Rational Capitalist on Facebook

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Obama's "State Run Media"

Previously, I have documented Obama's Soviet style Department of Agitprop (whitehouse.gov) which does an "end-run" around traditional press coverage. Today, ABC's Devin Dwyer further documents this frightening trend in an excellent article titled Obama's Media Machine: State Run Media 2.0?. He writes:
"The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent," said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has covered seven administrations. "Access here has shriveled."
Although every politician tries to filter coverage, Dwyer observes that the Obama administration has taken this to a disturbing level:
But some say the current dynamic is different, and dangerous.

"They're opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn't have any criticism allowed," said University of Minnesota journalism professor and political communication analyst Heather LaMarre.
Of course, this attempt to strictly filter media coverage is the M.O. of every socialist dictator and is part and parcel of the left's more general assault on freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which I have documented continuously. It is the quintessential example of the principle that faith and force are corollaries, i.e., that one who abandons reason and rational persuasion, must turn to force.   


Jim said...

While no fan of Obama, I agree with limiting the media in the White House and increasingly distributing information through a public portal. Personally, I favor kicking the permanent press encampment out completely.

Historically, bringing the media into the WH has been for the purpose of manipulating the media coverage.

The media should be spending less time at the WH and more time on Capitol Hill, where more oversight should be done by the committees.

Joyce said...

Doug, if you want to be taken seriously, then use your words in the proper context. For example, there is a certain context in which "Soviet-Style" and "agitprop" are used. I do not know what you mean. Why don't you just say what you want to say rather than using lame words that I'm not sure you or most of your readers understand. Are you saying that the White House is controlling what is being said? If so, say so. You don't have to bring in the soviet union to make your point.

Words like Soviet, Hitler, Communist, socialist and others are used because they have become anathema and only serve to raise the emotional level of discourse without improving the intellectual level.

The Rat Cap said...


I mean exactly what I say.

The Rat Cap said...


What exactly is a "public portal" for news and how can I guarantee it never exists?

Anonymous said...

Joyce , they refer to socialist and communist plus lame words cause that's what places like USSR and Saddam did as far as controlling the media dictating what is said . We can't challenge our own govt call them out if you will . When you dictate what is said filter the media your acting like socialist , communist.