you'll have to excuse MEM rex, liberals and conservatives feel the need to agree on everything, they dont understand moderates who dont kiss each others asses or agree on everything.
Self-described libertarian pundit Bill Maher ripped Barak Obama during a lengthy monologue on his HBO program Friday night, accusing the president of being obsessed with appearing on TV and failing to come through on pre-election promises.
"This is not what I voted for," Maher said. “I don’t want my president to be a TV star.”
Maher criticized Obama's constant television coverage ("I get it: you love being on TV") and said the president should focus on fixing the nation's problems instead.
"You don't have to be on television every minute of every day -- you're the president, not a rerun of 'Law & Order,'" Maher said. “TV stars are too worried bout being popular and too concerned about being renewed."
Maher continued: "You're skinny and in a hurry and in love with a nice lady -- but so is Lindsay Lohan. And just like Lindsay, we see your name in the paper a lot but we're kind of wondering when you’re actually going to do something.”
Maher added that Obama's presidential rival John McCain was right to say Obama acted like a celebrity and, amazingly for Maher, the comedian suggested Obama needs to act more like his predecessor.
“I never thought I’d say this, what [Obama] needs in his personality is a little George Bush.”
Because he showed absolutely no signs of being an attention whore before the election? maher is just bitching at the president because all he knows how to do is bitch.
November 6th, 2012: Americas new Independence Day.
For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post has offered lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few": Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and — at first — even the paper’s own reporters and editors.
The astonishing offer was detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he felt it was a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff."
With the newsroom in an uproar after POLITICO reported the solicitation, Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said this morning that he was "appalled" by the plan and said the newsroom will not participate.
"It suggests that access to Washington Post journalists was available for purchase," Brauchli told The Post’s media reporter, Howard Kurtz. The proposal "promises we would suspend our usual skeptical questioning because it appears to offer, in exchange for sponsorships, the good name of The Washington Post."
Earlier this morning, Brauchili said in a staffwide e-mail that the newsroom would not participate in the first of the planned events — a dinner scheduled July 21 at the home of Publisher and Chief Executive Officer Katharine Weymouth. Brauchli,was named on the flier as one of the "Hosts and Discussion Leaders."
The offer — which essentially turns a news organization into a facilitator for private lobbyist-official encounters — was a new sign of the lengths to which news organizations will go to find revenue at a time when most newspapers are struggling for survival.
And it's a turn of the times that a lobbyist is scolding The Washington Post for its ethical practices.
"Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate," says the one-page flier. "Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. ... Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders."
Kris Coratti, communications director of Washington Post Media, a division of The Washington Post Company, said: "The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers.
"As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this. We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity. The newsroom will participate where appropriate."
In his e-mail to the newsroom, labeled "Newsroom Independence," Brauchli wrote: "Colleagues, A flyer was distributed this week offering an 'underwriting opportunity' for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate. The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.
"We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable. There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values."
The flier says: “Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …
“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders ... Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post ... An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. ... A Washington Post Salon ... July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m. ...
"Washington Post Salons are extensions of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard," the flier says. "At the core is a critical topic of our day. Dinner and a volley of ideas unfold in an evening of intelligent, news-driven and off-the-record conversation. ... By bringing together those powerful few in business and policy-making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues, Washington Post Salons give life to the debate. Be at this nexus of business and policy with your underwriting of Washington Post Salons."
The first "Salon" is titled "Health-Care Reform: Better or Worse for Americans? The reform and funding debate."
If the editor in chief is given Obama officials to raise money for her paper, whats the chances she will allow criticism and investigations of the Administration?
If the editor in chief is given Obama officials to raise money for her paper, whats the chances she will allow criticism and investigations of the Administration?
Having been caught, the Post is already backtracking:
At 8.04am, Politico's Mike Allen publishes an article: "For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to "those powerful few" -- Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper's own reporters and editors."
