[BadKosh]

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.

Perhaps you don't see a trend towards the Left controlling the media and puling their strings?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Let's nationalize the media.

Sure the Gov't screws everything up anyway.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

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?

So it's "OK" for the Lying Liberals to say whatever, and the stupid stooges who watch it will think they are seeing facts, WHEN THEY ARE NOT.

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

What's next?

Wage and price controls?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

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.

You must be kidding, right?

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

RNC - Republic of Nationalist China == Current Republicans

ABC - Already Been Compromised.
Another Bad Choice
Anything But Conservative
Always Believing Creeps
Already Been Cancelled

[hyteckit]

Conservatives == Biggest bunch of whiners.

Whining about an ABC primetime show that hasn't even aired and complaining how it's not fair and balance because they rejected the RNC talking points.

Wow, big bunch of whiners.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

WTF are you talking about? Equal access? What?

Every-time a news channel interview Pres. Obama, they need to give an interview to the RNC too?

What? The? F*ck?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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?

Actually, in terms of regulation and law that's more or less correct. Since 1987, the FCC has no longer stood by what used to be called the "fairness doctrine" which was an interpretation of the Communications Act of 1934 which states that broadcast licensees must act "in the public interest." Under the previous interpretation, the FCC said that 1) broadcasters must cover controversial issues and 2) broadcasters must give fair and balanced coverage. Since then, the FCC has said that the previous interpretation is less relevant in era of dramatic increases in the number and types of media outlets, and that the previous interpretation had an unintended effect of "chilled speech." What has survived in current regulation are the rules guaranteeing reasonably equal access for federal candidates.

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.

Double red herring. We still don't really know what the RNC asked for. Did they ask for their own hour of programming on ABC? That's clearly within the purview of ABC and not a matter of public interest. There's nothing that would lead us to believe that ABC will drastically alter its standard practice of quoting or inviting reaction from Republicans in different formats. The opposition party "gets time" after the State of the Union address because they choose to give a speech and news media outlets choose to cover them. I don't believe there's anything actually forcing them to cut to the rebuttal speech. Maybe in this case the RNC could choose to stage a rebuttal, see how many media outlets choose to cover it, and thereby shame ABC? It's got to be more productive than what they are doing now.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

No, I am under the impression that ABC will choose questions designed to elicit informative answers from Obama, and illustrate criticisms from his opponents, just as they would in a 1-on-1 interview. We're not talking about a DNC-run "town hall" campaign event, so your comparisons to some previous events are irrelevant. We're talking about an ABC-run Q&A session. The only thing backing up your allegation is your opinion that ABC is a partisan organization, which is a function of your partisan outlook and not an objective assessment.

By the way, the part I bolded is called "editorial control." To paraphrase hyteckit: why should the RNC get editorial control?

[hyteckit]

I think some here are confused with the "Equal Time Rule" and the "Fairness Doctrine"

Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equal-time rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Equal Time Rule


Stop mentioning Equal Time or Equal Access, cause you are not making any sense.

If Pres. Obama wants to promote his health-care agenda by doing interviews, giving speeches, doing townhall meetings, or whatever, he can.

If former VP Dick Cheney wants to defend his torture or harsh interrogation policies by doing interviews, giving speeches, or whatever, he can.

Nothing to do with equal time or equal access.


If you want to argue about the Fairness Doctrine on the other hand, then go right ahead.

However, the ABC show hasn't even aired and no one has even seen the show, but some here are arguing it's not fair and balance because ABC rejected the RNC attempt to take editorial control over the primetime show?

Maybe RNC can create their own news channel and interview Pres. Obama on health-care, that way the RNC will have editorial control over the discussion and interview with Pres. Obama.

[BadKosh]

But it's OK to LIE TO THE PUBLIC without responsibility? That ABC is now clearly tanking for 0bama is of more concern. The Democrats don't want you to realize that 0bama is lying to you and trying to force more expensive BS down your throat.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But it's OK to LIE TO THE PUBLIC without responsibility? That ABC is now clearly tanking for 0bama is of more concern. The Democrats don't want you to realize that 0bama is lying to you and trying to force more expensive BS down your throat.

Are Republicans less prone to lying to the public than Democrats? I would say that in general they lie equally. If your opinion is that Obama is going to be lying through his teeth and that Republicans need a chance to tell the public "the truth" then that's just being a partisan cheerleader. If, for example, the RNC wanted time to air a "rebuttal" in the style of the rebuttals to the State of the Union Speech (even if they paid for it), then ABC would not have a chance to ask the Republican speaker any questions. ABC is under no obligation to give the RNC that kind of platform. The RNC can wait to be interviewed at a time that is convenient for ABC's programming schedule. Remember, too, that ABC is not the RNC's only opportunity to get their opinions out to the public.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

But it's OK to LIE TO THE PUBLIC without responsibility? That ABC is now clearly tanking for 0bama is of more concern. The Democrats don't want you to realize that 0bama is lying to you and trying to force more expensive BS down your throat.

Like a war in Iraq?

[stupendousman]

Guys, you are STILL confused.

The Fairness Doctrine is about people who are aren't politicians and having to give equal time to issues by non-elected commentators. This is no longer law.

"Equal TIme" specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to politicians to air opposing viewpoints if they request it. There are exceptions, but prime time propaganda based infomercials are not covered. This is why the Republicans are given time after the State of the Union address and why programs like Meet The Press have both Republicans and Democrats on their shows and don't just have the politicians they like discussing issues. It's also why the President's weekly radio address has a rebuttal from someone from the opposing party.

Really guys, this isn't rocket science.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Guys, you are STILL confused.

The Fairness Doctrine is about people who are aren't politicians and having to give equal time to issues by non-elected commentators. This is no longer law.

"Equal TIme" specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to politicians to air opposing viewpoints if they request it. There are exceptions, but prime time propaganda based infomercials are not covered.

