With the Obama's school "controversy," the press gets (willingly) duped again
September 08, 2009 8:58 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Am I the only one feeling a strong sense of deja vu, now that the text of Obama's school address has been released and everyone can confirm the obvious, that not one of the idiotic claims made by the right-wing about how the President of the United States was doing to "indoctrinate" school children was even remotely based on fact? The whole "controversy" was simply concocted by the radical right, and naturally the Beltway press dutifully chronicled the insanity, under the heading of "news."
Why was it "news"? Because "conservative critics" had made a charge (that had no basis in reality). Because "conservative critics," who had no idea what Obama would say to students, had prematurely dreamt up some loony tunes claim about how Obama shouldn't be allowed to urge children to excel in school. And now with the text having been made public (and the damage already done to Obama), critics are shifting into never-mind mode.
The strong sense of been-here/done-this comes from the premature idiocy that surrounded ABC's primetime health care special in June. Prior to the telecast right-wingers, led by the factually allergic Matt Drudge, claimed ABC wouldn't allow critics to ask Obama any questions; that the town hall forum was fixed. Proof of the allegation? There was none. Indeed, critics had no idea what the special would look like. But because "conservative critics" had manufactured out of whole cloth some crazy allegation, the press covered it as news.
And guess what? When the ABC special aired, it was obvious that the allegation of a "fix" was totally bogus. (Duh!) So what did the critics do? They shifted into never-mind mode. In fact, after the ABC forum aired, the same right-wing blogger who claimed critics would be banned by ABC, highlighted all the skeptical questions that had been put to Obama.
As I wrote in June [emphasis added]:
This is the latest example of a unique brand of media criticism that conservatives have perfected -- the pre-emptive critique. Drudge and company have no idea what the substance of ABC's special will look or sound like, but they've already decided it's a crime against journalism.
With the current school "controversy," the right-wing simply adopted its time-honored pre-emptive critique of the press and adopted it for the real world. i.e. They had no idea what Obama would say to school children, but they decided it would be evil. Just like they decided, based on nothing, that ABC's special would be evil. In both cases the press played along, and in both cases the right-wing allegations turned out to be completely bogus.
Question No. 1: How many more times is the press going to get duped?
Question No. 2: How many elite media pundits will step up and denounce the transparent insanity of the school "controversy" now that even its ring leaders concede it was bogus?












Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular




When Bush spoke to students, Democrats investigated, held hearings
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/08/09 7:11 AM EDT
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
The dems always have a double standard close at hand!!
Actually, Victor, it was because you read the article objectively, while POV looks at the world through his right-leaning skewed sense of reality. His view is about as distorted as a fun house mirror.
the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported
"The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president, it should be helping us to produce smarter students," said Richard Gephardt, then the House Majority Leader. "And the president should be doing more about education than saying, 'Lights, camera, action.'"
The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it "cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High
Did you miss these quotes in the article.
Which is fair criticism. No one accused Bush of "indoctrinating" the children with "socialists" propaganda.
"That didn't stop Democratic allies from taking their own shots at Bush. The National Education Association denounced the speech, saying it 'cannot endorse a president who spends $26,000 of taxpayers' money on a staged media event at Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C. -- while cutting school lunch funds for our neediest youngsters.'"
This is legitimate criticism, whether you agree with it or not. Obviously, if the president is cutting funding for schools and then giving a speech, the NEA (which is hardly a Democratic ally, by the way) should protest.
"well they did it first!" keep up your whining.
i don't have a problem with the speech the president gave yesterday. and ya know what. the fact that the first president bush gave a similar speech, i have no problem with. though at the time i was in grade school. even had i been able to watch it, i probably didn't care to really pay attention. if i could go back in time. i wouldn't have a problem with any president giving a speech.
by your logic everything the previous administration has done was in revenge because of clinton beating out poppy bush and everything that was ever accomplished by democratic majorities.
how's your buddy karl rove doing? how soon are you going to be spitting out the speech was not what was planned to be given, and that it was changed so that the "socialist political agenda" was removed?
But please explain to me how this cycle will EVER end when the majority of media in this country is controlled by 2-3 large corporate entities with many of them controlled by Murdoch, a meglamaniac determined to control the message with his lopsided right-wing conservative ideology?
The media in this country is controlled by large corporate entities.
Perhaps you are saying that means that the media is defacto conservative by nature as are their corporate parents? I would not argue that.
But to have one of the world's largest media/news orgs (News Corp) with the most-watched cable news show being overwhelming right-wing conservative based on their leader's ideals is not a good thing for journalism.
