June 17, 2009
Collusion
The Drudge Report posted earlier today that ABC News will be producing a broadcast for the Obama Administration's socialized health care plan from within the White House. Predictably, that has caused my peers in the blogosphere some consternation.
Bloggers on the left find that the idea of a Democratic Administration getting a prime time infomercial to extol the virtues of a controversial policy prescription that they are championing quite appealing. The broadcast features only those questions screened by the network, and is designed to provide the Administration a format devoid of rebuttals from libertarian, conservative, and moderate politicians who may have other and perhaps more sustainable ideas. Such unchallenged propaganda is understandably accepted with bliss among the conformist left.
Many of us on the center-right, however, find the increasingly incestuous relationship between the media and a President very alarming. Some are going so far to suggest that such a relationship a significant threat to our Republic. The reason for such concern is simple: a media so enthralled with a politician (or group of politicians) has cannot perform the watchdog role that is required of it in a free nation.
I wouldn't be too concerned about it at this point. Folks over reacting to suggest that this is a threat to the Republic. After all, we endured the same sort of thing during the 8 years of the Bush administration with their so called "town hall meetings", etc.
However, I would agree with you that there should be absolutely no vetting of questions in this upcoming broadcast nor in any other format of questions and answers posed by journalists and citizens to elected officials. None.
Furthermore, while we're on this topic, I would suggest that all future election cycle debates be patterned after the format of the now famous Lincoln-Douglas Debates. Now, there was real debating!
For those of you who aren't familiar with the format, simply do a web search of "Lincoln Douglas Debates". Regardless of one's politics, you'll surely enjoy reading and learning what REAL political discourse should be.
Best Wishes to All,
Dude
Posted by: Dude at June 17, 2009 06:31 AMLincoln-Douglas, yeah. Sarah will mop the floor with the mullah's little buddy.
Posted by: Gary Ogletree at June 17, 2009 07:02 AMTo compare ABC programming inside the White House presenting only the Administration point of view to "town hall meetings", as Dude did, is foolish.
Fortunately, and finally, the MSM has competition. The citizens are voting with their clickers, radio dials, and keyboards for other reliable news sources.
Posted by: Rick at June 17, 2009 08:46 AMI fail to see how Bush's "Town Hall meetings" can be even remotely compared to this "Ministry of Truth" style takeover of a major news outlet by the very people they should be commenting on.
See "1984" by George Orwell for "Ministry of Truth" reference.
Posted by: Walt at June 17, 2009 12:17 PMJust curious, but what if they broadcast their after-school special but no one watched?
Seriously, can we not boycott the program?
And to really stress our displeasure at ABC's dropping of any pretense of being the Administration's lapdog, why don't we go ahead and boycott ALL of ABC's sponsors?
Not just the ABC News sponsors - all of the network's sponsors.
If we take down one network, the others will take notice.
Posted by: wheatley at June 17, 2009 04:51 PMI hardly ever watch the alphabet networks, so my cott of their programming doesn't change any of their metrics. Althought, the reason I quit watching them was (a) the bias and (b) the lack of good programming.
However, if I write the network's advertisers and threaten to boycott products advertised on ABC - - money talks!
Posted by: SicSemperTyrannus at June 17, 2009 08:25 PMI've come to believe that the media have squarely taken on the role of Blanche Maxwell
Posted by: Neo at June 18, 2009 05:32 PMI now refer to the former "MSM" as the SRM (State Run Media).
Posted by: laura at June 19, 2009 01:03 PM
