85suited 0 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn’t absolutely control,” said Dunn.“One of the reasons we did so many of the David Plouffe videos was not just for our supporters, but also because it was a way for us to get our message out without having to actually talk to reporters,” said Dunn, referring to Plouffe, who was Obama’s chief campaign manager.“We just put that out there and made them write what Plouffe had said as opposed to Plouffe doing an interview with a reporter. So it was very much we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it,” Dunn said.Continued Dunn: “Whether it was a David Plouffe video or an Obama speech, a huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”The Parrot Press Core just repeats what Candidate Obama and now President tells them too... Don't you dare ask why... just repeat - drink the cool aideIf you needed anymore confirmation, the news is officially dead - it is now the propoganda arm of Chairman Maobama Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Are you intentionally trying to lower the quality of the discussion? Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 Are you intentionally trying to lower the quality of the discussion?Typical - That you would not be concerned that the so called news organizations spit out White House talking points and call it news...And now they admit it! Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Typical - That you would not be concerned that the so called news organizations spit out White House talking points and call it news...And now they admit it!The story you quoted doesn't even say what you are taking from it. You even bolded the part where they said they were trying to get the focus on what Obama actually said rather than what the campaign tactic was. What exactly is wrong with that? Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 The story you quoted doesn't even say what you are taking from it. You even bolded the part where they said they were trying to get the focus on what Obama actually said rather than what the campaign tactic was. What exactly is wrong with that?The quoted text is the transcript from the you tube clip I have no problem with the campaign tactic - It should have been just that a tactic - Real journalism would have asked the campaign a question some where, some time instead of cheerleading. Fast forward to his presidency - they still don't ask him anything. The only network that dares to ask him about his policies is FOX and guess what - They have frozem them out. Because they don't parrot what Anita Dunn tells them to say;In Case you missed it, Dunn,Axlerod & EManuel have been making the rounds on the sunday circuit villifying Fox News because they dare to question Dear Leader.making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it,That is exactly what they do now Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 The story you quoted doesn't even say what you are taking from it. You even bolded the part where they said they were trying to get the focus on what Obama actually said rather than what the campaign tactic was. What exactly is wrong with that?Call me a dreamer, but I would like a news organization that actually challenges what the politicians say, instead of letting them use their airwaves with no conditions. Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 personally I'd like a news organization that reports the news and lets me come to my own conclusions. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 you see the the White House only engages with those they control and will seek to destroy (overly regulate) things they don't. Fox News, Talk Radio, The InternetTime to wake up - your right to free speech is eroding quickly Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 personally I'd like a news organization that reports the news and lets me come to my own conclusions. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO I KNOW. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers" Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Call me a dreamer, but I would like a news organization that actually challenges what the politicians say, instead of letting them use their airwaves with no conditions.But this is not about what the news organizations intended to cover or actually covered, its about what the strategy of the campaign was for getting the coverage they wanted. Why should the campaign not have such a strategy? Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers" Rove wouldnt have needed to make the statement, if someone online claimed he did it would be reported as fct. This gives me an idea, someone needs to start a thread claiming some republican said something outrageous and a few posters claim they heard it too. Then start a pool to see how long it takes to get reported on MSNBC. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers"Or imagine John McCain quoting Mao. Or, just watch it. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 2x post sorry Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Or imagine John McCain quoting Mao. Or, just watch it. Well if there is more to that quote other than quoting mao..let me know... but I don't think Mccain goes on say Mao is his favorite political philosophers - does he? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Well if there is more to that quote other than quoting mao..let me know... but I don't think Mccain goes on say Mao is his favorite political philosophers - does he?Did you watch the rest of her speech? She was making the point that Mao and Mother Theresa were the two people she favored going to in order to make this particular point. If you are trying to convince people that she accepts all of Mao's political philosophies you are a worse propagandist than Mao was. