Posted on 01/09/2010 10:47:04 AM PST by Welshman007
After nearly 3 weeks of complete silence and stonewalling about the Obama executive order granting immunity from U.S. law to INTERPOL, an explanation of sorts was issued yesterday by the secretary-general of the organization, but not from the Obama White House. And the explanation simply doesn't cut it.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Just one more link in destroying our sovereignty.
This is potentially negative and questionable, Obama will hence refuse to make any statement about it unless really forced to.
Obama will let others do the speaking, explaining, and take the heat while he prances around in the media. The media will not ask him about this, and the common man doesn't really understand it, so it will just slip by and be forgotten in a year.
Yes, his explanation will suffice.
Can any constitutional attorneys or experts state under which constitutional or statutory provision the POTUS has the authority to exempt anyone other than issuing preemptive pardons for crimes not yet committed?
Just like the constitution... another thing for Obama to pervert!
it’s becoming more and more NOT that the “media will not ask him about this”, but becoming more of a deal where the media gets to attend press conferences and are NOT allowed to make comments or ask any questions. If I were the media, I would just refuse to show up. Sort of like throwing a party and nobody comes. Now if only everyone would turn off their TV when he gives his interminable speeches.
America is lost UNLESS we elect some bone mean republicans in 2010..
Obama is a media spectacle and sensation. Like a rock-star, they can't miss the story of what he's eating, what Michelle likes to wear, their favorite holiday foods, what dog they picked, the vegetable garden by the White House.......
Obama knows how to use his fame, popularity and exclusiveness to his advantage. Those that play ball get rewarded, those that ask hard questions get booted, but this game is only seldom blatant and obvious as was the case when FOX was uninvited. Most of the time they simply attempt to “nudge” the media, and they usually play along if for no other reason because they are lazy and want to believe everything they are spoon fed. The White House has a fairly large press apparatus which grew substantially under this new administration (When you look at all their outside help). While clueless about the role of being a Commander in Chief, the prime executive of a nation, they are extremely savvy at selling themselves. They all but hand the journalist what to write on a silver platter, and all they need to do is sign it with their name and collect a paycheck. That's called “investigative reporting” in America.
The Bullshit will stop not because the media has some epiphany, but rather the day Obama looses his rock-star status. The media is a cheap whore. They will hop in bed with the Ba’athist Saddam regime and cover up their our Iraqi help being murdered so they can have an “exclusive story.” They will actually collaborate with terrorists or withhold information of national security so they can get a story and make a buck. Likewise they will give technical information which ends up damaging our security efforts. They are so blind, that they will cling to a bullshit story even after the author of a falsified report on Bush's military service records publicly states they are forgeries, as was the case with Dan Rather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_controversy). They seldom get it right, but they will tell whatever it is in supersaturated color:
Time pressure (Be the first)-
They do little fact checking. They throw stuff out that is half baked and they don't have all the facts in many cases.
Non subject matter experts-
Those doing the reporting are seldom SMEs on what they are reporting on. They simply can write well or look good and have a pleasant voice. Their idea of a story is to go to Iraq a few days before a major event like the transition to the new government and then quickly writing a story with little background information.
Buyable-
As with CNN playing ball with the Saddam regime, the media will cut deals, close an eye, or spin a story just so they can get one. There are many examples of this, to include them running around with actual insurgents in Iraq as some of the foreign media was. http://honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/CNNs_Iraqi_Cover-Up.asp
Biased-
The media is made up of people, and they have opinions, ideologies etc. However, the media is generally an environment which unlike the sciences or law enforcement is not very procedural and factually based. They typically inject opinion as fact and they will go so far as to use loaded questions, poisoning the well, suppression of contradicting information, etc to spin things the way they want to see them or have them vs. what is. http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Editorialized-
They write in a casual way that tells a story using touchy feely words. As a journalist once told me, “Without conflict you have no story.” Where there is no conflict they will create it. They write casually, informal, first person, and appeal to feelings and emotions, no differently than a conceptual advertising sales pitch. They don't write in a scientific, engineering, factual way where there is a true logic, attempt to stick to the facts, test the ideas, etc. Debates like health care and abortion are nearly driven by this editorialized nonsense.
Keep it short (Keep attention)-
Dumb it down so all can read it easily. Stories like music have to be kept to a certain length so you can keep jumping from story to story and keep peoples attention. You never get any depth. You will seldom get a comprehensive picture with any depth because they have to move on because after all they have to cover all their bases.
Must have pictures-
If the story has no cool pictures even if it's a big story like this one is with Interpol, it will get no coverage. Brittney Spears getting her snatch photographed getting out of a car, now that's a huge story!/sarc
Over sensationalist-
Do you know what made USA Today the number one paper years past? Color print, yeah, that's the depth to it. In TV they super saturate colors, they use buzz words, hype everything up........ They do a great disservice because like the kid that cried wolf, they desensitized the public and our language. We are confronted with bloodbaths, genocide, and a terrorist every few minutes on TV. Anyone using animals in lab testing is equal to the Nazi's killing 6.2 million people nowadays.
Non professional (No recourse)-
There is no real license for journalists and it is difficult to win a character defamation case (libel/slander). You don't need any special education or training and there is little vetting and real credentialing of the media. In such an environment you get a lot of trash claiming to be a journalist and when creating their make belief world for profit they give little concern to any real ethical or legal recourse.
Second hand shit-
Much of what you read or hear isn't even first hand, and comes from a news service or is simply a reworded (technically nonplagerized) story. They feed on each other and you often have very few doing the reporting and a lot of babble heads rephrasing and analyzing the news. Our media will literally take stories from Pravda (Russian state run news service) and repackage this as news in the US. This phenomena makes for nice stories like the Green helmet guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salam_Daher
The news media in the US is complete utter crap. You might as well watch Hanna Montana because you won't be any smarter if you watch MSNBC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.