Do You Want Your OTV? (Part III)

Why pay for OTV, when you can get MSNBC for free?

Seems to me my tax dollars are being used to fund Obama’s second term. Oh well. With only one serious journalist noting this, what’s a taxpayer to do?

Oh, and isn’t this the same day that Obama left kindergartners crying because they were late so he could walk into a room and say hey guys what’s up? Toss a football around? So he could post it on his very own OTV?

Wow. So they aren’t kidding when conservatives joke about the state run media. Except now it’s literal.

the kiddies were 5 minutes late according to them. the wh doesn’t agree. get informed, watch something besides the government run media outfits.

so, when is the Propaganda Czar taking office?

narcissism-inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
I would say that sums up Obama.

First it’s this. Later, it’ll be like that scene in Airplane, the movie, when the Russian newscaster is speaking with a gun to his head! Beware state-run media! It’s never a good thing.

i think we’re getting close to the airplane scenario. did you see brain Williams bowing to the Big Guy?

fox news is fair and balanced. they like to report and let us decide

“You are aware the act from which you quoted which was signed into law by Truman has to do with International Communication.? E.g. Information into the Soviet Union during the cold war, Voice of America, etc.”
That act does not only apply to VOA. The act banned government monopolized information to American citizens, as seen as propagandizing American citizens. Remember those old posters in WWII? Rosey the Riveter, Uncle Same “Wants You” poster etc etc? This act made those illegal, as well as government created news reels. Government information has to go through public dissimenation.
In the work I do in the military, we are reminded quite constantly about Smith-Mundt restrictions. There is an internal battle, and rightly so, that the act is out of date and needs a major revision with todays information age. That however, has not happened. And if the military is hamstrung by this act, then so is the President.

Why does he need O-tv when he already has MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC? Not to mention he never misses an opportunity to give a speech and the questions he gets at press conferences are akin to asking his favorite color.
Just another reason to spend more money that we don’t have and indoctrinate a few more followers along the way.

My bad. It was on the 2nd page of comments. I did say serious journalists. I don’t consider Rush and Hannity journalists. And neither do they consider themselves journalists.

===the great news and awesome thing about America is you can still tune into the 250+ other channels on your cable box===
Hugo told the naysayers the same thing. How’d that work out?
It is being funded with my tax dollars. I would never help fund Obama’s reelection given a choice. Apparently my tax dollars are being used to fund campaign advertisements via OTV.

Tapper is a reporter. If there is nothing wrong with OTV, then why on earth should it matter if Tapper reports about it?

sounds like Bart is a card carrying member of the but boys of Obama’s government controlled media.

Yes, Obama is really a dictator who wants to control the media.
============
Obviously he’s not.
However, I don’t think a lot of people realize how much he used his followers to attack media outlets and figures during the election. I don’t think a lot of people realize that his administration’s attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that movies and books about candidates could be suppressed during an election.
nytimes:
“Other justices pressed Mr. Stewart for a limiting principle to his argument.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. asked, for instance, whether a campaign biography in book form could be banned. Mr. Stewart said yes, so long as it was paid for with a corporation’s general treasury money, as opposed to its political action committee.”
He has criticized various media people and organizations by name (Limbaugh, Dobbs, Hannity, Fox, Cramer, Santelli, cable in general)when they’ve been critical of him or even if they (like Dobbs) are general opponents to his policies.
So….yeah. Let’s do keep an eye on President Obama’s relationship with the media. Including his self-produced media.

What is wrong if he decides to write his own chronicle instead of leaving it to the MSM to get it distorted before its gets to the public?

The danger of OTV is real.
“Those who control the present control the future. Those who control the future control the past.” George Orwell
The Obama administration is all about taking control. I have always believed I will take care of myself better than the beaurocratic government will. The Obama administration believes the government will do a better job than I will.
In a very short time our country has increased the government control of many industries. Health care is next.
Those who think this is a good thing have not thought deeply enough. Meritocrasy has brought us innovation and fluidity of class.
We will lose all this as the government takes more and more control. OTV is just an early indicator of where our government is heading.

And btw, I am not sure OTV violates the act. I’m sure the army of lawyers that inhabit our Congress could figure that out.
However I am very sure that the act goes way beyond VOA, to include BBG, funding, roles of congress, etc.

“We speak of an American government, but it is in reality an Israeli goverment,whether it is the Pentagon, or the State Department or the CIA, you find that it is the Jews who have the first word inside the American government.Consequently they use America to execute their plans throughout the world”
-Osama Bin Laden, August 2000
Now, what is the difference between the rhetoric of Rev Wright, Osama and the guy outside the Holocaust museum the other day?