Just because another news network may not pick up on a story perpetuated by the right-wing does not mean they are pro-Obama. There is good news and bad news, and fabricating stories or establishing fact before the fact is not journalism at all, but is more like starting a forest fire and leaving the scene.
I heard many coworkers complain that Obama had no right to speak with school children, but then when told about previous presidents meeting with school children, the response was all the same - "This is different."
The same goes for Glenn Beck's conspiracies. When I mention statements made by Beck himself, or complete text of speeches that he cites out of context, the response is "But his is real... nota conspiracy."
Indoctrination anyone?
Here is the problem with your logic stark. You point to watching the news (other than Fox) and reading a newspaper as evidence of liberal bias. You never even attempt to give a specific example of how each one propogates liberal bias. Secondly, if it is your contention that bias is wrong, then isn't it just as wrong for FOX to use conservative bias? Thirdly, this argument of bias that comes from the right seems to be based on the notion that any news story that isn't favorable to conservative ideology is somehow biased. Just because NBC, ABC or CBS, doesn't tout conservative ideology doens't mean they are bastions of liberal thought sir. For once I would really like for you or any conservative to give a specific example of a hard news story from any of the three networks which is glaringly biased toward liberals.
Stop pointing to FOX as anything different than what you accuse others of being. Let's be honest, out of a 16 hour news day on FOX how much time is spent doing hard news as opposed how much time is spent having conservative mouthpieces propogate their ideology on a network which labels itself "Fair and Balanced?" Think about it, how dishonest can one be?
but you are right that the majority of the media isnt conservative. its just afraid of the conservative media shouting loudly. (fox news, wash times, wsj just to name a few outlets)
Rupert = enemy of democracy
Chairman Rockefeller's Opening Statement on Future of Journalism Hearing
"For centuries, journalism has been a pillar of our democracy and a watchdog the public relies on. Newspapers and broadcasters have been a check on the excesses of government, business and individuals. When investigatory journalists have uncovered truths and scandals, their work has often brought people together, motivated the public to be guided by our better angels, and push for change. But more than that, on a daily basis, dedicated reporters work around the clock to filter the news gems from the dross, and provide us with the knowledge we need to conduct our lives as well-informed citizens. Put simply, good journalism is vital to our democracy."
there is a wonderful movie that explores the developement of citizen kane.
its called RKO 281 starring leiv schriber and john malkovich.
Unless the media calls out this tripe or ignores it, it's gonna happen again and again.
The Repubs cannot gain power from ideas, they can only gain power through fear.
Give the guy a week or so and he'll be back on board blowing the whistle as he drives through some red state backwater.
Unfortunately, I could not find the clip, but he actually said that he believes the speech was replaced with one that had no socialist rhetoric.
The "original" speech may just show up on some right wing crackpot website.
Also, I've seen some funny stuff on Facebook over the last week. For anybody who's not familiar with these social networking sites, there are a load of quizzes and polls online, and peoples responses show up on a users home page.
Somebody is putting out polls based on leading questions and imaginary events. I've seen " Is Obama turning the U.S. into a Socialist country? (Yes, no, or don't know)", "Should Obama get a national holiday simply for being the first black prez, regardless of his performance in office?", and most recently "Should children be forced to listen to Obama's speech without parental consent?", to which a friend-of-a-friend rsponded "no", with an added "HELL NO!!' in the comment box.
Boehlert sums it up nicely with the "Never mind mode". These right wing yakkers and pundints don't hold themselves to any higher standard than the average wingnut website troll. Twist & scream, throw some stuff at the wall, try to direct the discussion towards hallucinations.When it all fizzles out, just move on to the next panic.
That's the thing, Jedi. As long as the media coddles the nuts, and lets every failed crazy crusade fall into the memory hole, they never need to come up with anything new. The right has been recycling the same un-American/ communist/socialist themes for half a century.
They only need to get some positive reinforcement occasionally (see Van Jones) to convince themselves they're doing something right. They have an uncanny ability (aided by the media) to forget everything except what they want to remember.
Sounds a lot like the official RNC polls I've put online:
2009 Obama Agenda Survey, State of the Republican Party Survey and Congressional District Census. (all 3, scroll for each at: Polls via dittobuster.com click on blog
His answer, resoundingly YES!!!!
His reasoning: Because she never lies, does what she says she's going to do, and is trustworthy to get the job done.
I had to respond about her quitting her job before she finished it, the lies about death panels, and her ethics charges in Alaska brought forth by Republicans.
He didn't like my response so much.
What job did Obama quit (other than the Senate when he was elected President)?
What lies has Obama told about death panels? Let me help you, there are none.
What ethics charges have been laid against Obama? None.