Obama is most certainly a political candidate who is forwarding a partisan message. This isn't an "interview" where a supposed unbiased news person asks pointed questions (not that such a thing ever really happens with Obama anyways) nor is it breaking news. It's a controlled media event used to sell a controversial partisan plan over the public airwaves by an elected politician who hopes the passage of said controversial plan will help him and his party politically. It most certainly doesn't have anything to do with the Fairness Doctrine, nor does it seem to meet the criteria that allows exceptions to the Equal Time rule.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was never law (and yes it covered politicians as well as commentators). It was an interpretation by the FCC of the 1934 Communications Act (amended in 1959). The relevant section of the Act does not specify that broadcast stations "must provide an equivalent opportunity to politicians to air opposing viewpoints if they request it." The current interpretation used by the FCC is sometimes called the "quasi-equal opportunities rule" and requires that a broadcaster who sells time to political supporters of a candidate during a federal election campaign period must make comparable time (i.e. opportunity to buy advertising time at the same rates) to their opponents. Obama is not a candidate, and ABC's special is not a commercial. If you think it is it's because you are being a partisan cheerleader and prejudging ABC's editorial decisions without any justification.

By the way, even under the previous "fairness doctrine" Congress specifically instructed the FCC in 1959 that a federal candidate's appearance in a bona fide interview, newscast or documentary setting did not create an obligation for the broadcaster to give the same opportunity to the candidate's opponent.

For more information, read a textbook: http://www.amazon.com/Advertising-Br.../dp/0805849750

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

The "Fairness Doctrine" was never law (and yes it covered politicians as well as commentators). It was an interpretation by the FCC of the 1934 Communications Act (amended in 1959).

Truthfully, a difference without much distinction.

The relevant section of the Act does not specify that broadcast stations "must provide an equivalent opportunity to politicians to air opposing viewpoints if they request it."

I never said "The Fairness Doctrine" required that. The "Equal Time" provision does. You did see that hyteckit even posted links outlining both policies above, right? I think you are still confused.

The current interpretation used by the FCC is sometimes called the "quasi-equal opportunities rule" and requires that a broadcaster who sells time to political supporters of a candidate during a federal election campaign period must make comparable time (i.e. opportunity to buy advertising time at the same rates) to their opponents. Obama is not a candidate, and ABC's special is not a commercial.

Read the links above. It does not require the broadcaster to "sell" anything. If the broadcaster GIVES a politician FREE time (that does not meet one of the exceptions) then they must give equal time to all who request it. Obama most certainly is a "candidate" for office, and I'm more than guessing he hopes the plan he is trying to sell will help him get a second term in office.

So, please understand that there is a difference between the "Fairness Doctrine" which is no longer upheld, and the "Equal Time" provision which is. I'll quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Fairness Doctrine:

The Equal Time rule should not be confused with the Fairness Doctrine, which deals with presenting balanced points of view on matters of public importance.

I think maybe if you slow down when you read you'll figure out the difference and stop being so confused. I do understand that ABC is trying to find (and thinks it has) a loophole in the exceptions, but I really don't think anyone honest buys it for a second.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Guys, you are STILL confused.

The Fairness Doctrine is about people who are aren't politicians and having to give equal time to issues by non-elected commentators. This is no longer law.

"Equal TIme" specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to politicians to air opposing viewpoints if they request it. There are exceptions, but prime time propaganda based infomercials are not covered. This is why the Republicans are given time after the State of the Union address and why programs like Meet The Press have both Republicans and Democrats on their shows and don't just have the politicians they like discussing issues. It's also why the President's weekly radio address has a rebuttal from someone from the opposing party.

Really guys, this isn't rocket science.

Haha.. you have no concept of what Equal Time Rule means.

Equal-time rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it. The rule was created because the FCC thought the stations could easily manipulate the outcome of the elections.



You know the word "candidates" as in Presidential Candidate. You know the word "election" as in Presidential Election.

If a TV station gives a Democratic Presidential Candidate 15 minutes of free prime-time, then the TV station must also give 15 minutes of free prime-time to other opposing Presidential Candidates, during the Presidential Election.

However, this is an interview with Pres. Obama about his health-care agenda, not his presidential campaign or the Presidential Election.

Obama is no longer a Presidential candidate currently running for the Presidential seat. He is the freaking president, giving a freaking interview.

So shut up about Equal Time cause it makes no freaking sense.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Truthfully, a difference without much distinction.

I never said "The Fairness Doctrine" required that. The "Equal Time" provision does. You did see that hyteckit even posted links outlining both policies above, right? I think you are still confused.

Read the links above. It does not require the broadcaster to "sell" anything. If the broadcaster GIVES a politician FREE time (that does not meet one of the exceptions) then they must give equal time to all who request it. Obama most certainly is a "candidate" for office, and I'm more than guessing he hopes the plan he is trying to sell will help him get a second term in office.

So, please understand that there is a difference between the "Fairness Doctrine" which is no longer upheld, and the "Equal Time" provision which is. I'll quote from the Wikipedia entry on the Fairness Doctrine:

I think maybe if you slow down when you read you'll figure out the difference and stop being so confused. I do understand that ABC is trying to find (and thinks it has) a loophole in the exceptions, but I really don't think anyone honest buys it for a second.

With as much respect as I can muster, you have no idea what you are talking about. I am not conflating anything, I am outlining the distinctions for you. The "fairness doctrine" and "equal time" are not two separate provisions -- they are two different interpretations of the same law used at different times by the FCC. I made the point about the "fairness doctrine" to show that even in the expanded interpretation of the Act something like ABC's planned special does not apply, and the interpretation of the Act has narrowed even further since then. There is no such thing as an "equal time rule" with respect to bona fide newscasts, documentaries, and interviews (which the wikipedia link you referenced mentions, too), and again, it applies only to federal candidates during election periods. In practice, just about the only application used by the FCC is with respect to the sale of advertising space to political candidates. Moreover, the term "equal time" is a frequent misinterpretation of the regulations. The FCC enforces reasonable equal opportunity ("comparable use").

Your example of the rebuttal portion of "State of the Union" coverage is an example of an opposing party attracting media coverage of an event they have organized themselves, not an example of broadcasters being forced to give them time. It just happens that it's traditional that media organizations think this rebuttal is newsworthy. The RNC could do something similar here and see how much media coverage they attract.

You can go straight to the source here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...5----000-.html. I do also highly recommend the textbook I linked to earlier.

[stupendousman]

...oh, and before there's any more lame attempts to claim that Obama isn't a political candidate and that there is no attempt to influence future elections. I'm pretty sure no one at ABC would even make that argument.

They aren't going to try and play THAT game because they know that even the FCC controlled by Obama wouldn't buy that, and let them simply give him free commercials to say what he likes. If your interpretation is correct, then they'd be allowed to do so.