===Imagine the criticism the former admin would have taken for circumventing the media and creating their own content.===
You don’t have to imagine. The Bush administration set up a tv station in Iraq and the media went ballistic. O sets one up in the US and Jake is the only one annoyed by it.

Let’s hope this doesn’t set a precedent for future admins.I’m all for the message of ‘serving’, but this is wrapped in a campaign commercial, and has Axelrod written all over it.
=================
Ha, J House.
I’d love to see someone do a parody of OTV. They can put the setting at the University of Chicago Hospital and play uplifting music as Valerie Jarret, Eric Whittaker, David Axelrod, Susan Sher, and Michelle Obama walk around telling poor sick people to get out of their emergency room.

“The Bush administration set up a tv station in Iraq and the media went ballistic. O sets one up in the US and Jake is the only one annoyed by it.”
The Bush admin used fake newscasts to support their plans sent to media outlets with no identification and paid Armstrong Williams to tout NCLB.
“Two other nationally known journalists, Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus, have also admitted accepting thousands of dollars to endorse government programs.”
Since 2001, the Army and Air Force Hometown News Service has fielded 40 reporters, producers and public affairs specialists to create ”good military news” to be beamed to home audiences via local news stations. The service’s ”good news” segments have reportedly reached 41 million Americans via local newscasts — in most cases, without the station acknowledging their source. ”
“The federal government’s practice of sending ”packaged news” to media outlets began under the Bill Clinton administration. Pres. Bush has not only continued the practice, he has doubled the amount of federal tax dollars that are used for this purpose, spending 254 million dollars in his first term.”
It was a policy that started under Clinton but that doesn’t make what you posted any less of a lie.

Actually is we want cautionary tales of a relationship between the media and administration, we don’t have to look further than the previous admin which paid writers such as Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher to write positively about programs the admin was pushing.
=======
Why should we not look further than the previous administration? We have a current administration we should continue to look at, don’t you think?

He has criticized various media people and organizations by name (Limbaugh, Dobbs, Hannity, Fox, Cramer, Santelli, cable in general)when they’ve been critical of him or even if they (like Dobbs) are general opponents to his policies.
Posted by: MayBee
no…. say it ain’t so.. a sitting President taking ‘pot shots’ at ‘the media’…. OMG … surely the end of the world is near….

Oh, come on people! Don’t be ridiculous. You had the propaganda machine called Fox News doing all the work for the past administration. Now, mind you you had Keith Olberman on MSNBC hitting hard for the left. But I don’t think you people can lecture anyone about government using media outlets.
Again, I don’t have a problem with anyone looking into this OTV to make sure that it’s not being used for propaganda. I just wish there were more questioning of Fox News slanting as well, or maybe the journalist does not think that is the case.
I’m developing a liking for the likes of Chuck Todd (although I think he makes for a better pundit than reporter), Jake Tapper, David Gregory, and Chip Reid and some others. I think some hard hitting journalism is both warranted and required. I just don’t think opening blogs that feed the hate mongers contribute much to the civil discourse.

“How would you even know about Armstrong Williams if journalists hadn’t been doing their job?”
Thanks for reminding me, Armstrong Williams the bought and paid for right wing propagandist was exposed by USA Today of all people.
Later it came out of other right wing shills like Maggie Gallagher and Mark McManus were being paid for their opinions.
“If you don’t then sing lalalalala while you skip merrily on your way.”
Much more fun to point out the hypocrisy and lies of the right wing.

But I find hypocritical outrage du jour by the right wing growing tiresome.
=======
I guess I don’t see any outrage here.

sort of like Matt Lauer’s ‘interview’ with Palin this AM…….. he should be working for the National Enquirer, or the Post

“You are seriously reaching or seriously comical with your interpretation of the Smith Mundt act. I can’t imagine all the propaganda being put forth showing the Commander and Chief shooting hoops. The state department could care less…”
It doesn’t say the military either, but the military is told it applies to them. You think it is ok for the government, run by a political party, should be able to manufacture news for the people? Isn’t that a little too close to a totalitarian regime? And it certainly is innocent with “shooting hoops” now, but over time, who’s to say what that content will be? Lull the people to sleep with insignificant clips for now, but step it up over time?
It just should not be done. If you don’t want the press there, you shouldn’t be making a “press like” representation of it.
Smith-Mundt is there for review. My job operates within the Smith-Mundt so I am more than familiar with who it applies to… the government.

