[Chongo]

I know how we all love the Drudge Report.

I'm surprised NBC was passed over. NBC has been in Dear Leader's hip pocket. I hear they plan to change MSNBC to MSDNC in an effort to pull the "town hall" away from OBC
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashaot.htm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

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 -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Developing...

Will OBC News have the cajones to allow questions that are critical of Dear Leader's plan?

[SpaceMonkey]

In other words: ABC News will probably feature dissenting opinions on another broadcast, or following the event in another format (I hope), just like any other time the White House grants an exclusive interview/event with the president. This was most likely the White House's decision, not ABC News (Obama's press people would be crazy to agree to share the air time, and anyway, it's their "town hall," not ABC's).

Any interview of a president has the potential to be a "glorified infomercial," but it doesn't mean that the journalist nor the White House is under any obligation to have a leader from the opposing party sitting next to the president for the interview. That is what Smith means when he says that the complaint is "unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

In other words: ABC News will probably feature dissenting opinions on another broadcast, or following the event in another format (I hope), just like any other time the White House grants an exclusive interview/event with the president.

You mean like the "State of the Union" address where they let the Republicans respond right afterwords? Oh..you mean not like that, especially since the Republicans have already been turned down for a rebuttal.

You mean some kind of "separate but equal" showing in the middle of the night where people ABC pick sort of tell you what some critics think while their legs are tingling for Obama?

This was most likely the White House's decision, not ABC News (Obama's press people would be crazy to agree to share the air time, and anyway, it's their "town hall," not ABC's).

Exactly. The White House is dictating ABC News editorial policy. A news organization with ethics wouldn't let the White House make decisions about what goes on the air. Either they'd have control or they can have their town hall in the dark.

Any interview of a president has the potential to be a "glorified infomercial," but it doesn't mean that the journalist nor the White House is under any obligation to have a leader from the opposing party sitting next to the president for the interview. That is what Smith means when he says that the complaint is "unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

It's not an interview. It's a "Town Hall" for "show". We've already seen how these work. The media who agree with Obama find people who agree with Obama, or think he's not far enough left, to ask pre-arranged questions to which Obama probably already has the answers to. It's done so that Obama can show he cares about the issue and hopefully convince people to ignore the facts and focus on his charisma.

In other words, it's a network sponsored public relations scheme that the Democrats do not have to pay for as political advertising.

Either they give the opposition equal time or it should be paid programming. I don't think that ABC is in the habit of giving away infomercials for free, and especially shouldn't be giving them away to people who provide oversite over their industry. That's pretty shady quid pro quo. It's like when the NYT gave Obama a free editorial and refused to let McCain respond or give likewise. And these guys are wondering why network news coverage has gone down the tubes in ratings he last 20 years and FOX NEWS is a cable ratings darling.

[SpaceMonkey]

I think you are deliberately mischaracterizing the event (I'm also not sure you know what "editorial policy" means). It's the White House's event, which they have granted ABC News access to. Have the RNC been denied a "rebuttal" or participation in the event itself? To be honest, it's not clear from McKay's complaint.

Originally Posted by stupendousman

It's not an interview. It's a "Town Hall" for "show". We've already seen how these work. The media who agree with Obama find people who agree with Obama, or think he's not far enough left, to ask pre-arranged questions to which Obama probably already has the answers to. It's done so that Obama can show he cares about the issue and hopefully convince people to ignore the facts and focus on his charisma.

Fine, any town hall has the potential to be a "glorified infomercial." Bush did a fair number of those. None of them were moderated by journalists, though. That's what the Smith means when he says that the complaint is unfair to the ABC journalists.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Have the RNC been denied a "rebuttal" or participation in the event itself? To be honest, it's not clear from McKay's complaint.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

Sounds like request made, and rejected.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Sounds like request made, and rejected.

Yes, but what was the request? That's my question. "An opportunity to add our Party's views" could be a lot of things, and I assume the RNC pitched a specific idea. You're treating a press release like it's journalism.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, but what was the request? That's my question. "An opportunity to add our Party's views" could be a lot of things, and I assume the RNC pitched a specific idea. You're treating a press release like it's journalism.

