Who didn't see this coming?

[Gaspar]

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC's astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party's views to those of the President's to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party's opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff

MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

Drudge Report

[Conan71]

Is this for real or something from the Onion?

[Gaspar]

My thoughts exactly, but it's the real deal.  Actually I think ABC is upset because MSNBC already moved their headquarters to the White house.  Should be interesting.  I'm going to watch. 

New drinking game:

You have to take a drink every time President Obama uses the word "dime". 

As in: "won't cost you a dime."

[Hoss]

Why is this such a big deal?  NBC already anchored one of their newscasts from the Great Room during the two night 'Inside the White House' special.

Also, I think the source of the letter tells all (COS of the RNC).  Reading other articles, this discussion will be moderated and include voices from both sides.

Never ceases to amaze me the amount of vitriol the right continues to spew and spin.

[Gaspar]

Vitriol the right continues to spew and spin.

What vitriol?  Did I say something angry or mean?
Did I imply anything mean about the President or his family?
Have I insulted him?
Have I ever even used his name without referring to him as "President" Obama, or the President?

True I don't agree with a whole lot of what he is attempting, but I am respectful, curious, and for the most part entertained.  Most of what I am seeing from the "Right" is a lot of "I told ya so."

Sure there are A-holes on both sides, but I'm not seeing much vitriol, unless you mean to imply that any disagreement with the decisions of President Obama constitutes vitriol?

At least there are no surprises like there were under Bush and Clinton.  We can simply draw a line of progression along a predetermined path and we are hitting all of the necessary stops along the way. 

I'm impressed by the speed.  Change is faster than I imagined.  President Obama is nothing but efficient.

[Hoss]

What vitriol?  Did I say something angry or mean?
Did I imply anything mean about the President or his family?
Have I insulted him?
Have I ever even used his name without referring to him as "President" Obama, or the President?

True I don't agree with a whole lot of what he is attempting, but I am respectful, curious, and for the most part entertained.  Most of what I am seeing from the "Right" is a lot of "I told ya so."

Sure there are A-holes on both sides, but I'm not seeing much vitriol, unless you mean to imply that any disagreement with the decisions of President Obama constitutes vitriol?


At least there are no surprises like there were under Bush and Clinton.  We can simply draw a line of progression along a predetermined path and we are hitting all of the necessary stops along the way. 

I'm impressed by the speed.  Change is faster than I imagined.  President Obama is nothing but efficient.

Did I ever say YOU were the one spewing the vitriol, Scott?  My intention was to point out that the letter itself was the vitriol.

And come on, with representatives (alleged) of the right of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, how do you NOT see vitriol coming?

[Gaspar]

Ok, we have differing definitions of vitriol. 

I tend to associate vitriol with "bitterness" and "hatred."

I see neither in the letter above, on the contrary,  It is polite. 

I also see no mention of Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck in this thread. 

I may have missed something, so I will read it again.

[Hoss]

Ok, we have differing definitions of vitriol. 

I tend to associate vitriol with "bitterness" and "hatred."

I see neither in the letter above, on the contrary,  It is polite. 

I also see no mention of Limbaugh, Hannity or Beck in this thread. 

I may have missed something, so I will read it again.

Does your source, Drudge, qualify?  IMO it does.  But that's just me.

[Gaspar]

Sure, Drudge is an aggregate source of news, with citing from Fox as well as KOS, Salon, and Huffington.  He does typically present a conservative selection of article postings, but I tend to want to read conservative material.  I am also a big fan of Reason.com (one of my favs).  I'm sure you may find some "vitriol" there as well.

But again, do we label it as "vitriol?"

If so than your definition of "vitriol" and mine are simply different, and we can leave it at that.

I apologize.  I just found label challenging, and it was my nature to disagree with it's use.

[Hoss]

Sure, Drudge is an aggregate source of news, with citing from Fox as well as KOS, Salon, and Huffington.  He does typically present a conservative selection of article postings, but I tend to want to read conservative material.  I am also a big fan of Reason.com (one of my favs).  I'm sure you may find some "vitriol" there as well.