When I look at it, it seems that when you have a free people with some conglomerated powers moving in with propaganda to increase their power, then that’s an attack and a threat. We look at this presidential media thing as a threat, which it probably is, but if we consider the ease with which transnationals, foreign governments and foreign interests are now able to permeate through our entire civilization in a flash, it is clear that we really need to re-visit the entire spectrum of propaganda, for security in the coming century.

“You think it is ok for the government, run by a political party, should be able to manufacture news for the people? Isn’t that a little too close to a totalitarian regime?”
So KR, did you immediately protest Bush’s use of video new releases sent to local media outlets that were aired without identifying where they came from?
“Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production”
I mean if this action by Obama is on the cusp of totalitarianism I imagine Bush’s actions caused you to resign your commission.
Wait? That didn’t happen?
Oh yeah I guess your outrage here is what is manufactured as it is most days.

Hi, Ryan_C! I notice you have been assigned as defender on this thread.
I am disturbed by this thread, as I infer that Mr. Tapper is. There is nothing wrong with the WH releasing video material to the media, providing access to stuff where the public media are not present. BUT the problem for me arises when the WH puts together the whole package– editing, providing music, putting graphics on the bottom, etc. Let the traditional media take the raw feed provided by the WH and do with it what they want in order to use it in their work, giving the white house credit for providing the material.
But as benign as these first outings have appeared, I feel this is a terrible precedent to set. I can see this ratcheting up. I can also see it being used as an excuse to limit the press’s legitimate access to WH events and activities (hey, guys, you don’t need to be there, coz we’ll provide you with what you need from the event). No WH, it seems, is ever happy with the “intrusion” of the media, but every WH needs to learn to live with it. In our free society, we depend on the press and need folks like Mr. Tapper on the spot.
Thanks, Mr. Tapper, for keeping us abreast of what’s going on, even when it seems like no big deal. To steal a phrase from a rival network, you report and we decide. We can decide if we are comfortable with this or not, because you are providing us with the information to make that decision. Thank you!

===But I don’t think you people can lecture anyone about government using media outlets. ===
Your tax dollars and my tax dollars are being used to fund OTV. I have a choice whether to watch MSNBC or FoxNews. I think making a connection between a cable show and OTV is trying to change what the issue is. I would not willingly give Obama money to run a campaign ad.

“So KR, did you immediately protest Bush’s use of video new releases sent to local media outlets that were aired without identifying where they came from?”
YES! Anything that was political in nature, yes. Public service messages, no.
And resign my commission? What the hell? Voice my opposition, yes, resign my commission? You really have no concept of why people join the military do you?

I mean, here’s a partial list of groups that promote stories either through staff connections or through advertising or other funding dollars:
state, local and government agencies
organized crime syndicates
AIPAC
local small business/micro firms
transnational corporations
politicians
Arabs
churches
foreign non-profits
British
Academics and research funding campaigns
China
Foreign corporations
and now, the White House

“You don’t see your own hypocrisy? You can certainly remember every perceived outrage about Bush there was to defend Obama with.”
My memory of things that happened oh so long ago (all of what 9 years?) vs your reading talking points has you frazzled?
I do enjoy pointing out to right wingers frothing at the mouth furious about the “unprecendented” actions of Obama that indeed Bush did it too.
I realize right wingers need political amnesia as a requisite for believing liars like Limbaugh and his ilk so I guess in way I feel guilty for shattering your worldview as false as it is.
Well maybe guilty is not the right word.

“the other thing is that at the minimum. the networks should identify who is behind the ‘guest’ , who they represent for real,
and a caveat as to any story presented explaining where it comes from, and who they are.”
Very much in agreement with this.

===My memory of things that happened oh so long ago (all of what 9 years?) vs your reading talking points has you frazzled? ===
Whose talking points am I reading from?
You are the one that voted for change, not me.
===about the “unprecendented” actions of Obama that indeed Bush did it too.===
You need a new talking point yourself. Remember? Hope AND Change!

“1776- Maybe you’re onto something there…maybe a ‘Nutrition Facts’ link requirement for every story from a media syndicate.”
Fantastic.