Where you need to look in your argument is the EXCEPTIONS to the Equal Time provision. It is there I'm sure that ABC feels they have a loophole, but I seriously doubt that anyone seriously looking at the issue would take the seriously. Of course, it's probably enough to keep the Obama FCC from fining them, but not enough to keep people from giggling when they see what ABC is doing.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Are Republicans less prone to lying to the public than Democrats? I would say that in general they lie equally. If your opinion is that Obama is going to be lying through his teeth and that Republicans need a chance to tell the public "the truth" then that's just being a partisan cheerleader. If, for example, the RNC wanted time to air a "rebuttal" in the style of the rebuttals to the State of the Union Speech (even if they paid for it), then ABC would not have a chance to ask the Republican speaker any questions. ABC is under no obligation to give the RNC that kind of platform. The RNC can wait to be interviewed at a time that is convenient for ABC's programming schedule. Remember, too, that ABC is not the RNC's only opportunity to get their opinions out to the public.

So 0bama says there are 65 million people who NEED health care and of course 20 million are illegals but this isn't mentioned. LIES. Look at the growing list of big-time lies already spoken by this administration! they have gone back on all the campaign promises, and all those claims like who would be paying higher taxes and such. The lists are all over the web.

0bama wants to do a NEWS BROADCAST with opinions stated as fact. How is it NEWS?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

So 0bama says there are 65 million people who NEED health care and of course 20 million are illegals but this isn't mentioned. LIES. Look at the growing list of big-time lies already spoken by this administration! they have gone back on all the campaign promises, and all those claims like who would be paying higher taxes and such. The lists are all over the web.

0bama wants to do a NEWS BROADCAST with opinions stated as fact. How is it NEWS?

The Q&A is news. ABC doesn't have any more control over Obama's answers than they would in any other situation. Are you saying that news organizations should refrain from interviewing politicians at all, since they are going to be giving their opinions rather than facts? Fact-checking Obama's statements in ABC's special can only be done after the fact, not before he opens his mouth. ABC has already said their questions will include critical ideas.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...oh, and before there's any more lame attempts to claim that Obama isn't a political candidate and that there is no attempt to influence future elections. I'm pretty sure no one at ABC would even make that argument.

They aren't going to try and play THAT game because they know that even the FCC controlled by Obama wouldn't buy that, and let them simply give him free commercials to say what he likes. If your interpretation is correct, then they'd be allowed to do so.

Where you need to look in your argument is the EXCEPTIONS to the Equal Time provision. It is there I'm sure that ABC feels they have a loophole, but I seriously doubt that anyone seriously looking at the issue would take the seriously. Of course, it's probably enough to keep the Obama FCC from fining them, but not enough to keep people from giggling when they see what ABC is doing.

These aren't the "Obama administration FCC's" interpretations. This is the interpretation that has guided the FCC's enforcement of the code since at least 1987, and back to 1959 if we're talking about the expanded interpretation (which still excludes events like ABC's).

As for exceptions, here, I'll do your work for you. Straight from the primary document:

Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—

(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection.

Edited for clarification:

If Obama has announced his candidacy for public office, then this would probably become a violation of (3) (where the appearance of the candidate is not incidental) and ABC would need to give his challenger an opportunity to respond. Since he has not, the relevant language in the code is this:

"Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this chapter to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance. "

ABC has declared that they will give voice to questions and criticisms, which meets this standard.

[Chongo]

OK would you still have the same opinion an equal time if this were the scenario?
FOX NEWS anchor Neil Cavuto will deliver FOX NEWS from the House of Representatives. (via their OTA stations and FNC)
The network plans a prime time special -- 'A Tax Plan for America' -- originating from the House minority offices , exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Rep John Linder, author of the Fair Tax, will discuss the benefits of the Fair Tax in a town hall format yada yada yada.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

OK would you still have the same opinion an equal time if this were the scenario?
FOX NEWS anchor Neil Cavuto will deliver FOX NEWS from the House of Representatives. (via their OTA stations and FNC)
The network plans a prime time special -- 'A Tax Plan for America' -- originating from the House minority offices , exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Rep John Linder, author of the Fair Tax, will discuss the benefits of the Fair Tax in a town hall format yada yada yada.

Assuming John Linder has not yet announced his intention to run as an incumbent for federal office and assuming this is a "bona fide news documentary," meaning a good faith airing of the issues surrounding the Republican Tax Plan, then yes, in principle my opinion of this event is the same. Fox would need to "operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." In ABC's case, they have declared that their prime time special will be "giving voice to questions and criticisms of [Obama's position]." This Fox event would have have a similar intent, so you'd need to be careful about the "excluding opposing voices" bit. Fox would not necessarily have to interview Democratic Congressmen, but there would have to be critical questions in the town hall format, probably quoting Democratic officials.

Of course, if John Linder has announced his intention to run as an incumbent for federal office then Fox would need to give his challenger an opportunity to respond.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

OK would you still have the same opinion an equal time if this were the scenario?
FOX NEWS anchor Neil Cavuto will deliver FOX NEWS from the House of Representatives. (via their OTA stations and FNC)
The network plans a prime time special -- 'A Tax Plan for America' -- originating from the House minority offices , exclude opposing voices on the debate.
Rep John Linder, author of the Fair Tax, will discuss the benefits of the Fair Tax in a town hall format yada yada yada.

I think I would direct your own question back at you. I think that a lot of those of us on the right would not have even considered that any inappropriate was going on in the above hypothetical. You would all be singing the same chorus; "Oh c'mon. It's just a news special. Gimme a break!" All the while we would be hearing how this is more evidence of how Bush is like Hitler.

All that being said, I think this is highly inappropriate. Of course, I don't feel that our leaders and our tax dollars have any business carting around the press in a luxury jet either.

Then again, I don't think we ought to be providing a chef for someone we are also giving $400,000 a year to. He should pay for his own ****ing meals. And haircuts. And about a million other things that piss me off.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

pretation (which still excludes events like ABC's).

As for exceptions, here, I'll do your work for you. Straight from the primary document:

You truly are one funny comedian. As I explained above I GAVE YOU THE CLUE to look at the exceptions (that I already knew about) because your first argument lacked credibility. It isn't my "work" to find arguments for you to work with. I GAVE you the map to find the excuse ABC would use to justify their informercial in regards to the law.

