Posted on 07/26/2012 4:41:51 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
The lack of reaction to a New York Times report filed by Jeremy Peters on July 15 and found on the front page of the its July 16 print edition has, at least to me, been nothing short of stunning.
....
What Peters told readers, in essence, is that White House officials, the Obama administration in general, the Obama for America campaign, the campaign of presidential challenger Mitt Romney (though the evidence Peters provided is thin and seems to relate largely to the candidates family), and powerful Washington politicians on Capitol Hill are dictating what the press will print concerning their nonpublic statements and remarks and that the press is, for the most part, acquiescing with little if any objection.
...
Consider the following excerpts from Peters production:
[T]he (Obama campaigns) press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.
Quote approval is standard practice for the Obama campaign, used by many top strategists and almost all midlevel aides in Chicago and at the White House.
From Capitol Hill to the Treasury Department, interviews granted only with quote approval have become the default position.
It was difficult to find a news outlet that had not agreed to quote approval, albeit reluctantly. Ratner believes that the Associated Press and McClatchy are exceptions; Im less than convinced.
Many journalists spoke about the editing only if granted anonymity, an irony that did not escape them.
The irony may not have escaped them, but integrity apparently has.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
We always give them (media) the leeways, well, because it is the NY Times, or WaPo, or you name it.
Until we the society in general demand more independence, integrity and responsibility from those who call themselves journalists/editorial boards, it is so easy for them to become the mouthpiece of a certain political party, and the outright propaganda machine for one-sided views.
When I said ‘one-sided views’, I meant Statists for both Dem and Repub party.
I kind of understand quote approval agreement for an interview that is granted. It is because the media is now so dishonest they will deliberately twist words and massage the quotes to change the intent of what the interviewed person is saying. Everyone knows it and nobody wants to deal with it. The media allows it because they know it too.
So the fifth-column mainstream media are essentially Obamabuttboys and liberal skanks. Surprise, surprise.
presstitutes
Actually, I read the report and didn’t react either. Was this news to anyone? Whether we thought it was a formal quote approval agreement or something more vague but just as effective, we all know that the NYT and the rest of the mainstream media no longer provide anything that qualifies as objective news except by accident. Having reconsidered this story, I still don’t care. NYT, WaPo, and the rest are unreliable tools of the government and of crony-capitalist corporations, and the details don’t interest me.
Like my Dad always said, “You can believe only half of what you read in the newspapers, and only half of that is true.”
If enough conservatives truly cared, which they don’t, they could run the NYT out of business and buy it at yard sale price.
If you want access, you will play ball the way the king wants.
That and many are happy to follow orders. They are true believers, and will do whatever it takes to win.
And as my mom used to say ‘believe half of what you see and nothing of what you read’.
The lack of reaction to a New York Times report filed by Jeremy Peters on July 15 and found on the front page of the its July 16 print edition has, at least to me, been nothing short of stunning.....
What Peters told readers, in essence, is that White House officials, the Obama administration in general, the Obama for America campaign, the campaign of presidential challenger Mitt Romney (though the evidence Peters provided is thin and seems to relate largely to the candidates family), and powerful Washington politicians on Capitol Hill are dictating what the press will print concerning their nonpublic statements and remarks and that the press is, for the most part, acquiescing with little if any objection.
The same as when Mark Halperin at ABC News (now at Time-Lies) said that both sides would not be held to the same standards.
http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/09/20041009_195805_mh.htmABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE'
And these are the same presstitute Stalinists who will be moderating the debates.
Farther back. When they branded the work of the HCUA "HUAC" and called it "McCarthyism" (when the investigations of Soviet influence began decades prior) and denied the existence of domestic agents allied with Stalin and denied the existence of gulags and denied the existence of Communist sympathizers within the FDR administration and the State Department...
They did not just tell lies of omission. They told outright lies.
Seems the press has has a death wish - they've decided in favor of suicide for their profession.
General Eisenhower then outlined the entire invasion. When he concluded, he said: "Gentlemen, you now know the entire plan. If any of this gets out, it will be a blood bath on the beaches in Sicily. And we will know where the leak came from--"
Then he left the room. From that time on, no more mention was made of the invasion plans.
Now, those were true American journalists! Not the gang... of leftists, communists, socialists and ignoramuses we have today at CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, WaPo, CNN, etc
Years ago during the Gulf War, there was a classic SNL skit:
[ open on press conference discussing the Gulf War ]
Defense Secretary Richard Cheney: And so, to sum up, while this war is by no means over, it is certainly fair to say that we have inflicted heavy damage on the Iraqi war machine, and every day brings victory for the coalition that much colser. Now I’m going to hand the floor over to the Lieutenant Colonel Pierson, who will field your questions.
Lt. Col. William Pierson: Thank you Senator Cheney. I’m happy to take any questions you might have with the understanding that there are certain sensitive areas that I’m just not going to get into. Particularly, information that might be useful to the enemy. Yes?
Reporter #1: What date are we going to start the ground attack?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: Well, as I mentioned a moment ago, there are certain sensitive areas which we are just not going to go into, and that is certainly one of them. Yes?
Reporter #2: Sir, knowing what you know, where would you say our forces are most vulnerable to attack, and how could the Iraqis best exploit those weaknesses?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: Well, again, this falls into the area of information that might be useful to the enemy, and I just can’t divulge it right now.
Reporter #3: Sir! Which method of hiding SCUD missiles is working best for the Iraqis?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: Now, this again is a good example of information that could help the enemy, and I just can’t answer that.
Reporter #4: I have a two-part question. Are we planning an amphibious invasion of Kuwait, and if so, where exactly will that be?
Defense Secretary Richard Cheney: Excuse me. If I could interrupt here, I just want to underscore what Colonely Pierson said at the start of Q&A. There are two general categories of questions that we are simply not going to be able to address. On, those that would give our enemy advance warning of our actions, and two, those that would identify any points of weakness or vulnerabilities to the Iraqi forces. So let’s reopen the floor to questions.
Reporter #5: I understand that there are passwords that our troops use on the front lines. Could you give us some examples of those?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: No, that is something I really cannot comment on.
Reporter #6: Yeah! Are we planning an amphibious invasion of Kuwait? And if so, where?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: I believe that question was asked and if you recall, I already answered it, or said I could not answer.
Reporter #7: Sir, what would be the one piece of information that would be most dangerous for the Iraqis to know?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: No can answer! I have time for two more questions. Yeah?
Reporter #8: Yes, Farud Hashami, Baghdad Times. Where are your troops, and can I go there and count them?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: Nope! Last question.
Reporter #9: Is there anything that you can tell us that would lower the morale of our fighting men?
Lt. Col. William Pierson: No. Really, the only thing we’re at liberty to say at this time is, “Live, from New York, it’s Saturday Night!
See my home page. The perfidy of the NYT has been recognized by honest people for awhile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.