The Press Officially Abdicates Its Role
Or what about the recent run-up in gas prices? In his State of the Union speech, Obama claimed that “We buy … less foreign oil than we have in 20.” It took a British publication, the Financial Times, to point to the disingenuousness of that claim, and to note that the situation has serious potential for bad economic and geopolitical consequences:
By the end of November the US had already imported more than 450m (million) barrels of crude from Saudi Arabia, more than it imported from Riyadh in the whole of 2009, 2010 or 2011, according to figures from the US energy department. For the first time since 2003, Saudi imports accounted for more than 15 per cent of total US oil imports. The Gulf as a whole accounted for more than 25 per cent, a nine-year high. Other Gulf exporters are also seeing unusually strong US demand. By the end of November, Kuwait had shipped more oil to the US than in any year since 1998.
Last time I checked, these countries were not automatically inclined to be our friends, especially given how the “Arab Spring” is devolving into a tyranny of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and potentially elsewhere. Meanwhile, oil production in the Gulf of Mexico is still 15 percent below where it was when the Deepwater Horizon oil spill occurred, thanks almost entirely to the Obama administration’s deliberately slow permit approval process. If U.S. production were higher, the barrel price of oil and gas prices at the pump, both very inelastic goods, would be significantly lower.
Getting back to legalities and ethics, what about the offensive shenanigans at OFA? The outfit has turned into a presidential access toll booth for leftist high-rollers. According to the Obama-worshiping New York Times:
Giving or raising $500,000 or more (to OFA) puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House. Moreover, the new cash demands on Mr. Obama’s top donors and bundlers come as many of them are angling for appointments to administration jobs or ambassadorships.
OFA has also engaged in astroturfing, up to and including “astro-tweeting” with bogus Twitter accounts. It’s become such an execrable cesspool that even the liberal outfit Common Cause has called for its abolition.
That takes me to the Washington press corp’s presidential advisory role, one which will apparently endure for Obama’s entire second term. Right now, it appears to be telling Obama that he’s overreaching in his insistence that sequestration without even more in the way of tax increases will be the end of the world as we know it. The Washington Post warns that “some White House allies worry the slow-moving sequester may fail to live up to the hype.” The front-page New York Times item about OFA mentioned above is also best seen as a warning, as in: “Look, guys, there’s only so much you can get away with. Cool your jets at least for the time being, okay?”
With rare exceptions, it would appear until further notice that we’ll have to rely on the center-right blogosphere and its social media, its pundits, and its few friends in the establishment press to expose anything the Obama administration would rather the world not see or know, and then figure out how to get it out there for low-information voters to see.
Let’s get to work, people.
That was 60 days before the election. We rolled over to O's messaging judurnaut - Now Tom is awake!! After the fact.
No offense Tom, it is just that many of us think Benghazi was the last straw.
That was 60 days before the election. We rolled over to O's messaging judurnaut - Now Tom is awake!! After the fact.
No offense Tom, it is just that many of us think Benghazi was the last straw.
A few enlightened members of the media may see that as grounds/cover to breakaway from serving as mouthpieces for Obama and begin more objective reporting.
A few enlightened members of the media may see that as grounds/cover to breakaway from serving as mouthpieces for Obama and begin more objective reporting.
DePravda is the Charlie McCarthy to Obama's Edgar Bergen. Charlie doesn't like it if Bergen's lips move. It ruins the act. The difference is, Charlie gets off Edgar's lap once in a while.
DePravda is the Charlie McCarthy to Obama's Edgar Bergen. Charlie doesn't like it if Bergen's lips move. It ruins the act. The difference is, Charlie gets off Edgar's lap once in a while.
I blame, and therefore loathe, the corrupt media for so much of the damage to our culture and our country. Just the media and this administration has raced to a new bottom, brazen and sickening. Scary that it is new media, but media nonetheless, that may be the only entity able to tear down that monolith and patch up the country.
