Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: FJB who wrote (318385)	8/5/2009 3:59:57 AM
From: KLP	4 Recommendations Respond to of 793991

Rahm's Media Muscle By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT ibdeditorials.com Media Bias: Is it just us or is there something wrong with the White House dictating news coverage to advance the president's medical insurance agenda? We thought this sort of thing happened only in Venezuela. ________________________________________ Read More: Media & Culture ________________________________________ In an unprecedented intervention by government in private media, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called all three TV networks and muscled them into giving President Obama prime time coverage for his medical expansion program. For some, Emanuel didn't bother with mere newsmen. He went straight to the top, calling corporate owners such as Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger, whose company controls ABC, and General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt, NBC's boss. "Whether this amounted to undue pressure or plain old Chicago arm-twisting, Emanuel got results: the fourth hour of lucrative network time for his boss in six months," wrote Howard Kurtz, who broke the story in Monday's Washington Post. How's that again? Is this a free press in a democracy? Since when does prefabricated news from the presidential staff serve the interests of free citizens? The problems here are obvious — or should be. First, heavy TV coverage gave an artificial boost to the White House's medical plan. It raised its profile higher than networks may have given on their own. In a world where there's no such thing as bad publicity, and where whoever spends the most cash wins the election, it doesn't take a genius to know that big, uncritical coverage of medical insurance equals outright support. Two, it highlights media bias. In recent years, networks ignored President Bush's wartime speeches, saying he wasn't news. Now we see the media's double standard. It casts further doubt, if that was even possible, on their pretenses of fairness. Third, Kurtz reported that news agencies lost $30 million on the prime-time coverage. That means their coverage was essentially a gift, or campaign contribution, for ObamaCare. It ought to be disclosed as such. Fourth, in an era when car and bank executives are threatened for not going along with government, what did Emanuel intimidate the networks with if they didn't comply? How vulnerable are they to this in future stories? Who controls our media? Fifth, the public's in the dark. Kurtz's scoop came after the news ran, meaning citizens watching the coverage knew nothing about the political muscle that went into its production. The public has a right to truth in labeling on propaganda as much as on food. In other countries, such as Venezuela, the media fight back with all they can to resist government interference. Here, one call and they roll over. It's a sorry state of affairs, raising troubling questions about whether the big media can really be trusted.