Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So the President invites people he respects to have conversations with him about issues and topics of the day.
And the President hopes that in these conversations that his perspective is clear and convincing. And one would think that the people he invites also hope that their perspectives are clear and convincing. Moreover, it's the job of these people to write about the President, and whenever someone writes about a subject, the better one knows the subject, the better the writing.
But Aeroguy evidently thinks the President has some special brainwashing powers, and that people who write about this President should take steps to not talk with him, to not find out what his perspective on an issue is, to not develop an understanding. Because it's so much better for a reporter to simply hate the President and to criticize every single thing about him. That's what Aeroguy does, so reporters, writers, journalists, should all do it too.
Exactly. Last night I was reading on the forum where a poster repeatedly claimed that conservatives' complaints that liberals own the media apparatus were completely unfounded and give too much credit to liberals and liberalism. I am astounded that someone can be so ignorant.
Well, there we have it folks. This President has actively engaged "opinion columnists" in order to make sure they write good things about him and his policies. If ever there was a propagandist arm of the government.....a state run media.....it would be now under the watchful eye of King Barack Hussein Obama.
And then, one of these people will write something critical about Obama, and someone in your camp will start a thread about what a brilliant analysis it is. I've seen this before. We get right-wingers quoting "Pravda", praising the old Soviet Union, etc when they say something critical about the Obama administration.
So the President invites people he respects to have conversations with him about issues and topics of the day.
And the President hopes that in these conversations that his perspective is clear and convincing. And one would think that the people he invites also hope that their perspectives are clear and convincing. Moreover, it's the job of these people to write about the President, and whenever someone writes about a subject, the better one knows the subject, the better the writing.
But Aeroguy evidently thinks the President has some special brainwashing powers, and that people who write about this President should take steps to not talk with him, to not find out what his perspective on an issue is, to not develop an understanding. Because it's so much better for a reporter to simply hate the President and to criticize every single thing about him. That's what Aeroguy does, so reporters, writers, journalists, should all do it too.
You obviously didn't read the OP. Take a look at this:
Quote:
The goal in these get-togethers, participants said, is two-fold: First, the president wants to convince the columnists that he’s right — about the debt ceiling, about health care, about Syria — and that his opponents are wrong.
Quote:
The second goal is more tactical: By meeting privately with the people who shape national opinion, the president ensures that his points of view will be
represented in the media — even if those points of view aren’t directly attributable to him.
A clear and convincing point within the article is that Barack Obama seeks to win them over with his viewpoints. How do you think "winning them over" translates into the opinion pieces that are written?
PS. An "opinion" columnist is not a "reporter" or a "journalist" in the true sense of the word. Reporting is not opining, and opining is not reporting. It's merely an opinion riddled with facts or fiction, depending on who is writing. Journalism in the context of the First Amendment is to keep government accountable. An opinion column influenced by the President is diametrically opposed to that objective.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 11-12-2013 at 08:44 AM..
Reason: Added quotes
So the President invites people he respects to have conversations with him about issues and topics of the day.
And the President hopes that in these conversations that his perspective is clear and convincing. And one would think that the people he invites also hope that their perspectives are clear and convincing. Moreover, it's the job of these people to write about the President, and whenever someone writes about a subject, the better one knows the subject, the better the writing.
But Aeroguy evidently thinks the President has some special brainwashing powers, and that people who write about this President should take steps to not talk with him, to not find out what his perspective on an issue is, to not develop an understanding. Because it's so much better for a reporter to simply hate the President and to criticize every single thing about him. That's what Aeroguy does, so reporters, writers, journalists, should all do it too.
Well put. Tea Party type Conservatives don't understand intellectual curiosity, and they sure don't understand the concept of an honest debate of ideas. They only understand lockstep loyalty to their "side." Either you are with us--which means you must display blind hatred towards and a refusal to even consider, much less discuss, any opposing views at all times--or you are against us. God help us that we might try to talk through our differences, find common ground, and maybe persuade people to our side through an exchange of ideas. The very idea is considered apostasy.
Much better to have candidates like Sarah Palin, who reads nothing and understands nothing, than a president who reads many, many different sources to expand his knowledge.
In response to the OPs thread topic, I would add 60 Minutes to his list of who can never be trusted again, after their hit piece on Benghazi and their lame and totally deficient "apology."
Which half of the OPINION should come from the President, and which half should come from those who write about him? That's the point.
Because no other politician has EVER attempted to influence the media's perception.
99% of what you know about politicians and their policies is formed through the media. All politicians, parties, and major political movements do this, regardless of their ideology. You don't think that conservative politicians don't do this with FOX, the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Redstate, etc...?
The fact that you get so WORKED UP because Obama does it just shows the typical knee-jerk reaction too many on the Far Right have against him.
Well put. Tea Party type Conservatives don't understand intellectual curiosity, and they sure don't understand the concept of an honest debate of ideas. They only understand lockstep loyalty to their "side." Either you are with us--which means you must display blind hatred towards and a refusal to even consider, much less discuss, any opposing views at all times--or you are against us. God help us that we might try to talk through our differences, find common ground, and maybe persuade people to our side through an exchange of ideas. The very idea is considered apostasy.
Much better to have candidates like Sarah Palin, who reads nothing and understands nothing, than a president who reads many, many different sources to expand his knowledge.
In response to the OPs thread topic, I would add 60 Minutes to his list of who can never be trusted again, after their hit piece on Benghazi and their lame and totally deficient "apology."
No, her point was horrible. She obviously didn't read the article. And you didn't either. Otherwise you would have noticed that the point of the President's meetings with these journalists is to influence their writings to be that of his point of view.
I would recommend that you edit this post to reflect a bit of intellectual honesty on your part. Or, we can just write you off as an intellectually dishonest partisan hack with no interest in the truth.
You obviously didn't read the OP. A clear and convincing point within the article is that Barack Obama seeks to win them over with his viewpoints. How do you think "winning them over" translates into the opinion pieces that are written?
PS. An "opinion" columnist is not a "reporter" or a "journalist" in the true sense of the word. Reporting is not opining. Journalism in the context of the First Amendment is to keep government accountable. An opinion column influenced by the President is diametrically opposed to that objective.
LOL
I did read the OP.
And I still think your complaint is the stupidest ever. Of course President Obama seeks to win them over. They write about him, his administration and his policies. Do you think that when Reagan invited journalists to the White House that he hoped to NOT win them over? Because politicians sit down with journalists NOT to explain their perspectives, to explain why they voted the way they did, or why they said what they said?
Obviously that's a stupid statement. Any politician that sits down with a journalist, be it for an formal interview or for a casual conversation, ANY POLITICIAN wants to make the argument for the policies he supports, and the point of sitting down with a journalist is so that the journalist will print that argument.
And your PS is simply unfounded. Journalists most certainly do write editorials. You might actually look at the root of the word "journalism".
And your characterization of the outcomes of these conversations is beyond silly. These reporters aren't brainwashed during these conversations. If they write a column explaining the President's position, that's what they are doing, explaining the President's position. I know, you'd prefer if they never bothered to find out the President's position, that they'd just stick to flailing away at him like he's a political pinata. But you might stop to think, that bears no relationship to objectivity. Objectivity is seeing the President, his administration and his policies from all sides. Not just Aeroguy's "I HATE OBAMA" side.
Liberals are Liberal first and would support Stalin if he were alive today. They still think Communism would work if it just had a few more years.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama's New Best Friends: The List Of Opinion Columnists To Never Again Be Trusted For Their Objectivity
