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.
Knock it off with the partisan BS. This story transcends petty Internet political sniping.
Stories are published every single day in virtually every newspaper with twisted facts and outright falsehoods. I don't see the White House on the phone to correct every single one of them - do you?
IMO, the proper move would have been to prepare a press release, or give someone in the WH press corps an interview for it.
I'm all for the President setting the record straight if he believes that a news story is inaccurate. Having the story REMOVED from the wire is NOT the way to do it, and I don't give a rats ass WHO is in office at the time it's done.
Lol, link to anyplace claiming that Reuters was directed to remove the story. Seriously please do, I would LOVE to read it.
They called the Reuters White House news crew: exactly who they should have called. Write a press release, to whom? Everyone, and hope Reuters picks it up also? Come on swagger.
You all just want there to have been Chicago-style, Al Capone-style strong-arming, so bad! Unfortunately there's nothing to back it up, in real life.
You said you dont care if the story is accurate or not -- were you serious?
As anothe poster said in another thread the bullies are getting angry because Obama is not allowing him to steal his lunch money. The Whitehouse did not ask Reuters to pull the story, it pointed out the falicies and Reuters removed it. The article is incorrect and fueled by the same right-wing hatred that is harbored by the people in this forum that continue to spread lies. It's not true.
Since when is it the WH's job to correct all media fallacies and inaccuracies?
Ah, perhaps when the media reports a error ridden story about the administration perhaps?
Quote:
The White House should be completely removed from the media as we have a free press.
The utter stupidity of that comment defies further description.
Quote:
The press is allowed to print/post whatever stories it deems newsworthy as long as it is not slanderous.
Luckily, there still are news organizations that would prefer to get it right and have enough sense and ethics to pull a story when it is shown to be incorrect.
Quote:
The proper thing would have been for the WH to either 1) ignore the news piece, or 2) put out a press release with the correct/factual information.
The right and proper thing to do is for the communications department of any organization, be it private or public, to get the writers editor on the phone and explain why a story is in error. That is why they get paid all that money. If the media liaison can't convince the editor that the story is incorrect then they can can call a press conference, release a press release or even offer an op-ed to explain their case.
Quote:
This smacks of interference of freedom of the press.
Smacks of stupidity and not on the part of the administration.
Quote:
The news organization should have just updated/corrected their information instead of taking orders from the WH and pulling the article.
If a story is in such error that a simple correction will not suffice then the story should be pulled.
Quote:
This reminds me of the gag order the WH slapped on Humana when it sent a letter to its customers regarding possible changes in their coverage with the proposed health care legislation. What right did the WH have to interfere with a private company's business correspondence with its customers?
When Humana is a contractor paid by the government (clearly the writer has never worked as a sub-contractor).
I could care less about the taxes, it is the fact that Obama could force media to pull news off their websites. Duh!!!
Again where is any proof Obama forced the media to pull the news off the website. They didn't force anyone to do anything. They pointed out the part of the budget that showed the claims being made were incorrect. Once Reuters and the others knew the information they claimed was incorrect they pulled it down.
I could care less about the taxes, it is the fact that Obama could force media to pull news off their websites. Duh!!!
He didn't. That's why it's still on some websites but in case you didn't know this, slander is illegal. Freedom of press does not make it okay to lie and slander. I supposesd you would say and do nothing if a harmful lie was published and spread about you.
Ah, perhaps when the media reports a error ridden story about the administration perhaps?
It is NOT the WH's job to police the media. We do not live in Venezuela.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The utter stupidity of that comment defies further description.
Are you suggesting we adopt a state-run media?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Luckily, there still are news organizations that would prefer to get it right and have enough sense and ethics to pull a story when it is shown to be incorrect.
Yes, pull an incorrect story or correct it, whatever. But, not at the demand of the WH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Smacks of stupidity and not on the part of the administration.
Yes, yours. You are okay with the government dictating and micromanaging the Press??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
When Humana is a contractor paid by the government (clearly the writer has never worked as a sub-contractor).
The only reason they got away with this is because of the Medicare Advantage link. And even that is a poor excuse to interfere. It is a private corporation, not a public one. They have the right to inform their customers about their benefits and how cutting the Medicare Advantage program would affect them. By your standards, the government then has the right to dictate how any company corresponds with their customers if there is even the slightest hint of government subsidy.
It is NOT the WH's job to police the media. We do not live in Venezuela.
Are you suggesting we adopt a state-run media?
Yes, pull an incorrect story or correct it, whatever. But, not at the demand of the WH.
Yes, yours. You are okay with the government dictating and micromanaging the Press??
For God's sake, read the thread. They called the Reuters White House news team. Are you all being told on some blog that Obama's goons strong-armed the reporters and demanded they remove the story? Please provide a link!
And you may not recall but a few months ago Obama said they were going to call out lies. Well, they called out this one. Why are you defending things that arent true?
It damn sure is the job of ANY press office to ensure that they are reported on accurately by the news media and to take all legal actions that they do so.
Quote:
We do not live in Venezuela.
If you can't comprehend the difference between complaining about a story to the point that it is retracted and shutting down a media outlet, this conversation is rather pointless, at least as far as my participation.
Quote:
Are you suggesting we adopt a state-run media?
Are you suggesting that free speech ends at the White House door?
Quote:
Yes, pull an incorrect story or correct it, whatever. But, not at the demand of the WH.
Demand? What force would such a demand have? None, which is the problem with you rant.
Quote:
You are okay with the government dictating and micromanaging the Press??
Confused, that goes without saying.
Quote:
The only reason they got away with this is because of the Medicare Advantage link.
Ah, seeing how that was the sum total of the issue! Contractor forbidden to speak or write about services they are contracted to supply? Duh!
Quote:
It is a private corporation, not a public one.
Try a private corporation, contracted to a public entity. The government as a contractor of services has the same rights and privileges to enforce a contractual agreement as any private contractor.
Quote:
They have the right to inform their customers about their benefits and how cutting the Medicare Advantage program would affect them.
Ah, no they don't. Try being the contractor for let's say components supplied to Apple, you think they have a right to disclose to the public any issue that they deem important that is being considered by Apple? Think again.
Quote:
By your standards, the government then has the right to dictate how any company corresponds with their customers if there is even the slightest hint of government subsidy.
Subsidy? We aren't talking about subsidies. For all intents and purposes, the contracting health care insurers are employees of the Federal government, acting as intermediaries between the Federal government and the government's customers.
My point is the government has its tentacles in every aspect of the business world... do you really want the WH dictating what is acceptable communications between private companies and their customers? Never has any administration meddled with private business to the same degree that this one has. Would you be equally comfortable with this if there was a republican in the WH telling private companies how to communicate with their customers?
Yes, that was a rhetorical question, you need not answer.
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.