Your comment makes no sense.
That can certainly be applied to Obama.
what lies have been perpetuated by the president? well there was a few promises he made that he has not come through on yet. but there is still time.
now as for the neo con repuke party? well they lie from both ends of their mouths out all sides of their multiple faces and their backsides.
But the questions I've seen in the Facebook polls are very close to that, may be where they got them.
especially the one bubble that said "republicans didn't vote liek republicans"
guilty as charged and proud of it. ive already sent a letter to michael steele expressing my gripes with the party. i doubt ill get a true response if one at all
I can hear it now, "SEE ladies and gentlemen, he had to change his original speech because of the PRESSURE we have put on him."
And so on. It's utterly and completely predictable, and meanwhile, we'll have the rest of the MSM falling over themselves to not say anything bad about the stupid conservatives who were pushing this meme last week, because they'd never want to appear like they're liberally biased.
I only wish it were a "never mind" situation. At least then the neocons wouldn't be pretending to have earned some kind of victory through their foolish paranoid fantasies.
I only wish it were a "never mind" situation. At least then the neocons wouldn't be pretending to have earned some kind of victory through their foolish paranoid fantasies.
I had the pleasure of hearing Boss Hogg Limbaugh's drug-addled take on the speech;
***It was a conservative message about personal responsibility, and included references to God, and it would have been slammed by the media if delivered by a Republican.
*** It was a joke, and the exact opposite of what Obama believes, but his supporters know that.
I'm not sure how this second part works, a president goes out and gives a speech that is promoting everything he doesn't believe, to influence future generations to support values he hates... or something. And those who agree with him can read between the lines, and know that he means the exact opposite.
OK, that's enough trying to make sense of Limbaugh for now, I'm starting to feel like I'm on drugs.
Not fascinating that he engages in all of these transparent twists and turns of logic and truth, but that his dittobots will call in and tell him how enthusiastically they agree with all of it, ignoring that it's impossible to agree with all of it without a complete detachment from reality and logic.
Facts are just so boring and not 'sexy' enough for the so-called news these days.
It really doesn't matter that this irresponsible way of doing news now does damage to someone as long as it hypes up the gossip and the ratings.
2. The "LESSON PLAN" has suggestions, all using language like:
Teachers can build...
Teachers can ask...
Students could record questions...
Students could discuss...
Nowhere does it state that the teacher MUST follow the lesson plan.
Did the hearings take place?
Get over your faux outrage...
was there an investigation? no
hmmm funny how there is no so much outrage when our current president wants to speak to students. and there was barely a perceptible peep from people who disagreed with it.
oh the hypocrisies continue.
And again, false equivalency alert. When did the so called liberal media jump on board and start talking about Bush indoctrinating kids? When did they start yelping about the President somehow subverting our children and that parents were "scared" that Bush was going to talk to our kids?
Never happened.
Again, where was the large scale outrage we've seen with the Obama speech compared to one guy talking about?
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/another-beckian-mom-speaks-out-again
I did hear an interview this weekend where a "concerned" Mom said she didn't want her kids to hear the speech regardless of what was in it, because she believed that there was going to be subliminal messages in it from Obama.
True story.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
Holy, crap, look how much truthier it just got!!!
As the rest of you have said, there is nothing to suggest that GHW Bush shouldn't have been talking to the kids, there weren't parents pulling their kids from class, Bush wasn't accused of being Mao-ist, or representing the viewpoint of North Korea or Hitler when he talked to the kids.
And if the outcry was so loud for Bush, how come the only outcry we hear about it is the same story about Gephardt talking about?
And guess what? Dick was wrong.
Now, if someone wanted to question the use of taxpayer money for Obama to give this speech, that's a rational point of view, and or a legit question to ask. And I believe there were a few folks out there who asked this same question, but they were overridden by the screachers talking about stalinism, socialism, and the fascist tones in the speech (that didn't exist).
I don't really care that it works on them, they're too far gone, it's just insulting that they still post this pap here.
Some have been doing it for years, making laughing stocks of themselves over and over, yet they continue to go to the same sources, and continue to believe that the idiocy they swallow is eventually going to fool those who show on a regular basis that they see right through it.
It's like watching dogs walking into those invisible electric fences, except the dogs tend to learn something.
I disagree. The whole "outrage" over government spending recently, like it hasn't been going on since the dawn of our country, is simply more teabagger whining about the black man spending the white man's tax money.
And heaven forbid, you spend it on encouraging kids to stay in school and set goals and work hard.
Millions of white people voted for Obama. He could not have won the election if whites did not vote for him. Why do you always pull the race card? YOU are the only one who mentions race. If people disagree with the president, it does not make them racist. And by the way he is NOT black. He happens to be mixed race.