At 10.33am, Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli sends out an email:
A flyer was distributed this week offering an "underwriting opportunity" for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate.
The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.
We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.
There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.
they dont seem to understand that it doesnt matter if the reporters dont attend. if the Obama admin is gunna loan out officials to do fund raising for newspapers there content is tainted whether the reporters are their or not.
At 10.33am, Washington Post editor Marcus Brauchli sends out an email:
A flyer was distributed this week offering an "underwriting opportunity" for a dinner on health-care reform, in which the news department had been asked to participate.
The language in the flyer and the description of the event preclude our participation.
We will not participate in events where promises are made that in exchange for money The Post will offer access to newsroom personnel or will refrain from confrontational questioning. Our independence from advertisers or sponsors is inviolable.
There is a long tradition of news organizations hosting conferences and events, and we believe The Post, including the newsroom, can do these things in ways that are consistent with our values.
[/list]
Donnie, were you reading the Dude's post? That was already in there.
whomod said: I generally don't like it when people decide to play by the rules against people who don't play by the rules. It tends to put you immediately at a disadvantage and IMO is a sign of true weakness. This is true both in politics and on the internet."
Annandale, Va. (AP) - President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday.
Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job. The president hugged her -- she's a volunteer for his political operation -- and called her "exhibit A" in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans.
"We are going to try to find ways to help you immediately," he told Smith as hundreds looked on at a community college forum -- and countless others watched on television. But the nation's long-term needs require a greater emphasis on preventive care and "cost-effective care," he said.
Smith, of Appalachia, Va., is a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama's political operation within the Democratic National Committee. She obtained her ticket through the White House.
The health care changes that Obama called for Wednesday would reshape the nation's medical landscape. He says he wants to cover nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, to persuade doctors to stress quality over quantity of care, to squeeze billions of dollars from spending.
But details on exactly how to do those things were generally lacking in his hour-long town hall forum before a friendly, hand-picked audience in a Washington suburb. The lingering questions underscore the tough negotiations awaiting Congress, the administration and dozens of special interest groups in the coming months. Lawmakers will return to debating the issue when they return from a one-week recess on Monday.
Some of Obama's questioners Wednesday were from friendly sources, including a member of the Service Employees International Union and a member of Health Care for America Now, which organized a Capitol Hill rally last week calling for an overhaul. White House aides selected other questions submitted by people on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
Republicans said the event was a political sham designed to help Obama, not to inform the public.
"Americans are already skeptical about the cost and adverse impact of the president's health care plans," Republican National Committee spokesman Trevor Francis said. "Stacking the audience and preselecting questions may make for a good TV, but it's the wrong way to engage in a meaningful discussion about reforming health care."
Obama made no new proposals at the sometimes emotional event. But he vigorously defended his plans while fielding seven questions from the live audience at the forum and on the Internet.
The president would bar insurance companies from turning down applicants because of their "pre-existing conditions." He would establish health care exchanges that would spread the costs of treating patients such as Smith over a large number of people.
Obama called for shifting huge sums of money from current health care spending to new goals. About two-thirds of the overall new costs "will come from reallocating money that is already being spent in the health care system but isn't being spent wisely," he said.
He restated his pledge to cut $177 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage insurance plans. And he noted that doctors, hospitals, corporations and others have promised to decrease the annual rate of spending growth by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion over 10 years.
Such savings are not guaranteed, however, and many Republican lawmakers say Obama's plans will prove too costly.
"The biggest thing we can do to hold down costs is to change the incentives of a health care system that automatically equates expensive care with better care," the president said. He said the formula system drives up costs "but doesn't make you better."
Obama did not make specific recommendations for changing the incentive formulas.
One questioner said limits on awards from medical malpractice lawsuits would bring down health care costs.
Obama replied, "I don't like the idea of an artificial cap" on such awards for a patient's injuries. He also said there was little evidence that various states' efforts to limit such awards have uniformly brought down costs.
