age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 That may be true, but Obama campaigned on a promise of open and transparent government. People want to pooh-pooh this and say everybody does it, but Obama campaigned on a pledge to change the spin and BS in DC. They haven't changed diddlysquat. They've just perfected the art of information control, or in layman's terms... bull****. Well that depends on what you mean by open and transparent government. Take a look at this: http://it.usaspending.gov/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Reread Helen's quote. She disagrees with you. If there is a difference, it's that the Obama administration are using the media, controlling the message through exclusive interviews and a lot of carefully managed communication in these so called 'town-hall meetings'. The previous administration had more of an attitude of ignoring the media entirely. Both would piss off the likes of Helen Thomas. In some ways you might say Obama is taking the road of a certain NFL owner in controlling the message and providing widespread access, but strictly on his terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 "The point is the control from here. We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some control but not this control. I mean I'm amazed, I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and you have controlled..." In all candor, this quote is not much more than an open ended thought. There is no context to what she's saying, and the article offers none. All respect to Ms Thomas, but if any other old lady said this, you'd ignore it as confused ramblings. (I always love the "..." who the hell knows what comes next, or whether or not this quote is actually strung together the way it was spoken. "..." is a favorite little media trick in which they can tell you a half truth, and not be liable for the rest of the comment. Fact is her next words could have been "the coffee service". She could be complaining about control over the restroom key. We don't know, and they didn't tell us. Typically, I have found that the "..." is used when an entire comment would not make the point that half of the comment could. It's a dishonest tactic, and only makes me wonder what they left out. Now, let's say she is making a valid point. I would also point out to Ms Thomas that the relationship between the "media" and the president is MUCH different. MUCH different. Especially over the last 10 years or so. Now you have "news" organizations with the agenda of destroying everything the president says. Each side has at least one. Now any ignorant blogger with an axe to grind can be given credence, so long as their "quote" fits the point the propagandist wants you to hear. The "Media" stopped playing fair long ago. They ambush, they manipulate, they mislead, they push agenda shamelessly, and some are quite malicious in their intent. (Of course, the malice depends on which side of the aisle the President is on. If he's a Republican, MSNBC will do everything they can to smear him. If he's Democrat, Fox will do the same.) I see absolutely no reason why anyone would step willingly onto the tilted battlefield that is modern media relations. If the media wants openness, then they should practice some objectivity. If they don't want to be treated as hostile, they should try to angle for the untainted and untarnished truth, instead of tainting and tarnishing the truth to present an angle. You get what you wish for. People like to play dirty. Part of the right's agenda for the last 25 years has been to demonize the media as "biased". well, now it sure as hell is, and rather than fight for more honest media, they've joined the bias party full swing. The right has been very successful in convincing everyone that no one should trust the "biased" media, (except theirs, which is humorously called "fair and balanced") and that has now backfired to the point where we all lose. America no longer has a detached fifth column to be our eyes and ears and diggers of truth. We now have propaganda machines, manipulators and schemers. You reap what you sow, and ****ing about it when you don't like the inevitable result is laughable. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 If you say the Governor that was the PROMISE Maker has to step down because he didn't keep his promise. And "THOSE" holier than thou Repubs are blowing up etc. etc. and deserve it. When you say read my lips, no new taxes and tax: Voted out was the outcome So: Then campaigning on openness and transparancy "SHOULD" garner more outrage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Well that depends on what you mean by open and transparent government. Take a look at this:http://it.usaspending.gov/ That website may provide more public access to data than before, but which Joe Schmoe citizen is going to slog through all that data to reach conclusions about government policies? The point of contact between the government and the unwashed public is through journalists, and it probably always will be. I'm sure the first time some citizen or journalist does find something in that data that they don't like, Gibbs and Obama will be out there spinning and bull****ting and shooting the messenger like always. I guess my idea of transparent government is more honesty and less bull****. The WH press corps is obviously getting tired of the bull****. Here they are laughing at Gibbs during a particularly blatant bout of bull****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 If the data is there and people still rely on a corrupted media to handhold them through it, only their ignorance can be blamed. Sorry, the media is compromised. If the administration is putting the info out there, and all anyone has to do is read it, then it's on them to do so. John Q. Public certainly can understand this stuff, he just has to take enough responsibility to keeping himself informed to do so. These people can put together some ridiculously in depth discussions about fantasy football trends, backed up with research and all sorts of other stuff to make their point, There's no reason why they can't take that same time and effort to reading what is released by the admin on their site if they find it to be so important. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I guess my idea of transparent government is more honesty and less bull****. And when you can't rely on the media for more honesty and less bull****? The website I pointed to you breaks down where each Federal Agency is making investments and whether how that investment is meeting its cost and schedule goals. It provides all sorts of reports to just show which projects and which agencies are failing to meet their promises. How is this not being accountable? You can take this information and then use it to assess whether political commentary is fair or just bull****. It provides real data rather than some media hack making qualitative judgments on your behalf, whether positive or negative about whether government is working. There is general distrust of the media here when it comes to reporting on the Redskins, but once your political adversaries are in power all of a sudden the media can be relied on as the only purveyors of truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 And what's good for the goose,, well, you know the rest. ~Bang Is good for another goose also? I think there is a better cliche out there to use for this one...especially for such a creative guy:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 nm - duplicate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparkleMotion Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 And when you can't rely on the media for more honesty and less bull****?The website I pointed to you breaks down where each Federal Agency is making investments and whether how that investment is meeting its cost and schedule goals. It provides all sorts of reports to just show which projects and which agencies are failing to meet their promises. How is this not being accountable? You can take this information and then use it to assess politician commentary is fair or just bull****. It provides real data rather than some media hack either making qualitative, judgments on your behalf, whether positive or negative about whether government is working. There is general distrust of the media here when it comes to reporting on the Redskins, but once your political adversaries are in power all of a sudden the media can be relied on as the only purveyors of truth? I get what you're saying and I'm all for people doing their own research into political issues. But the white house press corps exists for a reason. You seem to be suggesting that we just disband the whole thing and leave the public to sift through the propaganda on their own. I'm not saying they're the purveyors of truth, but they sure as hell ask tougher questions than the people at these town hall meetings. But the tough questions usually go unanswered by Gibbs and Obama. What good is all the data if when you ask the White House a question about it, they don't answer it? You can call it naivete on my part. But at 24 years old, the only administration I've been old enough to pay attention to is Bush. Obama promised accountability, openness, and a clear break from the way things were done in the past. I just don't see it. He has taken all of the worst qualities of your stereotypical politician and taken them to the next level. And I'm not yet jaded enough to accept the "that's just the way it's done" excuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 If the data is there and people still rely on a corrupted media to handhold them through it, only their ignorance can be blamed.Sorry, the media is compromised. If the administration is putting the info out there, and all anyone has to do is read it, then it's on them to do so. John Q. Public certainly can understand this stuff, he just has to take enough responsibility to keeping himself informed to do so. These people can put together some ridiculously in depth discussions about fantasy football trends, backed up with research and all sorts of other stuff to make their point, There's no reason why they can't take that same time and effort to reading what is released by the admin on their site if they find it to be so important. ~Bang Seriously Bang? http://it.usaspending.gov/sites/default/files/launch.html I am IT and i watched this gobblety gook and think your insane if you think government sponsored websites that say in charts/selected information is better than investigative journalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Seriously Bang?http://it.usaspending.gov/sites/default/files/launch.html I am IT and i watched this gobblety gook and think your insane if you think government sponsored websites that say in charts/selected information is better than investigative journalism. Well, of course I agree with you. Obviously it is much easier and probably much more efficient to have a reporter break things down into layman's terms and make these things easier to understand But my point is that investigative journalism is something that has toooo many strings attached these days. I find it very difficult not to read any investigative report without a cynical eye that is trying to uncover the angle and agenda the reporter is pushing. And if he's pushing agenda (which he usually is) I need to know what he's emphasized or omitted in trying to further his goal. Usually these days that goal has nothing to do with the truth or facts as they are. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.