Given the way the media (and "Town Halls" in general) works, the exceptions are laughable loopholes that if used dishonestly (as the media has and apparently will continue to do), will do exactly what the law seeks to prohibit - swaying public opinion in regards to issues that would effect elections.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think I would direct your own question back at you. I think that a lot of those of us on the right would not have even considered that any inappropriate was going on in the above hypothetical. You would all be singing the same chorus; "Oh c'mon. It's just a news special. Gimme a break!" All the while we would be hearing how this is more evidence of how Bush is like Hitler.

I wouldn't. I'm pretty consistent. I think equal time should be given regardless of what party we are talking about. To do otherwise is unethical.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

You truly are one funny comedian. As I explained above I GAVE YOU THE CLUE to look at the exceptions (that I already knew about) because your first argument lacked credibility. It isn't my "work" to find arguments for you to work with. I GAVE you the map to find the excuse ABC would use to justify their informercial in regards to the law.

Given the way the media (and "Town Halls" in general) works, the exceptions are laughable loopholes that if used dishonestly (as the media has and apparently will continue to do), will do exactly what the law seeks to prohibit - swaying public opinion in regards to issues that would effect elections.

What are you talking about? I've given the same reasons for the last few posts, noting the exact same exceptions. You've just been too lazy to follow my advice to actually look at the code itself or glance at a book about the subject, and instead you have continued to embarrass yourself by insisting on an "equal time provision" which does not really exist in the way that you think it does. I can't help it if YOUR bias against ABC is such that you can't even imagine they will be "giving voice to questions and criticisms" of Obama's plan, as they have said they will do. On the face of it, ABC's plan is appropriate.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

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.

I hereby posit that you are a Bluskerot from planet Remulon. If you do not refute it, the evidence will point to what I said being true.

[ebuddy]

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of this is that Obama does not have fellow Democrats on board for Obama-care. The refutations need not come from Republicans in some dog and pony show of "fairness" on ABC. Most folks of similar political persuasion as myself are done wondering if there is a media bias, slanted towards Obama anyway. They bow to him for crying out loud. I think the "bias" is clear regardless of whether or not this particular issue is evidence of it.

The debate is in the House and Senate, where Obama will lose. I'll be curious to see if there is any substance to this plan or more meaningless platitudes. I'm also curious if Obama will highlight the fact that 18% of the uninsured are eligible for Medicaid yet remain unenrolled. I wonder if he'll mention the fact that while some are crying about the "healthcare crisis", they're spending more money annually on eating out and entertainment. This would be consistent with his inaugural platitude of personal responsibility.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I hereby posit that you are a Bluskerot from planet Remulon. If you do not refute it, the evidence will point to what I said being true.

I refute it. Why would I not?

[BadKosh]

Will 0bama claim that Health Care is a RIGHT like Abortion? After all, it's IN the Constitution, right???

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I refute it. Why would I not?

Methinks you doth protest too much. You must be hiding something else nefarious!

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

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.

I think you really don't understand what the Fairness Doctrine is. It's been explained better elsewhere in the thread, but the fundamental reading of it has nothing to do with "silencing" anybody. All the Fairness Doctrine says is that controversial issues broadcast on public airways, which include both TV and radio, should be presented fairly, with all sides of an issue discussed. That's it. Nothing about squelching "anti-government" talk, or specifically targeting political talk radio at all.

This is highly relevant to the topic at hand, because you and your compadres on the right are whining because you think ABC won't present the health care issue "fairly". Exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to ensure, except you oppose it in general because it would apply to everybody, liberal and conservative, and we can't have that, can we? As I understand it, conservatives have no need to present alternate viewpoints, because all conservatives are inherently fair and correct in everything they discuss, while liberals need a counterbalance to everything they say, because, well, because they're liberals. That's pretty much the argument. How very Coulter-esque.

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.

This is not a "government" program. This is a private news organization, ABC who is sponsoring and producing the program. Obama is participating, but he does not have editorial control, nor does he have control over which questions are asked. If the Obama administration were actually producing and editing the program, you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't. Sorry.

The "massive power-grab of the private sector" is really your opinion, not established fact. Just don't try to sell us that it's anything more than your opinion.

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

Oh, I doubt that. Not from my memory. For the most part, we liberals waited almost 2 years into the Bush presidency before cranking up the wah-umbulance to full volume. A significant portion of the conservative wing is still trying to "debate" Obama's birth certificate!

Don't get me wrong, some liberals can do faux outrage really well. But honestly, I've never seen anything like what's been happening to conservatives the last few months. Just a few days back we had a thread where somebody couldn't even get past the first few sentences of an article on Obama before running to post & whine on here about the latest Obama "outrage". Unfortunately for him, he looked rather silly when it turned out to be a complete non-troversy. If only we could have everybody use their internal filter against non-troversies about Obama.

I know you have one, it's just broken now that a Democrat is president. You guys were great at excessive skepticism during the Bush years, somehow I think that impulse will go into hiding for at least 4 years, perhaps 8 god willing.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

All the Fairness Doctrine says is that controversial issues broadcast on public airways, which include both TV and radio, should be presented fairly, with all sides of an issue discussed.

You wax over this as if any of this were a legitimate role of government. What's a 'controversial' issue, and who defines that? It's not within government's power to set up any such thing about what 'should be presented' and what's 'fair'. That's no longer freedom of speech. The original fairness doctrine was an FCC policy that was put down by the FCC itself because they realized it did nothing to further public debate, and was an antiquated policy from a bygone era. Media even at the time had changed.

Now there's an attempt to legislate an outdated FCC policy. It's also not lost on political hacks that the era of political talk radio began, (after 1987) just as the fairness doctrine was struck down, exactly because it opened the floodgate of open political discussion over the airwaves, and as public tastes (not bureaucrats) dictate, that's become largely conservative-friendly, liberal/statist unfriendly.

And you're just being naive to pretend that the current crop of politicians trying to bring this crap back aren't taking aim at the format that's been most critical of them. Even Obama himself has demonstrated his absolute fear of radio talk show hosts, by challenging them directly.

That's it. Nothing about squelching "anti-government" talk, or specifically targeting political talk radio at all.

In practice, that's exactly what it seeks to do'. You're right in one sense though, actually calling it the 'fairness doctrine' has fallen by the wayside since it's become an obvious hotbutton. Now the attempt is more subtle, to tie a station's FCC license renewal with the recommendation by some board of politically appointed hacks who supposedly determine if there's enough 'local appeal'. The hope of course is that they can crush the syndication networks that carry national talk radio shows (the real target), by claiming the content isn't in the local interest.