I blame, and therefore loathe, the corrupt media for so much of the damage to our culture and our country. Just the media and this administration has raced to a new bottom, brazen and sickening. Scary that it is new media, but media nonetheless, that may be the only entity able to tear down that monolith and patch up the country.
The word I used was "anticipated," not "envisioned." The press received a First Amendment freedom because the Founders anticipated that it would be on the whole used responsibly, not abdicated based on who's in the White House.
There was also the broader point made by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
The word I used was "anticipated," not "envisioned." The press received a First Amendment freedom because the Founders anticipated that it would be on the whole used responsibly, not abdicated based on who's in the White House.
There was also the broader point made by John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Mr. Blumer - The "bill of Rights" extends to every "INDIVIDUAL" citizen. The First Amendment - freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. It does NOT afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The First amendment in regards to press extends NO further than stated above so I don't know how you have concluded that the
founders "anaticipated" anything separate and apart form the same rights of the individual.
"...John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any... (show more)
Mr. Blumer - The "bill of Rights" extends to every "INDIVIDUAL" citizen. The First Amendment - freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. It does NOT afford members of the media any special rights or privileges not afforded to citizens in general.
The First amendment in regards to press extends NO further than stated above so I don't know how you have concluded that the
founders "anaticipated" anything separate and apart form the same rights of the individual.
"...John Adams: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Not sure why you decided to go to this point but..... The founders had many opinions about many things! However, not all of their differing opinions made the final cut of the constitution. That said, every religion is protected from government infringement. Likewise, we 'adopted' common laws for moral social and civil contstraint. Beyond those common laws, 'morality' is left to the churches of the many religions and protected from government infringements -- Just as the founders intended! Everybody is FREE to join or not join any religion and follow any moral standards of any such religion or not follow them so long as they do not violate the common law standard(s). That in part, is whats called American exceptionalism! Our constitution is why we're not some religious theocracy or some other restricting and controlling form of dictatorship. What I seek to live up too in my relgious endeavors is between me and God, not you or some government dictate and I'm pretty sure thats the way God wants it to be since He's said He'll be the final judge of all his children.
(show less)
I should have said "Those who choose to cover events or express their opinions using words," which of course includes individuals who are and aren't members of the press, and I didn't mean to imply that any given individual who happens to do that has superior rights in any way -- which is why the idea the "mere bloggers" have lesser rights that "credentialed members of the media" is pure BS.
The John Adams quote obviously applies to everyone. If you're choosing not to do your job and continuing to get paid, you're not being moral.
I should have said "Those who choose to cover events or express their opinions using words," which of course includes individuals who are and aren't members of the press, and I didn't mean to imply that any given individual who happens to do that has superior rights in any way -- which is why the idea the "mere bloggers" have lesser rights that "credentialed members of the media" is pure BS.
The John Adams quote obviously applies to everyone. If you're choosing not to do your job and continuing to get paid, you're not being moral.
As for independent 'bloggers' who see themselves as a part of the 'press' that is really a joke! Most, simply 'chase' the socalled legitimate releases of the day and provide their own ideological commentary or they chase down literary piublications (books) and again provide their ideological commentary. For most bloggers its not a matterof any equality of press credentials, its simply they do nothing to generate legitimate press releases everyday or eeven attempt legitimate validation -- they're simply individual ideological self serving commentators.
"If you're choosing not to do your job and continuing to get paid, you're not being moral."
Now theres a classic subjective comment! Funny how laywers and consultants popped into my mind. Take a survey someday of how many lawyers on retainers in all the public school districts across the nation actually have training and experience in education law or how many municipalities have lawyers on retainer with training and experience in all the facets of public administration laws. How many consultants have actually not had their services provide any sustainable economic benefit but get paid nontheless. Theres a whole service sector out there whose services aren't worth a nickle much less the thousands or hundreds of thousands they get paid a year. And on down the pike of all the other areas of life responsibilities and occupations. (show less)