“That would require George to reveal he is on daily telephone calls with Rahm to strategize the talking points. It will never happen”
I think FoxNews would suffer the most since every news broadcast would have RNC Talking Points stamped across it.
The instance came on this afternoon’s edition of Fox News’ Happening Now, in a segment on the stimulus package that was preceded by the following introduction by host Jon Scott: “We thought we’d take a look back at the bill, how it was born, and how it grew, and grew, and grew.” Note, please, the introduction of this segment with the active verb “we thought,” as if what followed came out of some organic newsgathering process, founded by a genuine curiosity for how the stimulus package “grew and grew.” As opposed to: “A press release from the Senate Republican Communications Center today highlights the escalating top line cost of the stimulus package,” which would have been a less disingenuous way to introduce the segment.
But the real nimrod part of it all is that the Senate Republican Communications Center included a typographic error, which Fox didn’t even change!

White House video productions. Kinda’ like something Hugo Chavez would do, huh? No wonder Chavez called POTUS “comrade”.
—————-
George, if you like history, you might want to compare Stalinist era paintings of Stalin to my favorit Norman Rockwells of the same period.

‘Nutrition Facts’ link requirement for every story from a media syndicate.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth
would give added meaning to; ‘fruity loops’
or not fit for human consumption ;-P

kjhk- I can’t seem to find the Stalin paintings mentioned anywhere on the web all of a sudden. Do you happen to know who painted “Flowers for Stalin” and the other similar paintings which were well published everywhere at one time, but now are nowhere to be found and compared to Norman Rockwell paintings of the same time period?

Ryan C, you crack me up. I see you are up to your usual tactics– the Obama administration does something indefensible, so in order to defend them, you keep trying to move the subject to a semirelated topic. OTV is a bad idea, so you are trying to insist that the “real” issue of importance is not the WH behavior but Fox News. Fox News is not the issue here. OTV is. And the WH should cut it out.

If his tv network costs less than one billion dollars.. it’s not even on my radar screen.. these days – even 250 million wouldn’t bother us much…

===And the WH should cut it out.===
Why should they? With only 1 journalist questioning it, and being tagged a right winger for doing so, it’s a win/win for them.

why hasn’t Obama filmed a cigarette commerical? Considering his addiction and the hardtimes coming for US tobacco companies (and many poor tobacco farmers some of whom are black)?

Ryan, I’ll try again to help you understand my point. Yes, I consider the WH creating and disseminating (outside the WH website, that is) news product, complete pieces rather than raw footage, indefensible. It does not matter for the purpose of this debate who has done what in the past, here or in other countries, under which party’s administrations. I clearly stated that I think the WH is wrong to do this. I did not include any statements along the line of “Republicans would never do such a thing” or “Bush never did that.”
You suggest that your line of argument, which drags in extraneous examples of the Bush era and of Fox News, is simply that “the right wing” is hypocritical, stating, “I was making a point of the complete insincerity and hypocrisy of the right wing on this issue.” Nonsense. Try seeing the world through a more nuanced prism, for starters– is everything left and right for you? And please note that at least some of us expressing reservations about the practice are NOT “right wing.” In fact, you made these comments about alleged right wing insincerity while addressing my earlier comment, quoting me and responding to each point.
Let’s try again– not everyone who disagrees with you, or with President Obama (after all, the two of you never seem to disagree on anything), is right wing. And, to be fair, I should also point out that being far right is not actually synonymous with being automatically wrong or beneath contempt, as you frequently imply.
You can keep trying to bring up Fox News as well as past “journalistic” scandals, but that does not change the present WH action or make it appropriate. Maybe you should move to another thread or another subject.

Every news outlet should unequivocally have to clearly label where all of their news is coming from as in today’s world so much of it is derived from political talking points and corporate press releases (requiring a copy of the actual release to be available would also be a good idea as they are sometimes cut and reworded). We also need more watchdog groups to monitor the news agencies, but unfortunately these groups are often smeared as partisan when one’s own side is called out. As for OTV… big deal… where are these pieces even being aired, can they be considered news in any sense, do they pose any real threat to journalism? It seems like they are aimed more at humanizing the office (clearly being PR pieces – something all administrations create), but at least they are forward about it instead of trying to embed it in the news or pass it off as journalism. The issue of funding may be more problematic, but so long as it is being funded out of an existing PR budget that corresponds to those of previous administrations there really isn’t anything to complain about there either. All in all, it’s more a bvd-bundler for conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama people than anything.

This is probably off the subject but can’t find any other way to comment on BP oil spill….has anyone given thought that this could be terrorist act exploding a bomb or other devise to break these pipes and cause this disaster? Obama gave 2 Billion dollars to Petroleum-Bra for deep water oil well drilling, one of his best friends is owner of this company and they are one of BP’s main competitors.