State run media malfunction

[Go Devil]

I enjoyed seeing these two front pages side by side at the news stand yesterday.
Appearances of USA Today would lead me to believe that they are operated by something other than journalists.

I think they missed some people in their polls.

24435
24436
24437

[rdret1]

With all of the public backlash; from every state Sheriff in Florida, to companies refusing to do business with NY; it is hard to believe even Liberal media can continue to push the lie that so many are backing Obama. It seems to me that the more obvious opinion is just the opposite.

[Streck-Fu]

Regarding the Indianapolis Star, it reminded me of a local (Indianapolis) tv station that ran a story about record numbers of handgun permits being denied.
They failed to acknowledge that the number applications tripled and the number of denials was less than the scale of increase in applications.

But it was fun for them to talk about a record number of denials....:rolleyes:

[Dusty]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/obama-the-puppet-master-87764.html

President Barack Obama is a master at limiting, shaping and manipulating media coverage of himself and his White House.

Not for the reason that conservatives suspect: namely, that a liberal press willingly and eagerly allows itself to get manipulated. Instead, the mastery mostly flows from a White House that has taken old tricks for shaping coverage (staged leaks, friendly interviews) and put them on steroids using new ones (social media, content creation, precision targeting). And it’s an equal opportunity strategy: Media across the ideological spectrum are left scrambling for access.
Continue Reading

The results are transformational. With more technology, and fewer resources at many media companies, the balance of power between the White House and press has tipped unmistakably toward the government. This is an arguably dangerous development, and one that the Obama White House — fluent in digital media and no fan of the mainstream press — has exploited cleverly and ruthlessly. And future presidents from both parties will undoubtedly copy and expand on this approach.

“The balance of power used to be much more in favor of the mainstream press,” said Mike McCurry, who was press secretary to President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Nowadays, he said, “The White House gets away with stuff I would never have dreamed of doing. When I talk to White House reporters now, they say it’s really tough to do business with people who don’t see the need to be cooperative.”

McCurry and his colleagues in the Clinton White House were hardly above putting their boss in front of gentle questions: Clinton and Vice President Al Gore often preferred the safety of “Larry King Live” to the rhetorical combat of the briefing room. But Obama and his aides have raised it to an art form: The president has shut down interviews with many of the White House reporters who know the most and ask the toughest questions. Instead, he spends way more time talking directly to voters via friendly shows and media personalities. Why bother with The New York Times beat reporter when Obama can go on “The View”?

At the same time, this White House has greatly curtailed impromptu moments where reporters can ask tough questions after a staged event — or snap a picture of the president that was not shot by government-paid photographers.

The frustrated Obama press corps neared rebellion this past holiday weekend when reporters and photographers were not even allowed onto the Floridian National GolfClub, where Obama was golfing. That breached the tradition of the pool “holding” in the clubhouse and often covering — and even questioning — the president on the first and last holes.

Obama boasted Thursday during a Google+ Hangout from the White House: “This is the most transparent administration in history.” The people who cover him day to day see it very differently.

“The way the president’s availability to the press has shrunk in the last two years is a disgrace,” said ABC News White House reporter Ann Compton, who has covered every president back to Gerald R. Ford. “The president’s day-to-day policy development — on immigration, on guns — is almost totally opaque to the reporters trying to do a responsible job of covering it. There are no readouts from big meetings he has with people from the outside, and many of them aren’t even on his schedule. This is different from every president I covered. This White House goes to extreme lengths to keep the press away.”

Snip

[MR2]

The only thing transparent from this administration are the lies.

[Richard]

State run media malfunction

Norm'd national poll vs a specific localized behavior - I don't see a supportive correlation to the thread title's claim? :confused:

Richard :munchin

[Go Devil]

Norm'd national poll vs a specific localized behavior - I don't see a supportive correlation to the thread title's claim? :confused:

Richard :munchin

I believe that the current campaign to disarm the American public is having issues maintaining their front.
It is clearly appearant that the polls that are being glamorized on the front pages of national papers and other media outlets are bunk or are sampled from an uneducated source.
I live and work in Indianapolis, IN with an estimated population of + or - 6 million.
We have an extensive network of large/ small gun shops, shooting clubs, and firearm organizations.
I work within a very large agribusiness organization and interact with hundreds of people who come from a myriad of backgrounds, educations, countries, and political ideologies. Within this organization are individuals purchasing firearms who a few short months ago would have spent said funds on vacations.
People gather at gun stores looking for tools and sundries that are no longer there.
In this area of operation, those poll administrators are yet to be seen.

