'Suffocating Pressure' - White House 'censorship'

[Fern]

So wait, you think he just doesn't care and that's why he doesn't play 'hardball' in foreign affairs?

This seems so out of touch with reality that it's scary. Maybe he is the same guy for both and you just project what you want on his actions. Doesn't that seem more likely?

In foreign politics Obama is the one who said he would "lead from behind".

It's not that he doesn't play "hardball" in foreign affairs, it's that he doesn't play at all or is the last to join the 'game'. We saw that from the outset of his presidency when he was reluctant engage in the Iranian student protests all the way through and up to Libya.

It's his preference.

Fern

 

[Greenman]

Maybe you quoted the wrong guy too.

So your account was hijacked or what?

You credited me with things I never said. I have no problem discussing anything, but please don't make up my statements. We can't debate what you wish I had said, we have to stick my actual words or it doesn't work.

 

[Bowfinger]

The faux outrage around this story is, as usual, overblown and based more on speculation than on substance. Is it wrong for the White House (or any public organization or official) to try to coerce the news media? Absolutely, but it's not clear that's what happened here. The real world isn't black and white, and we only have this reporter's second-hand understanding of how the White House was involved. Were his bosses coerced into supporting the administration's approach to Afghanistan, or was it a business or personal decision? Understanding that distinction seems pretty important before grabbing torches and pitchforks.

In the interim, I wonder how many of the righties who've jumped on this bandwagon have stopped to consider the position they've accepted. Many of them frequently cry about the purportedly "liberal" media in America. Their favorite objective "proof" of this is the study showing the majority of American reporters consider themselves liberal. Yet the foundation of this story is that this liberal reporter was not allowed to report his own views, but instead had to follow the direction set by his bosses and corporate interest. From his blog:

[ ... ]
I left CAP not too long after that, partly for reasons of other censorship dealing with both corporate sponsors and that institution’s fealty to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). I wanted to work at a more independent outlet, but every place I’ve worked for since has had its own editorial constraints and conflicts of interest.

Which brings me to why we’re all a little like RT America. The people who work at ThinkProgress today continue to do awesome, independent reporting. But they have a lot of constraints on them, and I’m sure they wish they didn’t. But it’s an unfortunate reality in many of the journalistic environments we exist today. We can’t criticize certain people, or dig into certain stories, or follow our noses on the trail of corruption if it means upsetting our publishers, sponsors, and donors. ...

This is exactly what I've said again and again, but it's been ignored because it undermines their "liberal media" dogma. Reporters are the bottom of the journalism food chain. They write what their bosses -- editors, publishers, corporate owners, advertisers -- let them write. The OP is but one example of a liberal reporter who had to toe the line imposed from above. It will be interesting to see if those same "liberal media" bashers now have the intellectual honesty to recognize their inconsistency.

 

[monovillage]

I don't recall anyone saying he was a tyrant, an idiot and a puppet? Yes.

So you don't think anyone from this forum every labeled Bush as a tyrant? Usually i'd say you were a liar or an idiot, but in this case i can label you as both. Would you like to do a forum search and see who is right ?

lmao

 

[ivwshane]

So you don't think anyone from this forum every labeled Bush as a tyrant? Usually i'd say you were a liar or an idiot, but in this case i can label you as both. Would you like to do a forum search and see who is right ?

lmao

Actually I was referring to news stories, blogs, political pundits, or politicians. There are a lot of stupid people on this forum, I have no doubt that you could find a couple of people calling him a tyrant. But go a head and show me, I'd like to see who still posts that show up in your search.

 

[Victorian Gray]

People don't "get" your point of view because nobody else shares it. They don't share it, because it makes no sense. This notion that only a news organization can be censored is bizarre. I'm starting to think you're Canadian because their free speech laws are quite different than our first amendment laws here.

Mr. Jilani quit his job because he did not want to be censored by the White House by way of his employer.

And how did the White House censor Mr. Jilani? Putting 'pressure' on his employer is not censorship.

 

[Victorian Gray]

The mental gyrations the left go through to justify virtually anything they feel needs defending are interesting to say the least.

They have no qualms with calling Mr. Jilani a liar. It's easy, he's not here to defend himself. An easy battle to pick. Mr. Jilani by all indications is a progressive and yet he dares to speak out. This is the sin that evidently can not be forgiven.