Press releases are what journalism has been reduced to.

[Shaddim]

What "prong" is this, 3rd or 4th? I lost count.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Press releases are what journalism has been reduced to.

So are you saying that you have no interest in knowing what actually happened here?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What "prong" is this, 3rd or 4th? I lost count.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

So are you saying that you have no interest in knowing what actually happened here?

The RNC spokesman stated that their request was denied, and the ABC response was:

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

I would like to know what the "false premises" are.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The RNC spokesman stated that their request was denied, and the ABC response was:

I would like to know what the "false premises" are.

I can't speak for Smith, but if I were in his position they would include the false premise that Republican leaders will not have an opportunity on ABC News to give their reaction to Obama's statements.

[Gee-Man]

So, let me understand - Republicans want to force ABC to present the opposition's position if they present anything by President Obama. As stupendousman sayeth:

Either they give the opposition equal time or it should be paid programming.

Wait a sec... that sounds a lot like... The Fairness Doctrine? I thought Republicans were vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine? Oh yeah, I forgot - they're only opposed if "fairness" means giving liberals airtime. Gotcha.

So the president gets to go on TV and present his point of view to the public without Republicans superimposed in the corner of the screen to say "nuh uh!" to every word? And this is exactly as it has happened with every US President in the mass media age, from FDR onward? Somebody fetch the smelling salts!

Seriously, did liberals whine this much during the first few months of the Bush years? If we did, no wonder you guys were so annoyed with us. Sheesh.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Wait a sec... that sounds a lot like... The Fairness Doctrine? I thought Republicans were vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine? Oh yeah, I forgot - they're only opposed if "fairness" means giving liberals airtime. Gotcha.

You're being more than just a little dishonest in that characterization, but nice try.

People are opposed to the so-called "fairness" doctrine, because in recent times it's clear that there's a desire by government to try and silence private sector opinion that's critical of the government, namely political talk radio. Government has no power to limit freedom of speech, especially political speech, and sane people should never campaign to give it any such right.

In this case, we're talking about the government itself using airtime to sell what's really a massive power-grab of the private sector. Almost the exact opposite equation. It's not about the freedom of speech of private citizens. Without opposing viewpoints, including from within the government itself, it comes off like we have a state-run media. (Which many would say does seem to be the case with some of the more fawning networks.)

Seriously, did liberals whine this much during the first few months of the Bush years? If we did, no wonder you guys were so annoyed with us. Sheesh.

Trust me, it was worse, and not just during the first few months.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think you are deliberately mischaracterizing the event (I'm also not sure you know what "editorial policy" means). It's the White House's event, which they have granted ABC News access to. Have the RNC been denied a "rebuttal" or participation in the event itself? To be honest, it's not clear from McKay's complaint.

As shown above, I think it's pretty clear that ABC has no plans on a RNC rebuttal.

Fine, any town hall has the potential to be a "glorified infomercial." Bush did a fair number of those. None of them were moderated by journalists, though. That's what the Smith means when he says that the complaint is unfair to the ABC journalists.

How many of those "Town Halls" were prime time specials with no DNC rebuttals, along with lots of complimentary promotion from other network properties?

I'll give you the answer: none. This is unprecedented. A network never handed over their programming to a President for a prime-time PR stunt.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

So, let me understand - Republicans want to force ABC to present the opposition's position if they present anything by President Obama. As stupendousman sayeth:

Wait a sec... that sounds a lot like... The Fairness Doctrine? I thought Republicans were vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine? Oh yeah, I forgot - they're only opposed if "fairness" means giving liberals airtime. Gotcha.