Of course, what's really in the 'local interest' is determined by people with their fingers on the dial. But of course, that's not good enough for some politicians who've decided they somehow need to determine what's 'fair'. And of course people like yourself that never look under the surface of things, to even question the motives of a government interested in the first place in changing the content of speech on the airwaves.

You really should actually look into the subject before snidely claiming others don't know anything about it. It seems more like the opposite.

This is not a "government" program. This is a private news organization, ABC who is sponsoring and producing the program. Obama is participating, but he does not have editorial control, nor does he have control over which questions are asked. If the Obama administration were actually producing and editing the program, you'd have a point. But they aren't, so you don't. Sorry.

Now who's being willfully naive? Riiiiight, the Obama admin will have no control over a broadcast of it's own healthcare plan, and won't even know what questions are being asked- riiiiight.

The "massive power-grab of the private sector" is really your opinion, not established fact. Just don't try to sell us that it's anything more than your opinion.

The healthcare industry exists in the private sector. The government trying to gain authority over a private business sector, is indeed a power grab.

Not from my memory. For the most part, we liberals waited almost 2 years into the Bush presidency before cranking up the wah-umbulance to full volume.

"You liberals" claimed Bush stole the election even before it was over, and whined incessantly about it at FULL VOLUME for eight solid years! That among a million other 'fake outrages'. Your memory has completely failed you.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

"You liberals" claimed Bush stole the election even before it was over, and whined incessantly about it at FULL VOLUME for eight solid years! That among a million other 'fake outrages'. Your memory has completely failed you.

Exactly. Fair is fair. Now we have to listen to conservatives whine for at least 4 years.

[BadKosh]

I guess the voter fraud issues associated with ACORN is why they are changing their name?

[BadKosh]

The Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of healthcare since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.’s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsureds, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.

Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.

But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.

Worth keeping in mind, as the U.S. is already on track to compile total 10-year deficits that would surpass the annual GDP of Great Britain, Russia and Germany for one year-combined, and as the government is getting increasingly entangled in key industries, with higher taxes coming on incomes, on capital and on energy. Soliciting Lobbyists

Meanwhile, the deficit spending figures do not include Medicare and Social Security costs, reforms which are so far on the backburner, they are off the stove. The following includes research from Fox News analyst James Farrell.

Myth: “The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.”

Talk about stretching a point until it snaps. This ranking is based on data mining.

The U.S. ranks high on this list largely because this country numbers among those that actually measure neonatal deaths, notably in premature infant fatalities, unlike other countries that basically leave premature babies to die, notes health analyst Betsey McCaughey.

Other statistical quirks push the U.S. unjustifiably higher in this ranking compared to other countries.

The Center for Disease Control says the U.S. ranks 29th in the world for infant mortality rates, (according to the CDC), behind most other developed nations.

The U.S. is supposedly worse than Singapore, Hong Kong, Greece, Northern Ireland, Cuba and Hungary. And the U.S. is supposedly on a par with Slovakia and Poland. CNN, the New York Times, numerous outlets across the country report the U.S. as abysmal in terms of infant mortality, without delving into what is behind this ranking.

The Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit research group, routinely flunks the U.S. health system using the infant mortality rate.

“Infant mortality and our comparison with the rest of the world continue to be an embarrassment to the United States,” Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute, a research organization, has said.

Start with the definition. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a country’s infant mortality rate as the number of infants who die between birth and age one, per 1,000 live births.

WHO says a live birth is when a baby shows any signs of life, even if, say, a low birth weight baby takes one, single breath, or has one heartbeat. While the U.S. uses this definition, other countries don’t and so don’t count premature or severely ill babies as live births-or deaths.

The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).

And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don’t report.

And what counts as a birth varies from country to country. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) before these countries count these infants as live births, Healy notes.

In other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long, Healy notes. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless, and are not counted, Healy says. And some countries don’t reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth, Healy notes.

Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in Norway’s underweight infants that are not now counted, Healy says, quoting Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Moreover, the ranking doesn’t take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.

APTOPIX Obama WasteLikewise, Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.’s 300 mn-plus citizens.

Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates.

And the US has more mothers taking fertility treatments, which keeps the rate of pregnancy high due to multiple-birth pregnancies.

Again, the U.S. counts all of these infants as births. Moreover, we’re not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations.

Even the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, cautions against using comparisons country-by-country.

“Some of the international variation in infant and neonatal mortality rates may be due to variations among countries in registering practices of premature infants (whether they are reported as live births or not),” the OECD says.

“In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births.” (Note: Emphasis EMac’s).

The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks’ gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino.

Myth: “About 46 mn Americans lack access to health insurance.”

There is a difference between health care and health insurance, as Fox Business anchor Brian Sullivan points out after researching reports on health care from the Congressional Budget Office, Blue Cross-Blue Shield and Georgetown University.

Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.

About 14 mn of the uninsured were eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP 2003, a BlueCross-BlueShield Association study based on 2003 data estimated. These people would be signed up for government insurance if they ever made it to the emergency room, Sullivan says.

A whopping 70% of uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid, SCHIP, or both programs, a 2008 study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute shows.

Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports.

And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports.

Myth: “The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.”

Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes, author of the book, The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen’s Guide, a book that attempts to dig behind the numbers. According to author Pipes, 38% of the U.S. uninsured population earns more than $50,000 per year.

That means 38% of the uninsured likely make enough to afford health insurance, but for undetermined reasons choose not to buy it.

Myth: “Most of the uninsured do not have health insurance because they are not working and so don’t have access to health benefits through an employer.”

Not so fast–the data is more nuanced and revealing upon closer look. baucus

According to the CBO, about half of the uninsured in 2009 fall into one of the following three categories. Some people will be in more than one of those categories at the same time:

*Nearly one out of three, 30%, will be offered, but will decline, coverage from an employer.

*Nearly one out of five, 18%, will be eligible for, but not enrolled in Medicaid; and

*More than one out of seven, 17%, will have family income above 300% of the poverty level (about $65,000 for a family of four);

What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance.

[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...KeyIssues.pdf]

Myth: “The estimated 45 mn people without health insurance lacked health insurance for every day of the year.”

The CBO’s 45 mn estimate reflects individuals “without health insurance at any given time during 2009.”

But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance.

[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...KeyIssues.pdf]

Myth: “Government-run universal health care would increase the international competitiveness of U.S. companies.”

