Things The MSM Don't Talk (much) About
Things like:
As I pointed out Here there was an interesting thing happened at the Obama press conference earlier this week.
They solicited in advance a question of a left wing blogger.
For details see more Here !
Now aside from that matter of who was chosen and how or why we have little or no insight offered by the AP report. Aside from some suggestions that point to some rather obvious sore points for AP. I get the sense that the reporter felt a little miffed about the relative preference afforded the blogger. Much was made in the article of the fact that everyone says there was NO advance discussion of what the question would be. In such a manner suggesting that should be a question. And concludes with a little snipe about the ethics of posting the press conference transcripts in Farsi and Arabic ... a contradiction of earlier protestations from the white house of keep neutral and not actively interfering.
Personally ... I'd like to know if the origin of the question was even from an Iranian involved in the protests.
However the question "... whether Obama would recognized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, or if such a move would be a betrayal of protesters."
Leads me to believe that the person who did put it forth had the same mindset and literacy of you typical reporter. (not a good thing) Even if it was some anonymous citizen journalist from Iran it is one of those facile sort of interrogatives that are so often cobbled together on the spot by journos trying to appear deep and also to squeeze two separate questions into one. While, hoping to force the desired answer through what they believe to be clever maneuvering. (It's not even if it works on some dim wits who forget to remember the boiler plate.)
The first part seems like a very obvious thing that those in Iran especially might like to know.
The core of the matter ... Is Obama going to recognize the results of the Iranian elections? ... seems to be a pretty important thing.
For the second part it would seem boil down to whether or not Obama would feel that doing such a thing would be, "A betrayal of the protestors."
In plain English then: Are you going legitimize the reelection of Mack the Maddinnerjacket and throw us under the bus?
The Obama answer to that question, however worded, was pretty much "You are on your own".
Now, the thing is that although this weasel worded reply is nothing of a surprise to us it just might be the kind of thing that people who were really concerned about what happens next in Iran would like to have with a little more substance provided.
And so the story behind the story is what has happened in the MSM since this conference.
Firstly - there has been very little if any mention about the blogger's participation, the SOP for MSMers who feel they can marginalize the new media. ( It won't work.)
Secondly - The MSM has played up the other portions of the Obama statements and ignored this question and this response completely. (As far as I can tell.)
According to the MSM Obama is all tough talk on Iran now! Yeah sure he is... hot dog day at the US embassy still has the Iranians on the guest list for just one little thing.
Never mind the complete burying of this response:
"Ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States," Obama said, repeating a familiar refrain. "And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government."
Precious!
Yes down the memory hole if the MSM has their way.
I suppose there are a lot of reasons why the mainstream news folks don't want to point out how juvenile the white house is in matters of world importance. After all they spent so much effort making GWB to be the buffoon .... they presumably should spend as much effort making their boy out to be not to be.
In any case it goes on and on .... the neverending effort of the MSM to shape the news by controlling what is reported and how it is reported.
Funny thing is that their boy Obama looks just as willing to throw them under the bus when it suits him.
I wonder when they'll realize that just being willing tools isn't doing them so much good.
OMMAG
- Their declining revenues (and relevance)
- Their overt political bias
- Obama's Failings
- Bloggers
As I pointed out Here there was an interesting thing happened at the Obama press conference earlier this week.
They solicited in advance a question of a left wing blogger.
For details see more Here !
Now aside from that matter of who was chosen and how or why we have little or no insight offered by the AP report. Aside from some suggestions that point to some rather obvious sore points for AP. I get the sense that the reporter felt a little miffed about the relative preference afforded the blogger. Much was made in the article of the fact that everyone says there was NO advance discussion of what the question would be. In such a manner suggesting that should be a question. And concludes with a little snipe about the ethics of posting the press conference transcripts in Farsi and Arabic ... a contradiction of earlier protestations from the white house of keep neutral and not actively interfering.