Actually, no. If every time ABC News or NBC or any of the other network let one of their reporters say positive things about a Democrat proposal, they had to open the floor to a Republican, then that would be the equivalent to the fairness doctrine. If MSNBC was forced to give half of Keith Oberman's show to a conservative Republican, then that would be the equivalent of the fairness doctirne

There are what, 4 television "Networks" that the government licenses to broadcast over the public airwaves. There are thousands of radio stations. None of the radio stations I know of have ever let a President take over their broadcasts, which would go out to the entire US for a huge chunk of their prime listening time without offering the opposition equal time. Even Rush Limbaugh offers Democrats time on his show, which of course most decline due to them rightly knowing it would most likely be wasted time on their part. I think he's never had a sitting President on his program to "sell" an idea for a half hour or more either. Again, this is unprecedented.

There is of course a radio precedent. The President DOES get a weekly radio address to say whatever he wants. Of course, the opposition gets a rebuttal as well. SURPRISE!!!??!?

[quote]So the president gets to go on TV and present his point of view to the public without Republicans superimposed in the corner of the screen to say "nuh uh!" to every word? And this is exactly as it has happened with every US President in the mass media age, from FDR onward? Somebody fetch the smelling salts![/quote[

No. Whenever they've given a President a chance to sell partisan ideas, they've always allowed rebuttal AFTERWORD. That's what happens with the State of the Union. That's what happens with the weekly radio addresses. Handing over a big chunk of air time to sell a partisan plan without equal time is far and away removed from what happens on talk radio. It's free airtime for a Democrat info-commercial.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

As shown above, I think it's pretty clear that ABC has no plans on a RNC rebuttal.

That isn't shown at all. All we have is the RNC complaining. We have no idea what the basis of their complaint is, because they aren't telling us what they proposed. What likely really happened is that they saw an opportunity to cry foul and they took it. They are being disingenuous. They know they will have an opportunity to air their views in a variety of ways, including on ABC.

This is unprecedented. A network never handed over their programming to a President for a prime-time PR stunt.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. What do you call a presidential press conference?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That isn't shown at all.

They asked. ABC refused. I'm not sure how that "isn't shown at all."

They know they will have an opportunity to air their views in a variety of ways, including on ABC.

That's not the point. Obama has the opportunity to air his views in a variety of ways as well that does not require a United States television network to hand over their prime-time broadcasts for him to sell a partisan plan. That's what commercials are for. He's getting free television advertising and the Republicans are being denied an EQUAL opportunity to voice their views the same way.

That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. What do you call a presidential press conference?

Generally press conferences are open-ended question and answer sessions open to all of the White House press corps - even those in the press representing publications that normally take an opposite view from the President. They aren't single issue public relations schemes designed to overcome objections from critics in a way that gives unfair advantage for partisan political gain. Sorry, but it isn't so silly.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

They asked. ABC refused. I'm not sure how that "isn't shown at all."

That's not the point. Obama has the opportunity to air his views in a variety of ways as well that does not require a United States television network to hand over their prime-time broadcasts for him to sell a partisan plan. That's what commercials are for. He's getting free television advertising and the Republicans are being denied an EQUAL opportunity to voice their views the same way.

Generally press conferences are open-ended question and answer sessions open to all of the White House press corps - even those in the press representing publications that normally take an opposite view from the President. They aren't single issue public relations schemes designed to overcome objections from critics in a way that gives unfair advantage for partisan political gain. Sorry, but it isn't so silly.

And I'll say again: we don't really know what they asked. The RNC's press release is the equivalent of a political campaign ad that says only "Candidate X doesn't support hard working Americans!" "ABC doesn't give time to opposing views!" Of course they give time to opposing views, just not in the context that the RNC would like. The RNC isn't in the business of enforcing fairness. They are in the business of pursuing political advantages for the Republican Party. I'm not going to take their word at face value over ABC's word at face value. Show me what they actually proposed.

By common practice, a "town hall" is an open-ended question and answer session. You have no information indicating that it will not include critical questions. By ascribing nefarious motives to ABC, you are assuming a certain outcome. I am assuming that this event will not be significantly different from other prime-time White House events.