The Congressional Budget Office disagrees.

“Replacing employment-based health care with a government-run system could reduce employers’ payments for their workers’ insurance, but the amount that they would have to pay in overall compensation would remain essentially unchanged,” the CBO says. “Cash wages and other forms of compensation would have to rise by roughly the amount of the reduction in health benefits for firms to be able to attract the same number and types of workers.”

[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...KeyIssues.pdf]

Myth: “The cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured significantly increases hospital costs.”

Hospitals provided about $35 bn in uncompensated care in 2008, the CBO says. Uncompensated care represented only 5% of total hospital revenues. In addition, half of the $35 bn in uncompensated hospital costs were offset by Medicare and Medicaid.

And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is “unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates,” the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is “likely to be relatively small.”

[source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...KeyIssues.pdf]

Myth: “Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.”

Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.

In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).

[Source: Commonwealth Fund, "MIRROR, MIRROR ON THE WALL: AN INTERNATIONAL UPDATE ON THE COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE OF AMERICAN HEALTH CARE," by Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Michelle M. Doty, Alyssa L. Holmgren, Jennifer L. Kriss, and Katherine K. Shea, May 2007, http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/me...nal%20pdf.pdf]

Myth: “Insurers cover less today than they did in the past.”

No they’re covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers’ personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006.

[Source: CBO, "Key Issues in Analyzing Major Health Insurance Proposals," December 18, 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9...KeyIssues.pdf]

[stupendousman]

Now we have official "press conferences" with pre-arranged questioners, questions and answers. If you wonder why people don't buy that the ABC infomercial will provide anything resembling balance,

I guess when you can't have a teleprompter, you've got to do the next best thing and plant questions/answers in to the audience

Obama calls on HuffPost for Iran question - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com

n a clearly coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly from Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney. “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of the — of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences. And it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."

According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

I guess when you can't have a teleprompter, and there's time to kill before your next media paid informercial, you might as well pretend to have a "press conference" where questions and answers are rehearsed.

Sorry and sad.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Now we have official "press conferences" with pre-arranged questioners, questions and answers. If you wonder why people don't buy that the ABC infomercial will provide anything resembling balance,

I guess when you can't have a teleprompter, you've got to do the next best thing and plant questions/answers in to the audience

Obama calls on HuffPost for Iran question - Michael Calderone - POLITICO.com

I guess when you can't have a teleprompter, and there's time to kill before your next media paid informercial, you might as well pretend to have a "press conference" where questions and answers are rehearsed.

Sorry and sad.

Obama knew that Pitney was going to ask a question that the reporter had solicited from an Iranian, which is clearly why they wanted Pitney in the press conference. However, nothing in the article you referenced indicated that Obama knew what question was going to be asked.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Obama knew that Pitney was going to ask a question that the reporter had solicited from an Iranian, which is clearly why they wanted Pitney in the press conference. However, nothing in the article you referenced indicated that Obama knew what question was going to be asked.

A pre-arranged surprise? SURE!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

A pre-arranged surprise? SURE!

Is it that you don't believe what I wrote or that you don't understand the difference? Pitney had been publicly collecting questions online. It wasn't a secret.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Obama knew that Pitney was going to ask a question that the reporter had solicited from an Iranian, which is clearly why they wanted Pitney in the press conference. However, nothing in the article you referenced indicated that Obama knew what question was going to be asked.

It is pretty clear to me that stupendousman has a reading comprehension problem.

I mentioned this is the past, but I received an infraction for it.

However, it has become painfully obvious.

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You wax over this as if any of this were a legitimate role of government. What's a 'controversial' issue, and who defines that? It's not within government's power to set up any such thing about what 'should be presented' and what's 'fair'.

I actually have no interest in debating the pros and cons of the Fairness Doctrine in general. Believe it or not, we're actually in agreement on this point, and I don't really think it should be re-instated (and neither does Obama, which hasn't stopped paranoid conservatives from claiming it's coming back any day now).

My only point was that what was being asked of ABC is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to ensure, and that conservatives who are whining about ABC not presenting their views "fairly" right now are being total hypocrites if they also oppose the Fairness Doctrine. That's it. Anything else you read into that is in your head, not on the screen.

Now who's being willfully naive? Riiiiight, the Obama admin will have no control over a broadcast of it's own healthcare plan, and won't even know what questions are being asked- riiiiight.

The Obama administration has control to the extent that they can participate, and answer the questions in the way they want the answers presented. But if you think they'll be editing and producing the entire thing like an infomercial, with complete editorial control over the end product, then that's a very serious charge against ABC that you'll need some real evidence to support. Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

"You liberals" claimed Bush stole the election even before it was over, and whined incessantly about it at FULL VOLUME for eight solid years! That among a million other 'fake outrages'. Your memory has completely failed you.

Looks like I'm not the one with the faulty memory. In case you forgot, that particular election had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before it was fully resolved. I don't think that qualifies as a "fake outrage". You may have disagreed with the process, because it was your team's victory that was being contested, but there is NO doubt that the election was genuinely controversial for real reasons, not made-up ones.

Another example of your faulty memory - after 9/11, liberals were supportive of Bush and rallied behind him very strongly. Look at the polls from that time - Bush enjoyed a near 90% approval rating! And this was despite the misgivings about how the election got resolved. "Eight solid years" at full volume? I don't think so - Bush's benefit of the doubt lasted well up until the time just before the Iraq war, at which point liberals had a clear disagreement with him over the war.

Of course, in your mind, liberals opposing the war were simply "whining", right? Yeah, debates over taking a country to war are the ideological equivalent to conservatives whining about an hour news special on ABC.

It appears that you really cannot tell what a real liberal fake outrage looks like, so I'll give you one for free. For a long while, some liberals complained about the time that Bush spent on his ranch vacationing. If Bush had spent, say 80% of his time there, they might have had a point, but it was far less than that, and as Bush defenders correctly pointed out at the time, the president never truly gets a real "vacation" anyway. The whole point was really just partisan sniping. Frankly, I didn't care how much time Bush, or any president, spent on his ranch or vacation home, as long as he was getting the job done.

There you go, a real liberal faux outrage for you. Don't say I never did anything for you.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

(and neither does Obama, which hasn't stopped paranoid conservatives from claiming it's coming back any day now).

Basically because as I said, they've simply backed off on the NAME, and are now calling the same efforts something else.