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 But this is not about what the news organizations intended to cover or actually covered, its about what the strategy of the campaign was for getting the coverage they wanted. Why should the campaign not have such a strategy?I think you missed the point - This is exactly what the communications directors job is ... get the Media to recite your talking points... and they did this very well and still do today - This is an indictment on the MSMa huge part of our press strategy was focused on making the media cover what Obama was actually saying as opposed to why the campaign was saying it, what the tactic was. … Making the press cover what we were saying.”Translation - don't bother to ask any questions or actually engage in journalism, just print or say or talking points and wait until we call you with our next update. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think you missed the point - This is exactly what the communications directors job is ... get the Media to recite your talking points... and they did this very well and still do today - This is an indictment on the MSMNo, that is exactly the point I made. This is the communications director's job and she was doing it well, what exactly is noteworthy about what she said? This is no "indictment" of anything, it is a known campaign strategy expressed by a strategist. And as far as campaign strategies go, getting the media to talk about the content of your candidate's speech is among the more noble. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Did you watch the rest of her speech? She was making the point that Mao and Mother Theresa were the two people she favored going to in order to make this particular point. If you are trying to convince people that she accepts all of Mao's political philosophies you are a worse propagandist than Mao was.Dunn went into some detail about why she so admired Mao but said next to nothing about Mother Teresa. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 No, that is exactly the point I made. This is the communications director's job and she was doing it well, what exactly is noteworthy about what she said? This is no "indictment" of anything, it is a known campaign strategy expressed by a strategist. And as far as campaign strategies go, getting the media to talk about the content of your candidate's speech is among the more noble.We are saying the same thing ...almost - Brilliant Job in both positions getting the MSM to be your LAP DOGMSM should return to journalism and do the job of the people and ask real questions of our govt instead of beings its cheerleader Link to post Share on other sites
DonkSlayer 1 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 fake Link to post Share on other sites
colonel Feathers 5 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.Imagine is Karl Rove had made a speech citing Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin as "two of his favorite political philosophers" ThisAnd Im sure if newt gingrich gave a speech to high schoolers praising Hitlers organizational skills, and incredible oratory prowess, the msm wouldnt even bring it up. Link to post Share on other sites
nutzbuster 7 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Another perfect example - The White House Communications director recommended Chairman Mao as a role model for America’s young at a High School graduation speech and it isn't covered but the networks spend a week attributing a quote to Rush that didn't exist and covering his part in an ownership group to buy a NFL Team.How the White House Communications director can make a speech to high school students and call MAO one of her "two favorite political philosophers" and the media not cover it is absurd.THIS was very shocking to me. Holy crap. I mean was she serious? MASS MURDERER OF MILLIONS MAO????? IncredibleWhat's sadly not shocking at all is the admission that the major network news outlets are in lust with this White House. REALLY? loland GL taking on FOX and Limbaugh. Very slippery slope that could easily come back and bite them square on the ass. And what ever happend to the promise of ending all the division? I thought the left was always against censorship? I thought we were in a new era, about listening to both sides and allowing "healthy debate"? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 49 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 What's sadly not shocking at all is the admission that the major network news outlets are in lust with this White House. REALLY? lolHonestly guys this is not what the video is about. It is about how the Obama campaign attempted to control their message to the press. Watch the video. It's actually kind of interesting, but has no info on how the campaign went from the media's perspective. What campaign does not control their message to the media? There is no "admission" of anything. That was 85suited's distortion... well, at least it was the distortion by whatever blog he read. :)Nothing to see here. Link to post Share on other sites
85suited 0 Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 Honestly guys this is not what the video is about. It is about how the Obama campaign attempted to control their message to the press. Watch the video. It's actually kind of interesting, but has no info on how the campaign went from the media's perspective. What campaign does not control their message to the media? There is no "admission" of anything. That was 85suited's distortion... well, at least it was the distortion by whatever blog he read. :)Nothing to see here.Nothing to see here... just another communist in the White House... Move a long, don't dare ask questions Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now