I'm stunned that I can still be stunned by you dittobots.
It goes back to the old "one drop" rule of the South. One drop of black blood makes you black.
It was a comment about trying to flag down a taxi at night, and made the whole "half-black" theme seem painfully ignorant.
Not that we won't see some more brilliant cons mention here that Obama is only half-black to help them feel better and ignore their problem.
POV insists the fear fest over Obama talking to school kids has nothing to do with race and I insist race is definitely playing a part. Why specifically do you side with POV?
What a poor excuse! This is just a right-wing talking point. The outcry started before the lesson plans were even available, and the criticism did not focus on the lesson plans. You keep ignoring that.
Further, in 1991, when Bush 1 gave his speech, he asked the students "Tell me what you can do to help me reach my goals." So the outrage about the lesson plans is also fake.
In case you missed it, we've never had a black president before.
FAIL.
Ever hear these "criticisms" before?
Cue the crying town hall teabagger: "I want my country back" (from the black man). Or - "This isn't the country I remember" (due to the black man being in the White House).
no hearings, nothing. aklot of smoke and mirrors unlike this.
in fact i remember that speech bush 41 made. i was in school at the time. and i dont recall any parent even daring to suggest they would keep their kid home from school that day.
the problem is that the same respect afforded to previous presidents does not exist.
the side that you support will do anything and everything, to derail our president. that is where my anger lies.
The criticism of Bush was valid (though stupid). The Dems criticized the Bush for misusing funds. No one called accused him of "indoctrinating" children with "socialist" propaganda. No one accused the president of recruiting youth the way Hitler did.
This criticism has nothing to do with the "lesson plan," so stop repeating Rush talking points. The lesson plans were innocuous, calling for students to write letters on how to help the president. Students do this all the time. And if it was really the lesson plans, then why didn't the right wing focus on what was wrong with the lesson plans instead of resorting to hyperbolic vitriol, which polifactcheck ruled a pants on fire lie?
Has anyone else noticed how the right has suddenly shifter their argument? All along it has been that Obama was "indoctrinating" our children. Now it is "Well, the Dems did it too!"
Side note - read the transcript and count the number of times he says "I" and compare it to any Reagan or Clinton speech-at least those presidents knew it was about the audience or topic at hand, not themselves.
Suggesting a motivational speech to students would lead the news when public debate is about our $2.5 trillion a year health care industry is beyond irrational. He'd be lucky to get 7 seconds. Would more than 7 seconds of Bush 43's reading of "My Pet Goat" have ever made the news on a normal news day?
Counting the number of words is meaningful? (I know you didn't count them yourself, you found this on another blog, didn't you?) Did you actually read/watch the speech? It was autobiographical in referring to his experience as a sometimes lazy student with other interests than studying - what other pronoun do you use if not "I" in an autobiography? If you were a high school sophomore you'd get a D for analysis.
But I'm assuming you've at least obtained your GED, so I'll give you an F. You'll never get a gig with Drudge or FauxNews, much less AEI or Heritage. Stick with you day job.
Even after all of their paranoid predictions fell flat, they still have no problem reporting that the speech was controversial, but can't mention that it was only controversial because they're right wing lunatics.
We really need to strengthen the public news media in this country so that Americans have a source of REAL news that is not influenced by the appetite for profit.
Answer to question 2. Zero. The right is already claiming victory, insisting that by warning the public of this danger, Obama was forced to CHANGE THE TOPIC.
Started off mentioning the "controversy", and how some redneck FL congressman changed his mind about the speech from "socialist indoctrination" to "guess it's OK" after the WH released the text.
So the "roving" reporter finishes up by saying, "President Obama came into office promising to reach across the isle and deal with the opposition. So far, the President gets a failing grade."
The Liberal Media in action...
Obama has reached across the aisle, and repeatedly had his hand slapped by the minority party. It's time to start ignoring them altogether, and do what we elected him to do. So what if they treat him viciously? It won't be any different than it is now.
If you were to conduct a longitudinal study you'll probably discover how misinformed they are about many topics. I have neighbors who are literally afraid to watch it, and they are severely misinformed about real numbers of health care.
OMG We're all being played...USED! Us, down here in the trenches, The Left and the Right, the Fringies on both sides, et al.!
STOP, step back and look up toward the highest reaches of our society; look to your left and then to your right...what do you see? Our handlers, looking down with amusement. "OK" says the One to the Other, Get your side ginned up, its your turn to keep these fools distracted." "Bottom line comes first, ya know!"
...quess its past my bedtime %(