My only point was that what was being asked of ABC is exactly what the Fairness Doctrine was supposed to ensure,

And again, your point is misguided, because it's the opposite situation. It isn't the government trying to regulate free speech against private citizens by demanding an opposing viewpoint, it's the government using airtime itself and not allowing an opposing viewpoint. If you can't see the difference, then oh well.

The Obama administration has control to the extent that they can participate, and answer the questions in the way they want the answers presented. But if you think they'll be editing and producing the entire thing like an infomercial, with complete editorial control over the end product, then that's a very serious charge against ABC that you'll need some real evidence to support. Simply saying it doesn't make it so.

Let's just leave it at I think you're pretty naive about how propaganda works, and how much control the Obama administration actually will have, and how willing much of the media is to give them that control.

Looks like I'm not the one with the faulty memory. In case you forgot, that particular election had to go all the way to the Supreme Court before it was fully resolved.

Right, and many leftists were whining about 'hanging chads' and stolen elections even before that. Your memory blows.

I don't think that qualifies as a "fake outrage".

Well good for you, but a lot of it (AND many other things) were fake outrage, and were dead horses the left beat on for 8 solid years.

Another example of your faulty memory - after 9/11, liberals were supportive of Bush and rallied behind him very strongly. Look at the polls from that time - Bush enjoyed a near 90% approval rating!

I never said anything to the contrary- and even you mention "And this was despite the misgivings about how the election got resolved." IE: so you're saying that yes, there were still people whining about the election even during 9/11.

Also, let's not pretend that there weren't many on the left that not that long afterward did start making poltical hay of 9/11 very quickly- heck, even conspiracy nuts BLAMING him directly for it! Wait, I guess you forgot all that too!

There were plenty of people protesting the war in Afghanistan, and blaming Bush for everything under the sun long before the Iraq war ever started.

Of course, in your mind, liberals opposing the war were simply "whining", right?

Many were. As has been gone over time and time again here and elsewhere, many libs didn't have the slightest clue what the real reasons for the war were, and that Democrats believed in and stated all the same reasons.

Yeah, debates over taking a country to war are the ideological equivalent to conservatives whining about an hour news special on ABC.

It'd be nice if it were just about an hour on ABC- but of course as usual, you're waxing over the fact that it's about selling a huge power grab to the American people. The Iraq war, no matter how costly, WILL eventually end. (Although notice, the Messiah once he was actually presented with the FACTS hasn't put an end to it either, nor closed Guantanamo or any other campaign rhetoric bullcrap.) So when will a government created healthcare boondoggle end?

It appears that you really cannot tell what a real liberal fake outrage looks like,

That's what happens when you guys cry wolf over literally EVERYTHING for so many years that IF you ever do actually have a legitimate point of outrage, no one can tell if it's just more fake bullshit or not.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Is it that you don't believe what I wrote or that you don't understand the difference? Pitney had been publicly collecting questions online. It wasn't a secret.

I understood perfectly.

The White House and Pitney had conspired in advance to ensure that Pitney was given time at the press conference, but Pitney kept that question that was to be asked super secret because conspiring with the White House in regards to the contents of press conferences in advance if verboten!

Gotcha.

,,,and hyteckit, you really aren't one that should be lecturing others about comprehension problems.

[iranfromthezoo]

Really? Do we really want the gov't to get involved in anything else? I mean look at what they are involved in already? It's either crap, broke or broke and crappy...

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

I actually have no interest in debating the pros and cons of the Fairness Doctrine in general. Believe it or not, we're actually in agreement on this point, and I don't really think it should be re-instated (and neither does Obama, which hasn't stopped paranoid conservatives from claiming it's coming back any day now).

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Basically because as I said, they've simply backed off on the NAME, and are now calling the same efforts something else.

The new plan is to use the "local issues" angle at license renewal time.
Freedom to Listen
Freedom to Listen
Freedom to Listen

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I understood perfectly.

The White House and Pitney had conspired in advance to ensure that Pitney was given time at the press conference, but Pitney kept that question that was to be asked super secret because conspiring with the White House in regards to the contents of press conferences in advance if verboten!

Gotcha.

No, what happened was Pitney was notified in advance that he might get called on, because they knew what he was working on (specifically, collecting questions from Iranians addressed to the president). I don't know why you're presuming that this would have led he and the administration to "conspire" about the content, other than your need to be partisan.

EDIT: Here is what Pitney had to say about it from here (all bolded parts are my emphasis):

3:58 PM ET -- From Nico: Feeling very grateful for all your submissions. I just returned from President Obama's press conference, where I was able to ask a question directly on behalf of an Iranian. I can't emphasize enough how grateful I am for all the submissions I received -- both from contacts I've been communicating with for several days, and from many others via email and Facebook and the Farsi-language social networking site Balatarin.

As I tried to say at the press conference, all of the Iranians who are communicating online do so at great risk. It was very courageous of them and I hope the question I ended up choosing did them some justice.

Also, apologies for the light posting today, which will probably continue through the evening. We'll be back at full speed tomorrow.

A few words about how this came about for those who are curious: as readers know, I've spent a lot of time writing and debating about the President's reaction to the events in Iran. Last night, after emailing with a few people about Obama's press conference and what he might say, I decided to throw it open to our readers. I received a call from White House staff saying they had seen what I'd written and thought the President might be interested in receiving a question directly from an Iranian.

The White House didn't guarantee that I would be able to ask a question. But I decided that if there was even a chance, I should try to reach out to as many Iranians as possible. With the invaluable help from some readers -- Chas, Chuck, and other Iranian Americans I wish I could name because they deserve the credit -- I was able to post a message in Farsi on Twitter and have my request for questions posted late last night on Balatarin. I ended up choosing the question I did because it was one of the consensus questions that many people had suggested.

Thanks also to the White House staff. They were up front about not being able to assure that a question would be asked, they never asked what the question would be, and they helped me move through the very packed briefing room when I showed up a bit late (sorry to the many toes I stepped on getting through).

More tonight.

[Gee-Man]

Here's a question for the conservative outrage machine - were you this upset over Jeff Gannon?

Originally Posted by Jeff Gannon, Bush press conference, January 26, 2005

Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid was talking about soup lines. And (Senator) Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet in the same breath they say that Social Security is rock solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work – you've said you are going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

That's a pretty biased question. "Say, President Bush - how do you, in your infinite wisdom, DEAL with these crazy Democrats anyway? Isn't it really really difficult?"