[Shaddim]

Last I heard, press conferences allowed differing viewpoints. This is a Perot-style infomercial, hosted by the federal government, without opposing commentary.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Last I heard, press conferences allowed differing viewpoints. This is a Perot-style infomercial, hosted by the federal government, without opposing commentary.

No, press conferences are designed to disseminate the viewpoint of the person holding the press conference. The organizer even gets to pick the questioners.

[Shaddim]

Really? Every one I've seen has commentary from the opposing view after the conference, not so in this instance.

Can't let any dissenting views interfere with the Glorious Leader's visions of the future, I suppose.

[Shaddim]

I guess they'll get left-of-center Stephanopoulos to play the "token conservative", giving up softball rhetoric to counter the "good sense" socialist agenda. Sh!t, this may even be good enough to garner an Emmy.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Really? Every one I've seen has commentary from the opposing view after the conference, not so in this instance.

Can't let any dissenting views interfere with the Glorious Leader's visions of the future, I suppose.

Oh, I see, you are talking about separate network programming after the event itself. See why I'm so interested in knowing what the RNC actually proposed to ABC?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And I'll say again: we don't really know what they asked.

I think it's safe to assume that they didn't ask for more than Obama is getting. Othewise, I'd say it's a pretty safe guess that ABC would use that as their rationale for not allowing the RNC to be involved.

The RNC's press release is the equivalent of a political campaign ad that says only "Candidate X doesn't support hard working Americans!" "ABC doesn't give time to opposing views!" Of course they give time to opposing views, just not in the context that the RNC would like.

Right. Just in the context that Obama would like. We know.

The RNC isn't in the business of enforcing fairness. They are in the business of pursuing political advantages for the Republican Party. I'm not going to take their word at face value over ABC's word at face value. Show me what they actually proposed.

So you are saying that they likely did ask for more than Obama got?

By common practice, a "town hall" is an open-ended question and answer session.

This is going to be on healthcare, which Obama is pushing. It's about a single subject selected by the White House, using questions pre-screened by Obama loving media types (like ABC Democrat shill, George Steponallofus), seeking to assuage people who have concerns about a controversial topic, broadcast without rebuttal from opposition. It's an infomercial.

You have no information indicating that it will not include critical questions.

I wasn't born yesterday. I've been around the track a few times. I've seen MANY Democrat led "town hall" meetings. When there are "critical questions" they are typically critical from THE LEFT ("Mr. Obama, why haven't you already given everyone free healthcare? We can't wait for debate!!") and/or there is no follow up. Obama can offer up a bunch of dishonest nonsensical gobbledygook and there will be no one to call him on it. THIS is the reason why they choose the format in question.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I think it's safe to assume that they didn't ask for more than Obama is getting. Othewise, I'd say it's a pretty safe guess that ABC would use that as their rationale for not allowing the RNC to be involved.

Right. Just in the context that Obama would like. We know.

So you are saying that they likely did ask for more than Obama got?

This is going to be on healthcare, which Obama is pushing. It's about a single subject selected by the White House, using questions pre-screened by Obama loving media types (like ABC Democrat shill, George Steponallofus), seeking to assuage people who have concerns about a controversial topic, broadcast without rebuttal from opposition. It's an infomercial.

I wasn't born yesterday. I've been around the track a few times. I've seen MANY Democrat led "town hall" meetings. When there are "critical questions" they are typically critical from THE LEFT ("Mr. Obama, why haven't you already given everyone free healthcare? We can't wait for debate!!") and/or there is no follow up. Obama can offer up a bunch of dishonest nonsensical gobbledygook and there will be no one to call him on it. THIS is the reason why they choose the format in question.

I see you are continuing to base your opinion on an RNC press release and your partisan views. There's nothing worth responding to here. Do you have any intellectual curiosity at all?

[andi*pandi]

Since Fox news doesn't air presidential speeches anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty of air over there for the RNC to commandeer. Perhaps they already have?

[BadKosh]

The fact that 0bama and his stooges were able to so easily get ABC (Already Been Compromised) to be the shill suggests a bigger problem with honesty in the media, and lack of trust of the 0bama admin.