Obama said, however, that he is working with the American Medical Association to explore ways to reduce liability for doctors and hospitals "when they've done nothing wrong." He offered no specifics for a problem that has vexed the medical and legal industries for decades.
The president repeatedly said the current health care system is not acceptable and must be overhauled this year. He urged the audience, which included people following on Facebook and YouTube, to reject critics who say his plans are too costly or a step toward socialized medicine.
Obama said a government-run "single-payer" health care system works well in some countries. But it is not appropriate in the United States, he said, because so many people get insurance through their employers working with private companies.
Still, he again called for a government-run "public option" to compete with private insurers, a plan that many Republicans oppose.
Following a testy exchange during Wednesday’s briefing with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas told CNSNews.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press.
“Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try.
“What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” Thomas said. “They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them.”
Thomas said she was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama’s press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among questions that had been sent to him by people in Iran.
“When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you,” Thomas said.
“I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences,” she said. “It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”
During today’s briefing, Thomas interrupted a back-and-forth between Gibbs and Chip Reid, the White House correspondent for CBS News, when Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama in a townhall meeting that was scheduled to take place in Annandale, Va., today.
Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas that went as follows:
Gibbs: “… But, again, let's--How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's tradition of asking the first question. I will let you [Chip Reid] ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Annandale—“
Chip Reid: “I'm perfectly happy to—”
Helen Thomas: “That's not his point. The point is the control--”
Reid: “Exactly.”
Thomas: “We have never had that in the White House. And we have had some, but not-- This White House.”
Gibbs: “Yes, I was going to say, I'll let you amend her question.”
Thomas: “I'm amazed. I'm amazed at you people who call for openness and transparency and—”
Gibbs: “Helen, you haven't even heard the questions.”
Reid: “It doesn't matter. It's the process.”
Thomas: “You have left open—”
Reid: “Even if there's a tough question, it's a question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened.”
Thomas: “It's shocking. It's really shocking.”
Gibbs: “Chip, let's have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?”
Reid: “Okay.”
Gibbs: “I think—“
Thomas: “No, no, no, we're having it now--”
Gibbs: “Well, I'd be happy to have it now.”
Thomas: “It's a pattern.”
Gibbs: “Which question did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?”
Thomas: “It's a pattern. It isn't the question—”
Gibbs: “What's a pattern?”
Thomas: “It's a pattern of controlling the press.”
Gibbs: “How so? Is there any evidence currently going on that I'm controlling the press--poorly, I might add.”
Thomas: “Your formal engagements are pre-packaged.”
Gibbs: “How so?”
Reid: “Well, and controlling the public—”
Thomas: “How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they're going to be called on. That is shocking.”
Gibbs: “We had this discussion ad nauseam and—”
Thomas: “Of course you would, because you don't have any answers.”
Gibbs: “Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen. Go ahead.”
Thomas: “Well, you should have.”
Reporter: Thank you for your support.
Gibbs: “That's good. Have you e-mailed your question today?”
Thomas: “I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.”
Gibbs: “I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.”
Thomas, 89, has covered the White House during every presidency since John F. Kennedy’s.
About five or six years ago, roughly, I was solicited to write a column every two weeks for the Sunday New York Times Business Section.
The column went well. I got lots of excellent fan mail and fine feedback from my editors, who, however, kept changing....
I started criticizing Mr. Obama quite sharply over his policies and practices. I had tried to do this before over the firing of Rick Wagoner from the Chairmanship of GM. My column had questioned whether there was a legal basis for the firing by the government, what law allowed or authorized the federal government to fire the head of what was then a private company, and just where the Obama administration thought their limits were, if anywhere. This column was flat out nixed by my editors at the Times because in their opinion Mr. Obama inherently had such powers.
They did let me run a piece querying what I thought was a certain lack of focus in Mr. Obama's world but that was it, and then came another issue.
I had done a commercial for an Internet aggregating company called FreeScore. This commercial offered people a week of free access to their credit scores and then required them to pay for further such access.