Personally ... I'd like to know if the origin of the question was even from an Iranian involved in the protests.
However the question "... whether Obama would recognized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election, or if such a move would be a betrayal of protesters."
Leads me to believe that the person who did put it forth had the same mindset and literacy of you typical reporter. (not a good thing) Even if it was some anonymous citizen journalist from Iran it is one of those facile sort of interrogatives that are so often cobbled together on the spot by journos trying to appear deep and also to squeeze two separate questions into one. While, hoping to force the desired answer through what they believe to be clever maneuvering. (It's not even if it works on some dim wits who forget to remember the boiler plate.)
The first part seems like a very obvious thing that those in Iran especially might like to know.
The core of the matter ... Is Obama going to recognize the results of the Iranian elections? ... seems to be a pretty important thing.
For the second part it would seem boil down to whether or not Obama would feel that doing such a thing would be, "A betrayal of the protestors."
In plain English then: Are you going legitimize the reelection of Mack the Maddinnerjacket and throw us under the bus?
The Obama answer to that question, however worded, was pretty much "You are on your own".
Now, the thing is that although this weasel worded reply is nothing of a surprise to us it just might be the kind of thing that people who were really concerned about what happens next in Iran would like to have with a little more substance provided.
And so the story behind the story is what has happened in the MSM since this conference.
Firstly - there has been very little if any mention about the blogger's participation, the SOP for MSMers who feel they can marginalize the new media. ( It won't work.)
Secondly - The MSM has played up the other portions of the Obama statements and ignored this question and this response completely. (As far as I can tell.)
According to the MSM Obama is all tough talk on Iran now! Yeah sure he is... hot dog day at the US embassy still has the Iranians on the guest list for just one little thing.
Never mind the complete burying of this response:
"Ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States," Obama said, repeating a familiar refrain. "And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government."
Precious!
Yes down the memory hole if the MSM has their way.
I suppose there are a lot of reasons why the mainstream news folks don't want to point out how juvenile the white house is in matters of world importance. After all they spent so much effort making GWB to be the buffoon .... they presumably should spend as much effort making their boy out to be not to be.
In any case it goes on and on .... the neverending effort of the MSM to shape the news by controlling what is reported and how it is reported.
Funny thing is that their boy Obama looks just as willing to throw them under the bus when it suits him.
I wonder when they'll realize that just being willing tools isn't doing them so much good.
OMMAG
Labels: America, Associated Press, Clowns in Politics, Consequenses, MSM, Obama, Where's the MSM?
posted by OMMAG at 12:29 a.m.
5 Comments:
I used to be a diehard newspaper reader and tv watcher. Most of my news now comes from the net. I actually think bloggers are more informed and have better reasoning than many of the paid commentators on the MSM. I am always amazed at the depth of information and anaylsis that is available. Bloggers can be rude, crude and obnoxious, but I really like the freedom that comes from this source. Cheers. Fern StAlbert
Thanks for the comment Fern.
So am I rude crude and obnoxious?
Not that I'd be too offended.....
Dear OMMAG: I enjoy your blog and your candid comments. My rude, cude and obnoxious refers to those who comment after the fact, and go for shock and awe - but I'm a grownup and never take offense. There is no politically correct in the blogosphere and that's the way it should stay. I must confess that I worry that the HRC's are taking notes and that bloggers could be in jeopardy just for expressing opinions. Cheers. Fern St Albert
Its all good Fern .... Just a little reparte.....
Dear Ommag: Did you see that the Americans are looking at some kind of legislation to limit speech on the internet. Something to do with a mother harassing a school girl (who was a rival of her daughter) into a suicide. The Judge on Fox was commenting on the legislation this morning. I don't know how they will be able to sort out the aggressive from the criminal - they will need HRCs to monitor the postings. Jennifer Lynch would be an ideal candidate for the job. Cheers, Fern StAlbert
Post a Comment
<< Home