[kobi]

Sorry but this is about ratings.

Obama's Health Care Town Hall = Millions of people around the world watching.

GOP/Whig Party Rebuttal = No one watching.

Why would ABC allow a rebuttal where millions of people would turn off or change the station?

Does the GOP/Whig Party really need another Bobby Jindal rebuttal incident?

[Laminar]

Who the **** still refers to them as the "Whig" party?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I see you are continuing to base your opinion on an RNC press release and your partisan views. There's nothing worth responding to here. Do you have any intellectual curiosity at all?

Not if it requires me to stick my head up my behind and make excuses where there really shouldn't be any. Occam's Razor would lead one to assume that they didn't ask for more than they gave Obama.

Originally Posted by kobi 

Sorry but this is about ratings.

Obama's Health Care Town Hall = Millions of people around the world watching.

GOP/Whig Party Rebuttal = No one watching.

Why would ABC allow a rebuttal where millions of people would turn off or change the station?

Because they could get PAID for it.

ABC has apparently refused to even accept PAID ADVERTISING in rebuttal to the state owned media propaganda campaign:

DRUDGE REPORT: ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL 2009�

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party's views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding 'Prescription for America'.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

"It is unfortunate - and unusual - that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers' money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision - as of now - to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider."

Developing...

Sad. The left is desperate. Government run media is the first step to a totalitarian government.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Who the **** still refers to them as the "Whig" party?

Democracks?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not if it requires me to stick my head up my behind and make excuses where there really shouldn't be any. Occam's Razor would lead one to assume that they didn't ask for more than they gave Obama.

No, it requires your being interested in alternative viewpoints and challenging allegations made without evidence. I would submit that taking the arguments of an RNC press release as gospel truth means that you are not interested in alternative viewpoints. In other words: a hack. Do you believe every word of campaign commercials, too?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, it requires your being interested in alternative viewpoints and challenging allegations made without evidence.

It's been a day or two since the RNC claimed that ABC turned them down for a rebuttal. Has ABC posted their version of events yet, or do they not refute what the RNC claims?

I would submit that taking the arguments of an RNC press release as gospel truth means that you are not interested in alternative viewpoints. In other words: a hack. Do you believe every word of campaign commercials, too?

No. I believe that if the RNC announces something that SHOULD be embarrassing to ABC, and ABC does not refute it, the evidence points to what the RNC having said being true. Add to that the fact that apparently ABC is even turning down PAID advertising which would act as refutation, it takes a HACK to hope upon hope that maybe reality is distorted to such an extent that all the facts don't really mean what they appear to mean. Surely there's another explanation..but..uh...ABC just hasn't gotten around to explaining it. Yeah...that's IT!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It's been a day or two since the RNC claimed that ABC turned them down for a rebuttal. Has ABC posted their version of events yet, or do they not refute what the RNC claims?

No. I believe that if the RNC announces something that SHOULD be embarrassing to ABC, and ABC does not refute it, the evidence points to what the RNC having said being true. Add to that the fact that apparently ABC is even turning down PAID advertising which would act as refutation, it takes a HACK to hope upon hope that maybe reality is distorted to such an extent that all the facts don't really mean what they appear to mean. Surely there's another explanation..but..uh...ABC just hasn't gotten around to explaining it. Yeah...that's IT!

You can start by reading their full response to McKay:

ABC News Responds to RNC Letter - ABC News' Press Room

They clearly plan to continue having critics of the administration's policies on the air, and they plan to include opposing viewpoints in their questions during the primetime special. I sure hope the RNC's panties don't get into this much of a twist every time someone has even a *gasp* one-on-one interview with Obama, or they are going to run out of mock indignation pretty soon.

[Shaddim]

*cue Mr. Snuffulupugus*

[hyteckit]

Conservative/Republicans == Whiners

What now? Conservatives == Pro-Regulation? I thought conservatives == Pro-capitalism?