This commercial was red meat for the Ben Stein haters left over from the Expelled days. They bombarded the Times with letters. They confused (or some of them seemingly confused ) FreeScore with other companies that did not have FreeScore's unblemished record with consumer protection agencies. (FreeScore has a perfect record.) They demanded of the high pooh-bahs at the Times that they fire me because of what they called a conflict of interest.
Of course, there was no conflict of interest. I had never written one word in the Times or anywhere else about getting credit scores on line. Not a word.
But somehow, these people bamboozled some of the high pooh-bahs at the Times into thinking there was a conflict of interest. In an e-mail sent to me by a person I had never met nor even heard of, I was fired. I called the editor and explained the situation. He said the problem was "the appearance" of conflict of interest. I asked how that could be when I never wrote about the subject at all. He said the real problem was that FreeScore was a major financial company and I wrote about finance. But, as I told him, FreeScore was a small Internet aggregator, not a bank or insurer.
Never mind. I was history. "You should have consulted us," was the basic line.
Of course, there was not one word of complaint when I did commercials for immense public companies. By a total coincidence, I was tossed overboard immediately after my column attacking Obama. (You can attack Obama from the left at the Times but not from the right.)
The whole subject reminds me of a conversation Bob Dylan had long ago with a reporter who asked him what he thought about how much criticism he was getting for going from acoustic to electric guitar. "There are a lot of people who have knives and forks," he said, "and they have nothing on their plates, so they have to cut something."
I find it hard to believe the New York Times hired Stein without knowing his politics.
I find it equally hard to believe they hired him without realizing that he does TV commercials. In fact, as he notes in the full version of the piece, there was at least one incident with Times staffers found out the was doing a commercial with Shaq and (rather than reprimand him) asked him to bring them back souveneirs and autographs.
He doesn't say but I'm guessing Comcast, given the Shaq reference:
I suppose one could try and draw a distinction between the two commercials but it's one hell of a thin one.
In the Comcast commericial Stein identifies himself as an economist and says he's there to talk about finances and being smart with money. Comcast is a large telecommunications company and, presumably, as likely a topic for a column on business as the company that Stein did the ad for that ostensibly got him fired.
Furthermore, Stein's firing seems all the more peculiar when you consider the case of Paul Krugman. Krugman was an Enron advisor and consultant who later, and unlike Stein, went on to write about that company in his Times column. Krugman is still at the Times despite covering a company he used to work for.
Washington Post editor Jonathon Capehartwas on MSNBC yesterday morning and made a freudian slip about the mainstream press alliance with the Obamanauts, "You know, there are legitimate concerns out there about health insurance reform or health care reform or however we're calling it today. But a lot of this rhetoric: death panels, pulling the plug on grandma, I think is sort of lowering the debate. And we've got two problems here. We, I should say the administration or Democrats have two problems. "
Maybe they did can that waste over the tv commercial.
Also those other immensely public companies are like Baush%lauhm(sp?) for Visine or whatever.
I find it hard to believe the New York Times hired Stein without knowing his politics.
The problem was his questioning of the One. you are allowed to criticize the administration but no one is allowed to criticize him directly. take a look around anyone questioning Obama directly is referred to as a racist and an extremist(even MEM calls critics fringe), now to us it seems silly but in the world of newspapers this is no different than having a legitimate extremist writing for them.
If you're a fan of all things Obama, NBC Universal's online store has no fewer than 29 options for your buying pleasure -- from a shirt with the president's picture proclaiming "YES WE DID"...to both of his books...to a special inauguration DVD...to a refrigerator magnet of the first couple.
And don't forget the Barack Obama Action Figure -- yours for $15, plus tax.
You can buy them online -- or at NBC Universal's retail store in New York.
Some analysts say it's good business, that NBC is simply offering what people want to buy. They point out that the adult version of the “YES WE DID” shirt ($25) was so popular, it sold out on the Web site.