But again, do we label it as "vitriol?"

If so than your definition of "vitriol" and mine are simply different, and we can leave it at that.

I apologize.  I just found label challenging, and it was my nature to disagree with it's use.

No problem Scott; tough day for me today as I've been feeling poorly and I've been taking it out on everyone else or so I've been told.  My apologies as well.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Oh geeze, what is this, Republicans screaming for equal time?!??!?!?!

President gets time to push agenda on TV all the time, though normally it is just through interviews or speeches.  To have someone other than the President speak about it seems more like Bush style propaganda.  However maybe this time they will say that it is paid for by the U.S. Gov instead of trying to sneak it in.

[Conan71]

Aside from the definition of "vitriol" and whether the source is considered typically conservative, if this is correct, it's a disturbing way to disseminate a plan for our country.  Traditionally, there has been a commentary from a leader in each party after a SOTU address, and frequently after any lengthy Presidential speech.

That ABC would be willing to cover this exclusively, then refuse to allow any dissenting comments from opponents to this plan is akin to being (I hate to bite on cliche's but if the shoe fits) "State-run TV".

This is not an issue that we can afford to dive off into blindly in a partisan manner, and the media owes America a full 360 degree view of the healthcare reform that is needed in this country.  Not just from the President's viewpoint, not just from majority or minority leader viewpoints, not just from the AMA or big pharma, not the other big lobbies who would benefit from any overhaul.  The President has to be willing to accept dissention and consider conflicting viewpoints and suggestions of all involved, not just the perp walk of the poor un-washed masses who are struggling to pay medical bills.

I'm not closed-minded to healthcare reform, I simply don't think we can tackle something as monumental as this with an arbitrary dealine looming in a few months.  It's not that simple.  This isn't like cramming close to $1 trillion in spending through Congress, there are millions and millions of lives which will be impacted by changes to healthcare.  If the President's plan is the best, that's great, I'll get on board behind it.  But we are owed the opportunity to hear from all parties.

Maybe Drudge has blown this out of proportion or I'm mis-understanding the implications here, but I don't like what I'm reading.

[Gaspar]

Oh geeze, what is this, Republicans screaming for equal time?!??!?!?!

President gets time to push agenda on TV all the time, though normally it is just through interviews or speeches.  To have someone other than the President speak about it seems more like Bush style propaganda.  However maybe this time they will say that it is paid for by the U.S. Gov instead of trying to sneak it in.

I agree.  My astonishment is not based on equal time.  If the Repubs want equal time let them buy it.

My astonishment is that the media and the President are becoming a single cohesive force.  Working together.  As nice as that sounds, it's dangerous.  The media's job is to be as objective as possible and to provide information, not as a mouthpiece, but as an inquisitive skeptic.

We learn nothing unless the media asks the questions we want answered.  

When the media's goals and the governments goals are combined the element of trust no longer exists.  

We are seeing what is happening with MSNBC, CBS, and nearly every other news outlet as a result of this.  Their public no longer considers them objective, subscriptions and viewer-ship decline, and they die.

So this is not good for us as a country, and it is not good for the news industry as a market sector.  

[Cats Cats Cats]

I agree.  My astonishment is not based on equal time.  If the Repubs want equal time let them buy it.

My astonishment is that the media and the President are becoming a single cohesive force.  Working together.  As nice as that sounds, it's dangerous.  The media's job is to be as objective as possible and to provide information, not as a mouthpiece, but as an inquisitive skeptic.

We learn nothing unless the media asks the questions we want answered.  

When the media's goals and the governments goals are combined the element of trust no longer exists.  

We are seeing what is happening with MSNBC, CBS, and nearly every other news outlet as a result of this.  Their public no longer considers them objective, subscriptions and viewer-ship decline, and they die.

So this is not good for us as a country, and it is not good for the news industry as a market sector.  

Worked for Fox News and Bush didn't it.

[Gaspar]

Worked for Fox News and Bush didn't it.

When?