No one watches ABC anyways. They are all watching FOX. You can count on FOX to provide all the opposing voices.

Besides, 76% of the American population already supports Public Option according the the latest poll.

When Pres. Bush was still President, he hold "Address to the Nation" every few weeks, pushing for his agenda such as the Iraq War and the Bailout plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2...5874484&page=1

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Besides, 76% of the American population already supports Public Option according the the latest poll.

I'd like to see this poll please. Link?

When Pres. Bush was still President, he hold "Address to the Nation" every few weeks, pushing for his agenda such as the Iraq War and the Bailout plan.

Bush to Address the Nation on Bailout Plan - ABC News

Ha! The one measure of Bush's that actually enjoyed majority Democrat support and this is your example? Laughable.

Republican support for the subject of the speech above was so lack-luster that it was Democrats who on the Tuesday prior, urged Bush to give the speech. After all, they didn't want to be left out to dry should it be proven a failure.
Bush Makes Pitch for Plan to the Nation - WSJ.com

In a more shameless attempt to goad Bush into the speech; "Where is President Bush?" Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, demanded on the Senate floor. "President Bush has sent Congress an unprecedented $700 billion bailout proposal - $700 billion straight from the pockets of every single man, woman and child in America. "It is time for him to explain how his plan, drafted literally under the cover of darkness, will help America weather this storm."

Who's dissenting opinion would they have aired for this Bush speech, the Republicans?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You can start by reading their full response to McKay:

ABC News Responds to RNC Letter - ABC News' Press Room

I already read it. It essentially tells the RNC it won't be involved because they want to pick and choose what criticisms it might included in the broadcast. See my post above about how Democrat "Town Meetings" almost always work. You've got someone like Steponalofus whose legs tingle for Obama picking a few confused people to ask stupid, critical questions that are easily overcome and then a few left-wing nutjobs to criticize his plans as not being "progressive" and left-leaning enough.

Could you please point to me a Democrat "Town Hall Meeting" where the Democrat in question had a hard time overcoming objections raised because the questioning was too tough? I'll help you out - it never happens. The people in charge make sure that either they get softballs they are already prepared for, or criticisms which actually make their positions look moderate. That is when the people asking the questions aren't pre-selected and given the questions by those in charge in the first place, like Hillary used to do.

Are you really under the impression that Obama would allow himself to go on Prime Time television and answer really tough questions without a teleprompter without there being safeguards in place to ensure that he won't be blindsided by rational criticism? That's not the point of this propaganda exercise, and precisely why the RNC won't be allowed equal time or even a fair shot at rebuttal. Even if they offer to pay.

Again, apparently you've never seen one of the Democrat "Town Meetings" before and don't understand how they are put together, and what their purpose is... and you've had your eyes closed the past several years to see the kid gloves the network uses on Obama in comparison to people like Sara Palin or those whose positions they disagree.

[hyteckit]

What's the whining about again?

Whining about ABC planning to do a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America'?

Whining that the RNC doesn't get the control what's being discussed on the ABC primetime special?

Whining that the RNC doesn't get the control the flow of the reporting on the ABC primetime special?

WTF?

Okay. Keep whining.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Wait a sec... that sounds a lot like... The Fairness Doctrine? I thought Republicans were vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine? Oh yeah, I forgot - they're only opposed if "fairness" means giving liberals airtime. Gotcha.

So the president gets to go on TV and present his point of view to the public without Republicans superimposed in the corner of the screen to say "nuh uh!" to every word? And this is exactly as it has happened with every US President in the mass media age, from FDR onward? Somebody fetch the smelling salts!

Perhaps the Repubs just want to interject SOME TRUTH, which is sadly missing from 0bamas administration?
Perhaps the repubs can correct some of the lefts "facts" as to how many illegals he wants to give health care to, or how health care is somehow a 'right'.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps the Repubs just want to interject SOME TRUTH, which is sadly missing from 0bamas administration?
Perhaps the repubs can correct some of the lefts "facts" as to how many illegals he wants to give health care to, or how health care is somehow a 'right'.