But others note that there is no merchandise available that shows support for the other side of the political aisle. And they question whether the political bent of the items on sale are healthy for a corporation that operates an impartial news outlet.
Some of NBC’s item descriptions would seem to support that notion: "Bring reform to your refrigerator. Or at least keep company with the President while you're at work, with the Barack Obama Magnet," one item description reads.
"From Yes We Can to Yes We Did! Celebrate Barack Obama's historic victory with the new 'Yes We Did' Unisex T-Shirt," reads another.
But if your favorite color in the red, white and blue just happens to be red, you're out of luck.
There are no t-shirts or refrigerator magnets for George and Laura Bush, and NBC did not say whether it ever sold Bush items after his victory in 2000.
The CBS and ABC online stores sell books about the president, but no merchandise. Fox and CNN do not sell books or gear.
Some journalism ethics scholars said NBC Universal's focus on Obama merchandise was unseemly for a media outlet.
"The NBC Universal Store stands out for the amount of pro-Obama trinkets and gadgets and promotional material it sells. Its nearest competitor is CBS, which has a dozen items...books and the 60 Minutes interview with Obama,” DePaul University journalism professor Bruce Evensen said.
"The [NBC] site seems like a campaign stop for those following their messiah...The appearance that NBC isn't reporting the news with fairness, balance and impartiality -- but is instead cheerleading -- is apparent," he said.
But others said the sale of Obama items appeared to be nothing more than a smart business decision.
"I think it indicates that NBC thinks it can make money from selling Obama items but not from McCain or Bush items," said Eric Alterman, author of the book, "What Liberal Media?" and an English and journalism professor at Brooklyn College in New York.
Joe Luppino-Esposito, a conservative blogger who spotted the shirts for sale, agreed that selling only Obama gear could be a good business decision, but he said that it reflected network bias nonetheless.
"It's definitely possible that it's a business decision, but I think that a news organization should always be careful in selling products that aren't so blatant in showing a bias," he said.
Jane Kirtley, executive director of the University of Minnesota’s Silha Center for Media Ethics and Law, said, "I would agree that it is problematic when you have an entity that has a news division to appear to be taking a partisan line. When you're selling memorabilia that supports anybody who prevailed in an election, you run the risk of being labeled as having a partisan affiliation."
"To me, whatever money they're making off of this, it's not worth it. It undermines any attempt to represent itself as a nonpartisan entity," she said.
But Alterman said the idea that the Obama merchandise reflects on the reporting at NBC and MSNBC was "almost comically stupid."
"Do these conservatives think that the person making the decision of what items to sell in the NBC gift shops is the person giving orders about how to slant the politics of NBC news?" he asked.
"What about the choice of beverage sales in the cafeteria?"
Liberal media watch groups Media Matters and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting declined to comment on the issue.
well this does ease my concerns that NBC is run by left wing whackos, I guess their bias is just greed based.
NBC is owned by GE. GE is headed by Jeffrey Immelt. In the 8 years that he's been in charge, their stock has dropped an astounding 75%, yet not only is his job not in jeopardy, he's been tagged to be one of Obama's economic advisers.
Labeled “climate revenues” and totaling $646 billion over eight years, this line item in Obama’s budget has inspired confidence in GE Chief Executive Officer Jeff Immelt. As Immelt put it in a letter this week, he believes that the Obama administration will be a profitable “financier” and “key partner.”
Basically, GE stands to make millions, if not billions off of Obama's "green" policies.
"Do these conservatives think that the person making the decision of what items to sell in the NBC gift shops is the person giving orders about how to slant the politics of NBC news?" he asked.
Why do they have to be conservatives to disapprove?
Oh, so Chuck Todd doesn't necessarily want to suck the Obamacock, Jeff Immelt makes him to try and better his bottom line. But, seriously, I think Todd likes it anyway.
Can you celebrate the Obama presidency at NBC?
