Abc Turns Programming Over To Obama

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care --

Rick

[Rudy]

So how long will it be until there is a state sponsored and state run television propaganda station. The media and the government should ALWAYS be seperate, no matter who is in the White House.

[greenminer]

Future FYI, I got dibs on the Rebel Alliance.

[Rudy]

Future FYI, I got dibs on the Rebel Alliance.

I want to fly an X-Wing

Those things are bad ass.

[yyz28]

I'm bookmarking this thread for the next time we get into a media bias discussion on this board.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Really? Bush didn't get airwaves to tell us why war was needed?

I don't find this ground breaking or biased.

[GreenBat]

THEN DON'T WATCH ABC!!!!

If enough people boycott the network they will feel it in the pocketbook.

[KRAM1]

However, this is a policy issue. Seems to me that both sides of the issue should be good enough for ABC to air. Would folks not want to see other ideas? One can certainly make up one's own mind on which side of the issue they sit/stand, but ABC seems to be in Obama's hip pocket on this one. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone, but seems to smack of bias on ABC's part.

GreenBat, you are correct. You can obviously not watch ABC. But, in this case, since the healthcare debate is a "biggie" in terms of how and where this nation is going, one might want/need to tune in for this airing. If FOX puts it on and allows for the "other" side of the issue, I will certainly watch FOX, but if the only choice I have for this event is ABC...well, can't really choose to "not watch". When you have no options "choice" is tough to find!

[UNTnewbie]

This way ABC will have a step on everyone when Obama forces the NCAA to institue a DI Football Playoff system and will surely mean they get perpetual rights to broadcast all the games on their affiliates.

[meangreendork]

However, this is a policy issue. Seems to me that both sides of the issue should be good enough for ABC to air. Would folks not want to see other ideas? One can certainly make up one's own mind on which side of the issue they sit/stand, but ABC seems to be in Obama's hip pocket on this one. It should come as absolutely no surprise to anyone, but seems to smack of bias on ABC's part.

It does seem really biased. Very biased, actually. Both sides should see airtime here. No question.

[KingDL1]

Really? Bush didn't get airwaves to tell us why war was needed?

I don't find this ground breaking or biased.

Bush never controlled the airwaves, I think you are missing the point.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Bush never controlled the airwaves, I think you are missing the point.

I think you are inventing your point that I am not seeing

[hickoryhouse]

ABC is not being objective in its programming. An honest journalistic approach to this situation would be very simple, give air time to the opposing views that also have a place in this discussion. If ABC wanted to be intellectually honest they would do the same thing that networks have done for years and that is letting the opposition party have their time for a rebuttal presentation, much the same way that they do after the State of the Union, and other major political events.

This is still a developing story, we might have to wait and see. I hope that ABC decides to utilize a little bit of journalistic integrity in this situation.

[adman]

So how long will it be until there is a state sponsored and state run television propaganda station. The media and the government should ALWAYS be seperate, no matter who is in the White House.

Might want to tell these guys that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America

And these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_Radio

[Censored by Laurie]

I thought ABC already turned programming over to the City of New Orleans

[UNTflyer]

Really? Bush didn't get airwaves to tell us why war was needed?

Umm, no nothing like this. This is going to be an infomercial presented as "news".

[EagleD]

THEN DON'T WATCH ABC!!!!

If enough people boycott the network they will feel it in the pocketbook.

I haven't watched ABC programming since they became a right wing propaganda machine and aired this.

It's the same reason I no longer read TIME magazine. The second they put Coltergeist on the cover, they lost my revenue.

[GreenBat]

I haven't watched ABC programming since they became a right wing propaganda machine and aired this.

It's the same reason I no longer read TIME magazine. The second they put Coltergeist on the cover, they lost my revenue.

OK, let me see if I got this straight. ABC broadcast a news program on the 9/11 attack, which was completely backing the Bush administration's take on the disaster and now it's doing a infomercial for the Obama health plan. Sounds like fair and balanced to me.

[EagleD]

OK, let me see if I got this straight. ABC broadcast a news program on the 9/11 attack, which was completely backing the Bush administration's take on the disaster and now it's doing a infomercial for the Obama health plan. Sounds like fair and balanced to me.

Propaganda is propaganda. They just seem like opportunists. Either way it seems like they are selling out.

[UNTFan23]

What has most people up in the trees is that there is no coverage for the opponents to voice their concerns to the proposed plan. Professional journalists say they pride themselves on fair and balanced coverage, so where's the balance and how is it fair if the opposition isn't afforded the opportunity to express their view?

Edited June 17, 2009 by UNTFan23

[EagleD]

What has most people up in the trees is that there is no coverage for the opponents to voice their concerns to the proposed plan. Professional journalists say they pride themselves on fair and balanced coverage, so where's the balance and how is it fair if the opposition isn't afforded the opportunity to express their view?

I agree with you. It's the journalists job to question things. To be the bulldog. Without slander, without namecalling ask legitimate questions about policy. Russert was the closest thing we had to that, and now he's gone. Greggory has shown signs of it, but all too often he takes what is served up to him. Not to beat up on the Bush administration too much, but on the build up to the Iraq war we could have used more legitimate investigation. I agree that the press (save for FOX News) is giving Obama a lot cushion. They gave it to Bush after 9/11. It isn't fair in either case.

[Guest JohnDenver]

Speaking of Fox News, watched this:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906120035

Then watched this:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2009/0...emix/index.html

He is a piece of (umm) work.

Definitely no spin there.

[yyz28]

Really? Bush didn't get airwaves to tell us why war was needed?

I don't find this ground breaking or biased.

I don't think anyone is objecting to giving the President a chance to address the public. That part of this isn't the problem. I have no problem with ABC or any network giving him time to speak his mid on this issue - he is the President.

...what I object to is the involvement of ABC NEWS in pushing this policy forward. ABC News did NOT push Bush's agenda forward.

ABC News and it's reporters should not be involved in this at all.

Don't pretend giving the President Airtime and actively pushing his policies are the same thing. You're smarter than that.

[Censored by Laurie]

I don't think anyone is objecting to giving the President a chance to address the public. That part of this isn't the problem. I have no problem with ABC or any network giving him time to speak his mid on this issue - he is the President.

...what I object to is the involvement of ABC NEWS in pushing this policy forward. ABC News did NOT push Bush's agenda forward.

ABC News and it's reporters should not be involved in this at all.

Don't pretend giving the President Airtime and actively pushing his policies are the same thing. You're smarter than that.

Can you explain to me how they're "pushing" Obama's agenda?

Is it based simply on this statement from an op-ed: "This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming." Has there been any evidence of this yet?

Or is it the fact that there isn't a counter? Because short of the State of the Union, I don't recall the neccessity for any kind of rebutal following a routine presidential address.

[KRAM1]

OK, close your eyes (after you read this of course) and think back to the good old days of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. Moscow broadcasts the evening news from the Kremlin. Anyone think that would be unbiased broadcasting and not just a bit of propaganda????? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, just saying.........

Edited June 17, 2009 by KRAM1