Perhaps the Republicans want to control the news channel and tell them what to discuss and what they need to do.

Let's nationalize the media.

Seriously? The whining is about ABC not listening the RNC and not allowing the RNC to control the flow of discussion and the topics being discussed?

What's next?

Reports on abortion must first consult the RNC.
Reports on marriage must first consult the RNC.
All prime-time specials must first consult the RNC.

RNC - Republic of Nationalist China == Current Republicans

[hyteckit]

As SpaceMonkey has posted:

ABC News Responds to RNC Letter - ABC News' Press Room

Second, ABC News prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABC News is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue. ABC News alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.




Allowing the RNC to have editorial control over ABC's primetime is just idiot.

[hyteckit]

NEW LAW FOR MAINSTREAM MEDIA - BY THE RNC

All primetime specials, magazine articles, special reports, blog postings, and so forth must now contain RNC talking points.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's the whining about again?

Whining about ABC planning to do a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America'?

Whining that the RNC doesn't get the control what's being discussed on the ABC primetime special?

Not control. Simply equal access. Otherwise, it's a commercial for one side.

Why would that be a problem unless there was some agenda? Why not hear from the opposition directly, unless the goal wasn't to equally present the issue?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Perhaps the Republicans want to control the news channel and tell them what to discuss and what they need to do.

Let's nationalize the media.

Seriously? The whining is about ABC not listening the RNC and not allowing the RNC to control the flow of discussion and the topics being discussed?

What's next?

Reports on abortion must first consult the RNC.
Reports on marriage must first consult the RNC.
All prime-time specials must first consult the RNC.

RNC - Republic of Nationalist China == Current Republicans

Actually a better examples would be:

Reports on abortion featuring testimony from Pro Choice groups should also have testimony from Right to LIfe groups.

Reports on marriage which features homosexual activists should also feature the opposite view from traditional marriage supporters.

Information on controversial health care proposals which features the leader of the Democrat party should also feature opposing opinion given by a representative that the Republican party chooses.

You know...balance, fairness and ethics. All that stuff journalists are supposed to engage in but substitute their own agendas for?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Not control. Simply equal access. Otherwise, it's a commercial for one side.

Why would that be a problem unless there was some agenda? Why not hear from the opposition directly, unless the goal wasn't to equally present the issue?

There is not a Presidential Campaign. It's not a equal access issue. Who's running for President? Who's the Presidential challengers?

News stations, newspapers, or whatever media outlets have editorial control. Why should they let RNC have editorial control?

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You know...balance, fairness and ethics. All that stuff journalists are supposed to engage in but substitute their own agendas for?

How are they not fair and balance? Have you seen the show already?

Just because they already making the RNC talking points, they are not fair and balance?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

There is not a Presidential Campaign. It's not a equal access issue. Who's running for President? Who's the Presidential challengers?

So as long as it's not right in the middle of an election, a broadcast network can give free advertising to one political party and make the political party they don't agree with pay or simply shut them out of the broadcast network in question?

You don't know much about how broadcasting works, do you?

News stations, newspapers, or whatever media outlets have editorial control. Why should they let RNC have editorial control?

Red Herring. No one at the RNC asked for control. Simply equal access. If Obama gets to defend his partisan political plans, then it's only reasonable that the opposition gets equal access to do the same. That is precisely why the opposition party gets time after the State of the Union address.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

How are they not fair and balance? Have you seen the show already?

Just because they already making the RNC talking points, they are not fair and balance?

They've refused to allow opposition equal accesss, the same as they are giving Obama and the Democrat party.

They've refused to allow opposition to even buy paid advertising

They are purposely limiting the ability to provide equal access to alternate viewpoints from people who would best be able to explain the differences in this controversial issue.

The Democrats get to put their main man on national television and lie about what he wants to do. The Republicans can't even buy time to explain why Obama's plan would be another failure.

But hey, that's fair, right?