What would your title for this thread be?

[BKKMAN]

Your post...

This reminds me of the Michael Ramirez cartoon...

Ramirez Editorial (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/082712-623715-one-sided-media-coverage-shows-bias.htm?p=full)

[Richard]

I believe that the current campaign to disarm the American public is having issues maintaining their front.
It is clearly appearant that the polls that are being glamorized on the front pages of national papers and other media outlets are bunk or are sampled from an uneducated source.
I live and work in Indianapolis, IN with an estimated population of + or - 6 million.
We have an extensive network of large/ small gun shops, shooting clubs, and firearm organizations.
I work within a very large agribusiness organization and interact with hundreds of people who come from a myriad of backgrounds, educations, countries, and political ideologies. Within this organization are individuals purchasing firearms who a few short months ago would have spent said funds on vacations.
People gather at gun stores looking for tools and sundries that are no longer there.
In this area of operation, those poll administrators are yet to be seen.

What would your title for this thread be?

IMO - your POV offers a micro opinion of the issues and the USAToday poll offers a macro sampling.

I live in NorCal and there are plenty of gun shops and gun owners around here in spite of the many views often expressed about the state from those who don't live out here. But again, my view is a micro POV and the macro view expressed by the majority of residents may be much different - the Bay Area, for example, vs residents over here 90 miles away in the predominantly ag valley area where I choose to live.

As for a title - "The 2A Debate - A Macro vs Micro View?" perhaps would be seen as a more 'neutral' heads up to an interested reader.

Richard

[Badger52]

This reminds me of the Michael Ramirez cartoon...

Ramirez Editorial (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/082712-623715-one-sided-media-coverage-shows-bias.htm?p=full)I thought that was about Chris Matthews...

oh, wait.

[sinjefe]

I live in NorCal and there are plenty of gun shops and gun owners around here in spite of the many views often expressed about the state from those who don't live out here. Richard

I'll still never get why you moved from God's country to the Communist State of California.;)

[Mr Furious]

I enjoyed seeing these two front pages side by side at the news stand yesterday...

So does Gannett since they own both of them. Well, for that matter, just about every other media outlet, Army Times, local broadcast news, etc. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gannett_Company_assets

[Badger52]

So does Gannett since they own both of them. Well, for that matter, just about every other media outlet, Army Times, local broadcast news, etc. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gannett_Company_assetsOh, right... these guys. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57560892/outrage-after-ny-paper-publishes-names-of-gun-permit-holders/)

[Go Devil]

So does Gannett since they own both of them. Well, for that matter, just about every other media outlet, Army Times, local broadcast news, etc. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gannett_Company_assets

So, yes, a malfunction. They forgot to scrub that pesky report about those 4,000 permit applications per week since December.
And those 4,000 per week are the "late to the game" folks.
May God continue to bless this flyover territory.

[The Reaper]

IMO - your POV offers a micro opinion of the issues and the USAToday poll offers a macro sampling.

I live in NorCal and there are plenty of gun shops and gun owners around here in spite of the many views often expressed about the state from those who don't live out here. But again, my view is a micro POV and the macro view expressed by the majority of residents may be much different - the Bay Area, for example, vs residents over here 90 miles away in the predominantly ag valley area where I choose to live.

As for a title - "The 2A Debate - A Macro vs Micro View?" perhaps would be seen as a more 'neutral' heads up to an interested reader.

Richard

Richard:

First, it is none of my business what you have or want in the way of firearms, and vice versa.

The hoops many manufacturers have to jump through to sell guns in Kali for cosmetic reasons are ridiculous and do little, if anything to deter criminal misuse of firearms. Regardless, the pols in charge want the entire nation to adopt the same useless restrictions. IMHO, this is a clear violation of our 2nd Amendment Rights.

For the purpose of the discussion, if you have not visited a gun store or tried to buy ammo, mags, or guns lately, you would not believe how little stuff is in stock these days. This is happening all across the country. Nationwide wholesalers have almost no stock.

Try to buy just some .22LR. The supply for sale is nearly nonexistent and consequently, the price for even .22LR is unbelieveably high. This isn't the result of a few speculators or fringe elements.

People are scared of the government and they are buying weapons and ammo at an incredible rate.

The current POTUS, in his attempt to score political points, has done more to cause the American public to arm itself than anyone since Abraham Lincoln.

The media is feeding that frenzy, and has clearly chosen sides.

It was not this bad, even when the 1994 AWB was pending.

TR