How much easier life would be with free speech curtailed in the nation. No more uncomfortable stories to read. Happy people doing happy things in a hap, hap, happy way. Happy drones.

But until that glorious day, the leftists will pick apart anything they deem counter to the movement using their tool of last resort, semantics. Find a little crack in an article and spread it wider and wider arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Smart people doing dumb things thinking it makes them look smart. Yeah.

Show us where this happened:


censor
an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censor?s=t

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The faux outrage around this story is, as usual, overblown and based more on speculation than on substance. Is it wrong for the White House (or any public organization or official) to try to coerce the news media? Absolutely, but it's not clear that's what happened here. The real world isn't black and white, and we only have this reporter's second-hand understanding of how the White House was involved. Were his bosses coerced into supporting the administration's approach to Afghanistan, or was it a business or personal decision? Understanding that distinction seems pretty important before grabbing torches and pitchforks.

In the interim, I wonder how many of the righties who've jumped on this bandwagon have stopped to consider the position they've accepted. Many of them frequently cry about the purportedly "liberal" media in America. Their favorite objective "proof" of this is the study showing the majority of American reporters consider themselves liberal. Yet the foundation of this story is that this liberal reporter was not allowed to report his own views, but instead had to follow the direction set by his bosses and corporate interest. From his blog:
This is exactly what I've said again and again, but it's been ignored because it undermines their "liberal media" dogma. Reporters are the bottom of the journalism food chain. They write what their bosses -- editors, publishers, corporate owners, advertisers -- let them write. The OP is but one example of a liberal reporter who had to toe the line imposed from above. It will be interesting to see if those same "liberal media" bashers now have the intellectual honesty to recognize their inconsistency.

I'm pretty sure that I've stated that any ire directed at the current administration is dependent on the statements being true. Addressing the Right I'd tell them to shut up unless they objected to manipulation by their own. But Bush isn't in power and the claim is about now, not then. Those who do like you and disapprove of such behavior but question the facts I have no issue with. My angst are those who justify the behavior out of hand with "well THEY did it" or "this isn't coercion" are to my way of thinking deserving of whatever scorn is heaped upon them. It is they I chiefly object to as they've witnessed against themselves. Talk to the righties but they aren't different than those of opposite stripe who effectively endorse such alleged actions.

 

[fskimospy]

In foreign politics Obama is the one who said he would "lead from behind".

It's not that he doesn't play "hardball" in foreign affairs, it's that he doesn't play at all or is the last to join the 'game'. We saw that from the outset of his presidency when he was reluctant engage in the Iranian student protests all the way through and up to Libya.

It's his preference.

Fern

Playing hard rarely has to do with who is the public lead on an issue.

I just find it silly that the right thinks of him as some diabolical dictator at home and some pansy abroad. This is almost certainly because their goal is simply to attack Obama and so they choose the most convenient framing that presents itself for any given issue.

Again though, the idea that the administration calling up a think tank and complaining about a story that was already run is somehow censorship distorts the meaning of the word so far it has lost all meaning.

 

[Bowfinger]

I'm pretty sure that I've stated that any ire directed at the current administration is dependent on the statements being true. Addressing the Right I'd tell them to shut up unless they objected to manipulation by their own. But Bush isn't in power and the claim is about now, not then. Those who do like you and disapprove of such behavior but question the facts I have no issue with. My angst are those who justify the behavior out of hand with "well THEY did it" or "this isn't coercion" are to my way of thinking deserving of whatever scorn is heaped upon them. It is they I chiefly object to as they've witnessed against themselves. Talk to the righties but they aren't different than those of opposite stripe who effectively endorse such alleged actions.

Understood, and I agree. There is a lot of hypocrisy at both ends of the political spectrum, people who excuse their party's malfeasance with, "They did it first." I do recognize that pressuring the media is a standard practice of public and private interests alike, but as you noted earlier, that doesn't make it right either. Democracy's best interests are served with a free and independent press. Sadly, that press also needs to be scrupulously honest and focused on substance instead of fluff. That seems much harder to find nowadays.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The mental gyrations the left go through to justify virtually anything they feel needs defending are interesting to say the least.

Boehner is to Heritage as Obama is to ThinkProgress. The gyrations you're seeing are the ones your head is performing trying to deny this in order to keep your forced perception afloat.