Compare this to the supposedly "coordinated" question asked by Nico Pitney, presumably to get Obama on comfortable ground:

Originally Posted by Nico Pitney, Obama press conference, June 23, 2009

Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working toward?

Not much of a softball, is it? Why "coordinate" if you end up with a legitimate, tough question like this as the result?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

That's a pretty biased question.

This is a good point, but I think there is a peculiar focus on the media's reaction to Obama as he has been called "like a god", bowed to, and enjoys softballs that will likely become legendary. That you can find one example for Bush is not surprising. After all, at one point during his term he exceeded an 89% approval rating. If however, you were able to find a number of softballs anywhere near what Obama has enjoyed in his short time in office, I personally would be astonished.

Many are concerned that this upcoming townhall will be much of the same and they are paying close attention.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, what happened was Pitney was notified in advance that he might get called on, because they knew what he was working on (specifically, collecting questions from Iranians addressed to the president). I don't know why you're presuming that this would have led he and the administration to "conspire" about the content, other than your need to be partisan.

Here's a quote from that highly partisan "Washington Post":

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

washingtonpost.com

The point is that the White House is dictating what is being presented at Press Conferences. It's not being controlled by the Press. Obama is breaking the traditional rules when it comes to NOT pre-planning who will get to ask questions about what subjects, and if you think that Obama doesn't know what specific questions or type of questions that will end up being asked, I've got a bridge to sell you. The subject matter is clearly being pre-arranged (the WP story also talks about the pre-arranged questions given by a spanish language news outlet) at the very least.

Add this to the pre-arranged infomercials ABC is giving Obama to sell his plan without equal time (or any time apparently) to opposing plans presented by those on the other side of the aisle, and you have a situation where even members of the media are starting to make fun of how absurd the situation is.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Here's a quote from that highly partisan "Washington Post":

washingtonpost.com

The point is that the White House is dictating what is being presented at Press Conferences. It's not being controlled by the Press. Obama is breaking the traditional rules when it comes to NOT pre-planning who will get to ask questions about what subjects, and if you think that Obama doesn't know what specific questions or type of questions that will end up being asked, I've got a bridge to sell you. The subject matter is clearly being pre-arranged (the WP story also talks about the pre-arranged questions given by a spanish language news outlet) at the very least.

Add this to the pre-arranged infomercials ABC is giving Obama to sell his plan without equal time (or any time apparently) to opposing plans presented by those on the other side of the aisle, and you have a situation where even members of the media are starting to make fun of how absurd the situation is.

I think you mean a quote from opinion columnist Dana Milbank, not so much "The Washington Post." It's his opinion. He's entitled to it, but he's wrong. He indicates no special knowledge that would lead him to believe that the question itself was "pre-arranged." Of course Obama knew it was going to be about Iran, but he did not know the question.

The irony, as Gee-Man alluded to, is that the question Pitney asked was basically along the same lines that Republicans have been criticizing Obama on regarding his reaction to the protests in Iran: if he acquiesces to Ahmadinejad's "election" is he betraying our principles?

The White House has always dictated "what is being presented at press conferences" because it's their press conference. They get to call on who they want to ask a question. You would have to be an idiot if you think that they also don't know what White House correspondents have been writing about recently, and can guess a lot of the time what subject the question will be about. There is nothing new here other than, perhaps, the debatable wisdom of inviting specific guest reporters into the White House press conferences (guess how the other members of the media in the traditional White House press corps feel about that?)

And again, ABC has said they will be giving voice to criticisms of Obama's health care plan. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Here's a question for the conservative outrage machine - were you this upset over Jeff Gannon?

I'm not "upset" with this either. I'm merely pointing out the fact that Obama is engaging in funny business and most of the media doesn't seem to mind. I remember the stink "Gannon" caused back then and the media was up in arms even though they really never came up with any kind of evidence that Gannon's single question pre-arranged. It seemed more likely that Gannon had fooled someone into allowing him access seeing how his background made his discovery quite embarrassing. That's not something someone at the top of the White House "food chain" would likely want to be involved in. Even Obama's White House.

Not much of a softball, is it? Why "coordinate" if you end up with a legitimate, tough question like this as the result?

If I'm a gambling man, I'm going to gamble on the odds. Odds are if I ask a known supporter of mine in advance to supply a question about an important matter, it's going to be a lot more of a "softball" than if I ask someone whose job it is just to get all the facts.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think you mean a quote from opinion columnist Dana Milbank, not so much "The Washington Post." It's his opinion. He's entitled to it, but he's wrong.

I've already posted 2 sources from journalists who claim that Obama is engaging in behavior that violates the way the White House press corps normally works, in a way that gives him an unfair advantage. I'll take their opinion of what the norm is over someone who has never worked in covering the White House, just about any day of the week.

They get to call on who they want to ask a question.

True, but those people never before were told they were going to be called on what subject matter they should ask about. Traditionally, the President has no say in what will be asked other than taking a chance in regards to who he picks.

You would have to be an idiot if you think that they also don't know what White House correspondents have been writing about recently, and can guess a lot of the time what subject the question will be about.

Then there should be no reason to pre-arrange, right? I mean, if they already know, they don't have to specifically tell the reporters what questions they need to ask. Obama is buying off reporters by granting them the right to ask questions, as long as they agree in advance to ask the kinds of questions he wants. Of course he still runs the risk that the question might be tough, but it's about a subject he's prepared on in advance, and won't need a teleprompter for. He's controlling the flow of the conversation, not the media. It was never like that before Obama. If you can't even admit that the people I quoted where right, then it's clear that this is just another media matter you are confused about, and refuse to accept the truth on.

And again, ABC has said they will be giving voice to criticisms of Obama's health care plan. Where is your evidence to the contrary?

Not from the most knowledgeable opponents of the plan. They've already been turned down for participation. They are going to let folks who are pre-selected, most of which don't have all the facts, ask the hard hitting questions about the subject matter Obama chooses and get ZERO ability to rebut anything false Obama offers in return. I've seen the same thing for years when they are selling those food processors on TV. An audience, a host, questions from the audience and the host gets to answer without rebutal to sell his product. The food processor people have to pay for their time. Obama gets his for free.

And why do I not trust the mainstream media you ask? Maybe because they are always doing this sort of thing:

CNSNews.com - New York Times Poll Showing 72% Support for Obama's Health Care Plan Was Stacked With Obama Supporters