Obama vs. The Beast

[Kelly]

The Beast in the realm of politics is the media. We now have a President that keeps in touch with the country through the White House website (already used more than any president before, youtube and his blackberry. What will this relationship be like over the next 4 years? Will the media feel left out, or will they stay on the Obama bandwagon with quotes like....

"I cried tears of joy as I watched him take the oath of office...."
George Stephanopoulos

Will they continue this love affair, or will the love fade as The Beast feels their lack of communication hurts their relationship?

Already they are upset that only the White House photographer was invited to the 2nd repeating of the oath of office....what will follow...



What do you think?

 

[redfirebird2008]

They've already been grilling him more over transparency than they ever bothered with the Bush administration, so I assume this will continue.

 

[C. Lee]

The media's favorite game is....build them up, then tear them down.

 

[Kelly]

I agree that the "transparency" thing has been pushed hard, but I'm not surprised since he has put it in pretty much every speech....


As far as more than the Bush Administration....I disagree, NBC alone will hold that award for the next 1,000 years....and I will have to wait, to see if The Beast spits fire at Obama anywhere near as much as this one network.

 

[SuperFerret]

Of course the media is going to tear down Obama. Like I've said before, the election is over, now it's time to hate the president again.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I agree that the "transparency" thing has been pushed hard, but I'm not surprised since he has put it in pretty much every speech....


As far as more than the Bush Administration....I disagree, NBC alone will hold that award for the next 1,000 years....and I will have to wait, to see if The Beast spits fire at Obama anywhere near as much as this one network.

The media didn't give two craps whether there were lobbyists working in the Bush White House.

 

[Kelly]

The media didn't give two craps whether there were lobbyists working in the Bush White House.

ok...

 

[hippie_hunter]

They've already been grilling him more over transparency than they ever bothered with the Bush administration, so I assume this will continue.

The media complaining about the small number of reporters in his redo of the oath of office is total ********. It really isn't a big deal at all and it's not like he kept it a secret.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The media complaining about the small number of reporters in his redo of the oath of office is total ********. It really isn't a big deal at all and it's not like he kept it a secret.

They're just being whiny little turds. There's an audio recording of it and a picture of the event. That is good enough for me and the other 99.9% of the population who aren't part of the media.

I wish the media wouldn't focus on such ticky tack crap. While they're busy focusing on his transparency, he's getting ready to cram a $800+ billion spending bill down the public's throat. The media should do their jobs by reading the Congressional Budget Office's report on the stimulus bill and and then nailing Obama during whatever press events they have at the White House. Most people are not happy with this kind of spending, yet the media is busy focusing on whether Obama lets them film the retaking of his oath? Effing ridiculous.

 

[hippie_hunter]

They're just being whiny little turds. There's an audio recording of it and a picture of the event. That is good enough for me and the other 99.9% of the population who aren't part of the media.

I wish the media wouldn't focus on such ticky tack crap. While they're busy focusing on his transparency, he's getting ready to cram a $800+ billion spending bill down the public's throat. The media should do their jobs by reading the Congressional Budget Office's report on the stimulus bill and and then nailing Obama during whatever press events they have at the White House. Most people are not happy with this kind of spending, yet the media is busy focusing on whether Obama lets them film the retaking of his oath? Effing ridiculous.

Bingo

 

[Kelly]

The media complaining about the small number of reporters in his redo of the oath of office is total ********. It really isn't a big deal at all and it's not like he kept it a secret.

They're just being whiny little turds. There's an audio recording of it and a picture of the event. That is good enough for me and the other 99.9% of the population who aren't part of the media.

I wish the media wouldn't focus on such ticky tack crap. While they're busy focusing on his transparency, he's getting ready to cram a $800+ billion spending bill down the public's throat. The media should do their jobs by reading the Congressional Budget Office's report on the stimulus bill and and then nailing Obama during whatever press events they have at the White House. Most people are not happy with this kind of spending, yet the media is busy focusing on whether Obama lets them film the retaking of his oath? Effing ridiculous.

I agree, I mean he's being totally transparent................I mean, we know that the girls picked out their coats for the Inauguration from watching TV, and he had dinner with them Wednesday night.....


What the hell more do they want from the man.....

 

[mclay18]

I wouldn't exactly dub the media as a 'beast,' but people have the right to know what's going on in the government so that the government watchdogs won't turn into lapdogs.

As my mass communications teacher stresses, there is always a need for news. And it's nice to see Obama letting the press in more often than Bush or Clinton did.

And while the cause/subjects of said hot news may not always appreciate (i.e. loathe) the constant media attention, people want to know more about it and that's why they'll ask the same questions.

 

[Kelly]

I wouldn't exactly dub the media as a 'beast,' but people have the right to know what's going on in the government so that the government watchdogs won't turn into lapdogs.

As my mass communications teacher stresses, there is always a need for news. And it's nice to see Obama letting the press in more often than Bush or Clinton did.

And while the cause/subjects of said hot news may not always appreciate (i.e. loathe) the constant media attention, people want to know more about it and that's why they'll ask the same questions.

That's not my "dub"....

And yes, I hope the media can get back to its job as watchdogs, and actually give me news other than how much clothes cost...and TMZ type of reporting.....

When exactly has Obama opened the door to the media since becoming President?

*his 2nd oath...
*his dinner with his family on Wednesday...

ooooooh right when he was signing his first executive orders, like all presidents do and the media is there....

and....oooooooooooooh right when he paid a visit to the media room....which is where the media hangs no matter who is President...

He hasn't been president long enough for you to come to the conclusion that he is allowing them in more than Clinton and Bush...lmao, he hasn't been President even a week.


I'm all for praising him to the hills when he does something praiseworthy, but let's not make things up............................................yet.

 

[Addendum]

There are legitimate reasons for secrecy in a presidential administration. But as John Dean said, "all instances of government secrecy must be questioned and if it cannot be justified then it is antithetical to our self-governing society"

Not having the press pool in the map room of the White House for a re-do of the oath of office isn't the same thing as Bush sealing the records from when he was governor of Texas or the records of his father's and Reagan's administration

 

[Kelly]

I think the only one's bitiching about the no media during the 2nd oath.....is the media. No one here is...

 

[mclay18]

I think the only one's bitiching about the no media during the 2nd oath.....is the media. No one here is...

Well, you have to see the secrecy about it -- Obama messed up his first oath in front of a worldwide audience and it was fodder for all the conservative pundits. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Of course the media is going to tear down Obama. Like I've said before, the election is over, now it's time to hate the president again.

Yuppers.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Well, you have to see the secrecy about it -- Obama messed up his first oath in front of a worldwide audience and it was fodder for all the conservative pundits. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.

John Roberts messed up Obama's oath.

 

[mclay18]

I give it until this Wednesday that the media will start tearing Obama a new one for... something.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I give it until this Wednesday that the media will start tearing Obama a new one for... something.

You apparently haven't watched any of the first two press briefings. They seemed to be tearing him a new one on everything from Gitmo to the ticky tack crap like them not being part of the second oath. Too bad they are losing focus on the big picture. They supposedly speak for us, yet they choose to attack him on something that most of the public supports (closing Gitmo) rather than attacking him on something the public is against (the cost of the economic stimulus legislation).

 

[Holiday]

You apparently haven't watched any of the first two press briefings. They seemed to be tearing him a new one on everything from Gitmo to the ticky tack crap like them not being part of the second oath. Too bad they are losing focus on the big picture. They supposedly speak for us, yet they choose to attack him on something that most of the public supports (closing Gitmo) rather than attacking him on something the public is against (the cost of the economic stimulus legislation).

Indeed. I watched the first press briefing the other day, and those reporters were definitely asking some tough questions. Especially CNN's Ed Rendell, he really went after Gibbs about where the Gitmo detainees would go, I thought.

I could easily see him being to the Obama administration what David Gregory was to the Bush Administration, at these press briefings.

 

[mclay18]

You apparently haven't watched any of the first two press briefings. They seemed to be tearing him a new one on everything from Gitmo to the ticky tack crap like them not being part of the second oath. Too bad they are losing focus on the big picture. They supposedly speak for us, yet they choose to attack him on something that most of the public supports (closing Gitmo) rather than attacking him on something the public is against (the cost of the economic stimulus legislation).

I didn't, but all the news I read seemed to indicate his executive order to close Gitmo was met with a round of applause.

I only rely on BBC and the AP for my news. Even reputed news channels like CNN have their small biases.

 

[Paradoxium]

What good is transparency if the MSM has selective hearing?

More to the point, why was there a love fest to begin with?

Take for an example: save for a few outlets and mostly less mainstream press, there wasn't much "outrage" with Geithner's "record", who is appointed to one of the most important jobs possible... Nevermind his culpability and role in the god damn financial crisis (a bit more complicated for people to decipher), something as simple as avoiding taxes as well.

If Obama theoretically screws up two times more than Bush, he would be lucky to catch even a third to half the flack Bush gets on a regular basis. Bush is basically everyone's whipping boy.

 

[Kelly]

Well, you have to see the secrecy about it -- Obama messed up his first oath in front of a worldwide audience and it was fodder for all the conservative pundits. He wasn't going to make the same mistake twice.

What secrecy? And who cares.....


At 12:00 p.m. January 20th, Obama was president, with or without the oath.

White House photographer was there.....why wait for all of the news organizations to get set up for something that took all of 10 seconds? That is a waste of time and money.

All news organizations were quesitoning the constitutionality of what happened the first time. Its obvious, few actually read the constitution.

No secrecy, just "no time" to waste.....

 

[Sebastos]

It's just the beginning as far as i'm concerned.